Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 19:09, 15 January 2011 editRaul654 (talk | contribs)70,896 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:04, 19 November 2024 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,139,118 edits →ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery
Line 22:		Line 22:
	|- align="center"		|- align="center"
	| ]		| ]
			|- align="center"
			| ]
			|- align="center"
			| ]
			|- align="center"
			| ]
			|- align="center"
			| ]
	|}		|}
Line 37:		Line 45:
	*].		*].
	== Recognition at last ==		== Redirect ==
	. I assume you don't take offence but if you do let me know. --] ] 18:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
	:Of course I take offence. It's got to be nano-Dr.Schulz! Don't cut corners when it comes to ]. --] (]) 19:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
			Hi Setphan, I am afraid that if you won't take the action now, it won't happen in the coming months at all: Should you redirect "]" to "]? If in computing, these terms are enough synonymous, it can be nice.
	== Seeking another view ==
			] (]) 01:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
	I have suggested another user's comment may indicate anti-Semitism, and am now being accused of libel for it. I often respect your way of handling conflicts, and wonder if you'd provide an independent view but also go to ] and just use your "find" function for "holocaust" and see how often it comes up, and how. Thanks, ] | ] 12:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
	:Sorry, I was away most of the weekend and only looked into it tonight. I decided to sleep over it, and now the thread has been closed. My opinion is that the comparison of Holocaust denial and CMT is inane - one is a politically/hatred driven denial of firmly established reality, the other is one end of a continuous spectrum not too far from the current mainstream (Jesus as a person probably existed, but had little to do with the myth build around him later). The permanent hawking of that comparison is very counterproductive. This is a clear example of ] in action. I'm quite sure that Eugene does not think it's anti-semitic, in the same way as someone can think "I've got nothing against negroes, they are so great at music" is not racist. --] (]) 07:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	::Personally though I do think SLR's comments were rather inappropriate. In some circumstances I might have given a warning for them. However ridiculous people are being I don't think a leading accusation of AS is going to help matters, and failing to treat the Holocaust with sufficient reverence as an analogy (which was the provocation to SLR here I think) is as likely due to ignorance as AS. Meanwhile HerrDrS, old and set in his ways that he is (well, only slightly younger than me), needs to move on from ] to ] and understand the distinction between myth and narrative. --] ] 13:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::Let me put it this way: I agree that the accusation is not exactly in line with Misplaced Pages policies (except for ]). On the other hand, it may shock Eugene sufficiently to reflect on his behavior, and why it may at least be interpreted as anti-Semitic, while less radical approaches possibly would have failed. As for the last sentence, have you missed your ] ]? --] (]) 13:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::"getting a cheap thrill by using this page to vent a little of your anti-Semitism" would be a PA even without the AS reference. But I will remember the IAR argument for shocking someone to reflect on his behaviour... Ian Paisley's white knuckle sermons on hell might be just the thing for someone who thinks hotdogs acceptable just because hamburgers are their compatriots. --] ] 15:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Ian Who? And of course ], which is why you are required to have one. Don't you follow the illuminating links? --] (]) 15:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Noun<<>>adjective might get you downgraded to 0.3 BozMo. And while we are on grammar, absolutely not acceptable meaning fine in dilution?..:) --] ] 18:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
			:Done, albeit for the singular ]. But every user can create redirects - it's not a special right for admins. See ]. --] (]) 07:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
	== Please revert yourself, you are in violation of the policy quoted to support the action. ==
	{{hat|I herewith declare this Bazaar closed. There is no substantial argument that the emails are in the public domain. The rest is bickering. --] (]) 13:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)}}
	If you wish to rely upon policy to censor - do not choose only the bits that you need to manipulate the discussion to form a directed conclusion.
			== Wheat ==
	First: the policy that was mis-quoted applied to Harrassment:
			Wheat, yes, wheat. If you pick a species that has trouble with heat, you will see that. But is that a good way to evaluate the overall situation? I've come to your talk page to ask a question -- is the goal of this type of discussion to reach truth, or to make debating points? (actually there is a third possibility -- you may be genuinely unaware that it's not a representative example). I've come to your page because I believe such a question is better asked in a less-public forum. I realize your page is still public, which is unfortunate; I would ask it in a fully private way if I could do so. Feel more than free to take your time in answering, or for that matter, to delete this on sight. Best wishes. Really. ] (]) 15:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
	::{{cquote|"
			:Hi ]! Let me first point out that I linked to two studies (the first two that sprang to my eye as applicable), and that only the first concentrates on wheat, while the second looked at about a dozen different crops. What I try to say is that this is a complex, multivariate problem and that the simple answer is likely to be wrong. I'm usually always interested in getting to the bottom of the subject matter (some say to a fault), but I've come to realise that I cannot do that with all of reality (despite the hubris expressed by the Bacon quote on my front page). So unless it's really within my field or I'm extraordinarily interested, I apply some heuristics. One such heuristic is that if someone says that something is "obvious" or even "blindingly obvious", I take a short track to Google Scholar and check some related papers. If that shows me that the problem is indeed complex and multifactorial, I assume this is a case for ] ("...neat, plausible, and wrong"). In this case I think that the nuanced, conservative discussion by the IPCC is more justified than "it works in my greenhouse for cucumbers, therefore CO2 will save us from world hunger" (sorry for the hyperbolic summary - I trust you get my point). If you want to convince me otherwise, you would either need to make an incredibly clear and short and convincing argument, or get your opinion published in a serious peer-reviewed venue, so that I know that you convinced real experts of the validity of your argument.
	Private correspondence
			:If you have a real need for private conversation, my email is enabled. But I normally prefer to keep Misplaced Pages discussions in the open - after all, making knowledge accessible is the whole point of the project. --] (]) 16:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
	There is no community consensus regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence. The Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee once stated as an editing principle that "In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki" and in a second principle that "'''Any uninvolved administrator may remove private correspondence''' that has been posted without the consent of any of the creators. Such material should instead be sent directly to the Committee." See related rejected proposals Misplaced Pages:Private correspondence, Misplaced Pages:Correspondence off-wiki and Misplaced Pages:Confidential evidence. }}
			:: Well, OK, but as any farmer from a hot region will tell you, ]. Rice and millet do much better; maize can also be an option, though extra CO2 doesn't help it much. If your goal is to come up with crops that do poorly in hot weather, even with extra CO2, you can find them. But from the standpoint of food production, surely the more relevant question is not whether there exist crops that do poorly under those conditions, but rather, whether there exist crops that do well under those conditions. And the answer to that is a resounding "yes", as a little googling will tell you, or even just checking the population figures for South Asia. If you follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of where you may want it to lead, you will find that multiple, independent strands of evidence all point to the same conclusion, including the CO2 data themselves (the trend of the May-October drop, that is). And yes, it will be blindingly obvious, screaming at you like the evidence in a murder case where the jury got it wrong. ] (]) 17:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
			::: CometEncke, congratulations on your blindingly obvious thoughts – however, for this reasoning to appear in Misplaced Pages, it must first be ]. A scientific journal is the best place to get credence. . . ], ] 18:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
			:::I have the feeling that you only read about half of what I wrote. Anyways, even stipulating that you are right that there are some crops that will do better, it's far from trivial that it's possible to replace existing agricultural systems - you need not just suitable climate (and remember that that will keep changing for a while), you also need skills, seeds, suitable soil, tools, and markets, to name just a few. --] (]) 19:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
			Where's the Bacon? My search-fu didn't find it, am hoping this was a reference to the of '']'', but any Baconian epigram will be of interest. . . ], ] 18:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
			:''I have taken all knowledge to be my province'', which according to ] is from a letter to ]. My pretentious user box is at ]. --] (]) 18:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
			::Thanks! Very modestly placed in the userbox, didn't know about that one. . ], ] 19:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
			::: "I have the feeling that you only read only half of what I wrote." In one case, you are right. After I looked at your "wheat" paper, I felt it was sufficiently irrelevant that I didn't go to the second one. Interestingly, this whole discussion got started because I felt pretty much the same thing and said so on the article talk page, not only in relation to you. So perhaps in that sense we are alike. I agree with you that our discussion has gone beyond the level of what can be included in Misplaced Pages, which is an additional reason to take it here, as opposed to the article page. As to your question of whether the agricultural system can keep up, I would refer you to a graph of worldwide grain harvests. I am curious whether you still think your "wheat" argument is evidence against my assertions about where agriculture is likely to head in a high-carbon world? DS -- welcome to the party. The scientific journals do talk about this all the time -- here is two reviews of a whole lot of literature, , which, according to google, have been cited 400 and 600 times, respectively. A whole lot more out there. The evidence is truly overwhelming. As this user astutely notes, facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Fortunately such is the case for food production and will remain so no matter how many people mock me for saying "blindingly obvious". ] (]) 12:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
			::::Now I have not only the feeling that you read only half of what I wrote, but that you also read things I never wrote, and don't really read things you suggest we should read ;-). I have not made "a wheat argument" - I have made a plausibility check on you claim that it is "blindingly obvious" what the effect of higher CO2 on agriculture is, and found that it is very much not obvious. Indeed, the first source (in ''New Phytologist'') you offered above very much said so. The second (the ''Oecologica'' paper) has very little predictive relevance for real-life open-field agriculture, as it is not a literature review, but a description of one experiment in a glass house with otherwise controlled conditions. Even then the paper concludes that "these data show that plant responses to elevated atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 depend on complex of partially compensatory processes which are not readily predictable". So I'm at a loss to understand where your "blindingly obvious" is coming from. As for the graph: You do understand that grain harvest are not primarily influenced by CO2, but by new cultivars and by the increased use of energy- and nutrient-intensive farming techniques, many of which are unlikely to be sustainable in the long term. Indeed, I find it a bit ironic that that the first hit Google gives me for "graph of worldwide grain harvests" starts with ". --] (]) 13:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
			:::::"Require further study". Sure, there is a lot we still don't know, and this was even more the case in the past. There is plenty of debate about all sorts of details. I'm still curious if you still believe your wheat reference is significant. If so, why? If not, why not say so? You may have noticed in this discussion that I have had no hesitation agreeing with you on certain questions when I thought you were correct. I guess I'm challenging you to do the same, or, if you can't, to explain it. Such action would give me confidence that a search for truth is more important than plausibility attacks, and would further give me confidence that moving on to other issues has value. ] (]) 07:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
			::::::Sorry, but my perception is not that you agree on certain questions, but that you are ]. Remember, this started out as a discussion over at ] about the question if a number of sources, one of which headlines (!) "Marco Rubio says human activity isn't causing climate change" are enough to support the claim that "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of climate change, arguing that human activity does not play a major role in global warming". Then you made claim about the IPCC (which Boris has refuted over at ] - let me refute it here again, more explicitly: )) and about the "blinding obviousness" of the influence of CO2 on agriculture. Now we are discussing if wheat, a major staple crop and the major source of plant protein is a good example for discussing the claim that the effect of increase atmospheric CO2 on agriculture is "blindingly obvious" - apparently because wheat is more sensitive to heat than some other crops. So let me state it here: Yes, I think this is a relevant example for the claim that the situation is not blindingly obvious, but complex. If you are looking for something that we probably agree on: I agree that an increase in CO2 from the base level to a moderately increased level alone increases primary plant productivity for most plants in situations where growths is not limited by the unavailability other resources. But that is something the IPCC acknowledges as well. It just doesn't stop there. --] (]) 10:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
			{{od}} Thank you for addressing my question. And sorry for responding slowly -- real life had me off wiki for a few days. Now for the question about the overall effect of CO2 rise on plant growth. I am glad we agree on the effect of CO2 in isolation. Now let's examine the combined effect. There are three things we need to consider: the direct effect of CO2, and the indirect effects of rising temperature and changing rainfall (I won't say rising or falling; more on that in a moment). Rising CO2, we agree, in isolation, stimulates plant growth. I think it's fair to say, in addition, that the effect is large. For a doubling of CO2, I would suggest that it would not be remotely credible to suggest that the stimulatory effect of CO2, in isolation, would average only 10%, across important crop species (however one defines that). I would suggest that even only 20% would be surprising, though it would be out of the range of "not remotely credible" at that point. Now, temperature. You and I both agree that a doubling of CO2 will produce a rise in global average temperature. The IPCC I believe estimates 3 degrees C. I think that's an overestimate but will accept it arguendo. Before making any prediction, simply an observation about current agriculture: the pattern is that the warmer the region, the greater the harvests tend to be, at least across most of the range of current temperatures on Earth. In terms of agricultural productivity, Nigeria > Mexico > France > Norway > Alaska > Greenland > Antarctica, for example. I am unaware of any evidence one way or the other about the hottest regions with reasonable amounts of water. It would be interesting to know that. I mean, obviously the Sahara has very little agriculture, but I think "dry" is the issue there more than "hot." So let's save that question for water. In light of this, I believe it is fair to say that the temperature increase, in isolation, is likely to produce an increase in agricultural productivity. It is possible that the hottest regions may suffer a loss; I am not sufficiently familiar with the evidence to answer that. But for the regions listed above, an increase seems certain for temperature zones from France on down and likely even at the Mexico level, ignoring water for the moment. Nigeria I don't know one way or the other. But overall, in light of this, it seems fair to expect that temperature would also produce an increase.
			Now, changes in rainfall patterns. The IPCC talks from time to time about "more droughts." But have they made any effort to quantify whether or not we are currently seeing no droughts? I am unaware of any such effort. I find this curious; certainly the IPCC has shown that it can quantify a claim when it desires to. Furthermore, "more droughts" is a claim which could be quantified in terms of actual precipitation data. Make a mathematically reasonable definition of "drought" or "precipitation variability"; I don't care what it is. A yeare with less than 50% of the mean precipitation (drought); the standard deviation of precipitation divided by its mean level over a 20-year period ("precipitation variability"); whatever. Then, based on actual rainfall data, it would be possible, and I daresay not difficult, once one had gathered the data, to determine a trend. One could then determine what that trend is, and put it in the IPCC report.
	It required an un-involved administrator to invoke. You are clearly not.
			Feel more than free to correct me on this, but as far as I am aware, the IPCC has not done any such thing. That suggests to me that the data do not show any unfavorable trend in droughts to date. Feel more than free to correct me on this if I am wrong. But if I am not wrong, then I will infer from that that so far, precipitation patterns have not become any worse than they were in the past. Because if they had, we sure as hell would have heard about it.
	Second: the community explicitly rejected censorship of records in the public domain. There was no consensus found to censor such knowledge from our encyclopedia readers. "No consensus found" = rejected idea.
			Therefore, overall, we have one change (CO2) which is uniformly favorable to harvests, and dramatically so. A second change (temp.) which is mostly favorable, or possibly entirely, depending on what happens at the hottest end of the scale. And a third one (rainfall) which I infer that data (as opposed to models) don't show overall worsening. Lastly, at high CO2, the plants need less water overall. So even some worsening in rainfall, if it were to happen, would be overwhelmed by that effect. Hence my "blindingly obvious". There is actually one more piece of evidence, weaker than the others IMO, it's possible there is another cause, though I'm not aware of one. That's the trend in the May-Oct. in the Hawaiian CO2 data. That drop has been increasing over time. Not uniformly, there are ups and downs, but the overall trend is clear. This drop is generally attributed to the Northern growing season. If the drop is increasing, the natural inference is that said growing season is getting stronger. It is possible there is another explanation, though I haven't heard it. ] (]) 18:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
	Third: The correspondence is unequivocally, irrevocably and famously in the public domain and is clearly allowed by the arbcom editing principle referred to above.
			:How do you get from "an increase in CO2 from the base level to a moderately increased level alone increases primary plant productivity for most plants in situations where growths is not limited by the unavailability other resources" via "Rising CO2, we agree, in isolation, stimulates plant growth" (drops a lot of qualifiers) to "uniformly favorable to harvests, and dramatically so"? It's not just crop plants that profit - weeds do likewise. And "uniform" is the opposite of what the sources say - indeed, it's very much non-uniform. There is also very little data on plants grown in cultures (where they compete for resources). As for droughts: It's not just annual precipitation thats relevant, but precipitation at the right times of the year, not to mention the vanishing buffering capacity of vanishing glaciers. Winter snow that melts in spring is useless for irrigation in summer. As for the rest: I suggest you take a look at the IPCC reports instead of speculating about what they don't contain. deals with hydrology, and has information on the development of precipitation and the hydrological cycle. --] (]) 19:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' ] (]) 19:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
			:: I did drop some qualifiers. It's a fair point. Sorry about that. The IPCC has lost my confidence with its repeated over-predictions. We are up to their 5th report now, and so far we are well below their temp. predictions for the first four, taking business-as-usual emissions, which is more or less what we've had. How many times can one cry wolf? Why go after *me* so hard; isn't this about finding truth? ] (]) 22:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
			::: You might want to look at and the papers referred therein. Of course, the IPCC reports are current and evolving science, so their predictions are not perfect. But they are, contrary to cherry-picking contrarian claims, quite good. "This" thing we are doing is cutting through misinformation and misunderstanding. I'm a computer scientist - indeed, I'm an expert in a very small field of algorithm design, logic, search heuristics, with a smattering of knowledge about air traffic control and machine learning. I don't have the hubris to believe I can contribute significantly to finding "the truth", or even the increasingly better approximation to the truth that science gives us, in a field as wide and complex as climate science - at least not without overturning my career and starting again at an undergrad level. On the other hand, I have a decent layman's overview of the field, and I can sometimes recognise claims as plain wrong. If I see those, I try to correct them. I assume good faith, i.e. I assume that my debating partners will be happier to improve their understanding than to score debating points. On the other hand, if not, I have little sympathy. I can't stand e.g. creationists who serve the same over and over refuted claims over and over again. If you don't trust the IPCC, that's your prerogative. But making wrong claims about them and their reports is not. --] (]) 23:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
			:::: I'm sorry to see how this discussion has gone. My comments have been full of statements like "feel free to correct me on this, but . . .", or "I did do x. Sorry about that", or even "There might be another explanation, but I haven't seen one." (FWIW I did think of one possibility afterwards. No idea if it fits or not.) If the intent was to win me over, it's been done; it would have involved noticing more places where I was obviously correct, and making corrections gently, rather than focussing relentlessly on the negative, and above all, realizing that learning from the other guy is a two way street. So, in this case, you've lost me. You may feel that was a foregone conclusion. It wasn't, but it's a done deal now. Still, best wishes, and better luck next time. I'm a technical person too. I don't want to get specific, but you can be sure that if I believe something to be factually correct, I don't care in the slightest whether or not it fits with any opinion I have; I will revise my opinions, not facts. Random case in point, Adnan Syed from "Serial" is innocent. Not "not proven guilty." Proven not guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. In time, the courts will agree, at least up to "not proven guilty." Bank on it. Kevin Urick should be in prison, but that will never happen. And best wishes, still. Really. ] (]) 00:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
			:::::Maybe we have different expectations. I'm not proselytising for a religion, trying to safe souls whatever the cost. Also see on a related topic of methodology. I had no idea who ] is, nor why you brought him up, but I notice that you apparently have formed a very strong opinion on the issue - based on what? A polemic podcast? I'm not saying you are wrong, but I find no substantial support for you being right, either. --] (]) 15:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
			:::::: I brought him up to make the point that I base opinions on facts and evidence, everything else be damned. My mind was actually pretty clear before the polemical (and dead right) cast came out. A friendly wager the courts agree and AS is out this year. ] (]) 22:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
			== Cold blob (North Atlantic) ==
	In short, the policy quoted does not apply - as one can clearly see from the distinctions made regarding on-wiki harassment and the rejected proposal, and secondly as an involved editor in the subject ... it is not your place.] (]) 13:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
	:Go read ], which is what I base my deletion on. Your claim that these emails are "in the public domain" is unsupported nonsense. --] (]) 13:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
			Hi Stefan, i just created a new article, maybe you can have a look https://en.wikipedia.org/Cold_blob_(North_Atlantic) Thanks. ] (]) 19:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
	: Third party readers should note that this IP, which has been previously warned for engaging against in inapropriate ways against identifiable living persons is editing his statement after it was responded to - . There is no reasonable argument being made that random stolen emails have lapsed into the public domain. Saying it dosen't make it true. ] (]) 13:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
			:Sorry for the later answer - I'm busy with some real life science and ;-). I don't know enough about this to do a useful review off-the-cuff. If I find the time, I'll look later. --] (]) 22:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
			::Thanks, also new ], and ]. ] (]) 18:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
			== Complexity of Addition in Finite Automata ==
	::Don't be an ass. It was a clear edit conflict. And where have I a BLP violation?] (]) 13:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
			I couldn't understand the finite automata shown in the (P.65).It might be because I'm weak in binary mathematics.Addition is very simple.I can't get why the author has shown 'addition' as ''complex''.Could you help me and give a brief explanation of each state given in the finite automata.] (]) 06:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
	::: Are you denying you are the user referred to in ]? ] (]) 13:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
			:{{ping|JUSTIN JOHNS}} I'm rather busy at the moment, and the slides are missing the main part (the presenter). But as I understand it, the automaton is processing a sequence of 1-bit-additions (least significant bit first) and checks if the overall addition is correct (so it's not performing addition, but verifying addition). The alphabet of the automaton consists of the individual combinations of 3 bits (the first two are the input, the last is the lower order bit of the output), i.e. each of the characters of the alphabet is one of the 3-bit combinations (written as a vertical vector with a dash, but that is just ]). As you probably know, a 1-bit addition has a two-bit result (1+1=2= (binary)10)). This extra bit is the "carry" bit, and if you build a multi-bit adder, you must take it as an additional input for the next bit slice - see ]. The automaton starts in the state R0, and R0 says "the carry bit is zero". It then checks the character - there are 4 valid additions, and 4 invalid ones.The valid ones are 0+0=0, 1+0=1, 0+1=1, 1+1=10. The last one also sets the carry bit, which is why the automaton goes to the state R1 ("the carry bit is 1"). All other variants are wrong and lead to the error state. In R1, there are again four correct results, and 4 wrong ones. But since we now have the carry bit as an additional input, the correct results are 0+0+c=1, 0+1+c=10, 1+0+c=10, 1+1+c=11, and the other 4 are wrong. In the first case (0+0+c=1), the carry bit is consumed and we drop back to R0. And of course, once the addition is wrong, it stays wrong (which is why the error state goes to the error state with the whole alphabet). It's apparently "complex" to understand, which is why you have to ask ;-). On the other hand, it shows that verification of addition is at worst linear in the number of bits with respect to ] and constant with respect to ]. --] (]) 13:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
			Yeah this answer gives me a sense of hope for my doubts.Could you list the four invalid ones for the state R0.] (]) 06:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
	::::I'm denying BLP violations.] (]) 13:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::: Are you denying you are the user referred to in ]? ] (]) 13:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)		:Well, it's the combinations missing from the list I gave above: (00/1). (01/0), (10/0), (11/1). Now you list the wrong ones in R1! --] (]) 08:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
	:::::I'm denying BLP violations.
			I think it would be 0+0+c=0,0+1+c=01,1+0+c=11,1+1+c=11 but I'm not sure.I really understood the wrong states you listed above by these two sentences you've mentioned:"the first two are the input, the last is the lower order bit of the output","so it's not performing addition, but verifying addition".Could you tell why the states in R1 are only 4 because we could also list 0+1+c=11 as a wrong state isn't it?] (]) 10:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
	(undent) Are you the user mentioned in ]? Please review ]. ] (]) 13:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
			:I think we must first get the notation straight.The three states of the automaton are R1, R2, and error. The alphabet is a set of 8 letters, Σ = {00/0, 00/1, 01/0, 01/1, 10/0, 10/1, 11/0, 11/1}. Transitions take a state and a letter and produce a new state (which I will write (S,l ->S'). The transition table is
			Delta | 00/0 | 01/0 | 10/0 | 11/0 | 00/1 | 01/1 | 10/1 | 11/1 |
			-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------|
			R0 | R0 | error | error | R1 | error | R0 | R0 | error |
			R1 | error | R1 | R1 | error | R0 | error | error | R1 |
			error | error | error | error | error | error | error | error | error |
			:If the carry is 1, i.e. if you are in R1, then 0+1+c=10 (decimal 2), so indeed (R1, 01/1 -> error). You got 1+1+c=11 wrong - if c is one, then 1+1+1=11 (decimal 3), i.e. (R1, 11/1 -> R1). --] (]) 13:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
			Wow that's really great.Now I could understand the states present in the automata and their transitions.To be honest I really understood the answer after analyzing the document many times before you have posted the answer.Also I dont' have a reliable internet connection.So sorry for checking the answer too late.It's my mistake to ask a question without properly looking the document.Anyway that's a great help and thanks for your kindness and patience.] (]) 07:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
	You've stated that I am. I have not denied it. Anyone reading the edits of the closely related ip addresses would come to no other conclusion but that the distinctive writing style was from only one possible unique individual. As there is no possible room for doubt - what possible reason do you have for such an obnoxious police-state interrogation? Your continued multi-page assaults are clearly intended to derail legitimate discussion of issues and to harass editors that you oppose. Lack of intellectual substance is often followed by violence. This is just the online manifestation of the phenomenon.13:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
	: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434 ] (]) 13:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)		:No problem. You're welcome. --] (]) 10:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
			==Query==
	: If you again attempt to avoid scrutiny when directly questioned as to your previous IP addresses, I will seek to have you prevented from further dissembling. I stated that you were warned for your conduct with respect to identifiable living persons, and you denied that you were. When I linked to the section where you were warned for your conduct with respect to identifiable living persons, you yet again denied that you were warned for your conduct. This dishonesty must cease. ] (]) 13:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
			seems kinda like it's in your bailiwick. Does it actually mean anything? ] (]) 04:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
			:Well, for me it reads like Woowooowoooo, and ] does little to change my initial impression. The . --] (]) 11:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
			::Thanks. Yeah, I read it and thought "WTF?" And an article with over half the citations being to the author's own work usually isn't a good sign. But as I said, it's outside my field. (You may or may not want to comment ].) ] (]) 14:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
			:::I don't really think it's anyones field (not mine, to be sure), but rather something made up. There are some interesting analogies between entropy in physics and information theory, but this does not mean that you can translate every ''informal'' idea from some information domain into any arbitrary physics domain. I already commented at RS/N, maybe a bit to cynical... --] (]) 14:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
			== ] ==
	== Involved? ==
			Hi Stephan, I created ] regarding the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement on Meta and I am now looking for ideas regarding the project. I saw that you're interested in sustainability, so I'd love to hear your comments and maybe even have your support! Thanks, --] (]) 21:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
	I may have lost the plot here. But TPH is quoting a very restrictive defn of "uninvolved" at ] and I'm sure you've been zapped in situations where that defn would leave you uninvolved ] (]) 13:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	:No you've lost the plot. Lar is right as you know :) ] (]) 13:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	== Thanks for your answers ==		== Pumping length of DFA ==
			Do you mean to say that we can only use finite languages for pumping lemma?Could you tell the pumping length for this ?Does this DFA accept an infinite or finite language.Could you help me.] (]) 08:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
	They were interesting answers indeed. But I was referring to the question that starts out "Ah. Thanks for clarifying. I think I see the source of the confusion... " ++]: ]/] 20:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
			]
	:Sorry, I missed that. Answered now. --] (]) 20:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
			:Hi Justin. No, that's not what I'm saying. Maybe we should list a couple of facts to be sure there is no misunderstanding:
			:# An alphabet is a finite set of letters, and a word is a finite sequence of letters from an alphabet. In particular, all words have finite length.
			:# A language is a set of words. A language can be finite (as e.g L={a, ab, aab, abb, bab}) or infinite, as e.g. K={a, aa, aaa, aaaa, ...}. Note that all words in K are finite (indeed, words are finite by definition). However, in K there is no upper limit to the length of a word - for every bound, say n, there are words of greater length, e.g. a<sup>n</sup>a (n times a, followed by one more a). This is true for all infinite languages.
			:# A language is regular if and only if there is a DFA that accepts it.
			:# All finite languages are regular. You can simply construct the DFA as a ] - see the one on the right for L. Please not that the DFA does not have a loop (i.e. there is no way to visit a state twice when processing one word).
			:# The pumping lemma says that all regular languages have a pumping length p, and that all words longer than p can be pumped. If such a word exists, then the language is necessarily infinite. All languages with pumpable words are infinite.
			:# But there is a second possibility, namely that there is a p so that there are no words of length greater than p. This is the case with all finite languages. The pumping lemma is true for finite languages because there is a p so that the condition on pumpable words becomes vacuous - you can pump ''all'' words of length greater than p, because there are ''no'' such words, i.e. you can pump all the 0 words of length greater than p.
			:As for your example: The automaton has a reachable loop that can lead into an accepting state (indeed, it has several such loops), hence it accepts an infinite language. It does, for example, accept all words of the form b<sup>i</sup>a for any natural number i. I don't know a sharp boundary for p, but if you chose p as 4, you are on the safe side - with 4 transitions, the automaton has to visit at least one state twice, so any word of lengths 4 or larger has to go through a loop - and whenever you go through a loop once, you can go through it any number of times. I'm sure {{ping|BenRG}} will step in and explain if I made any more errors ;-). --] (]) 12:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
			That's a good description of pumping lemma and how we apply it to finite and infinite language.I could see that it's easy to find the pumping length p for finite languages since all we need to do is find a length greater than p such that there aren't any words so we can pump 0 words as you have mentioned.Could you tell is there any way to find the pumping length p for infinite languages.Do we only need to look if a state is revisited to find out it's pumping length p?] (]) 07:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
	== Don't ==
			:Well, if you have a language and a DFA for it, the number of states gives you an upper bound for p. You can also ], possibly getting a better bound for p. I'm not aware of a universal method to find a sharp bound. But maybe you are on the wrong track altogether? The pumping lemma is most often not used to actually pump a language, but to show that a language is not regular, because it cannot be pumped on all long words. In that case, you assume that the language is regular, then you postulate the existence of p, and then construct a word in L that is longer than p, but cannot be pumped. For that, you don't use a concrete value like 3 or 5, but construct your word based on p. That contradicts the pumping lemma, and hence you know that the assumption that the language is regular has to be false. The canonical example is to use a<sup>p</sup>b<sup>p</sup> to show that {a<sup>i</sup>b<sup>i</sup> | i in '''N'''} is not regular (your would pump more copies of a into the word, thus breaking the symmetry). Note that a<sup>p</sup>b<sup>p</sup> is much longer than p - n fact, it's twice as long. But also note that we don't use a fixed value for p (indeed, since the language is not regular, no such value exists). --] (]) 12:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
			Thanks a lot for your effort.That made my doubt clear on how to find p for infinite languages.I was really stuck on whether p is actually the number of states in a DFA or is it any other number that takes you through a loop.Now after you told about the 'upper bound' it's sure that there won't be any p such that it's greater than the number of states.Could you tell why we enforce the condition |xy| ≤ m (number of states for dfa) for pumping lemma.In this (slide 23) it tells that the condition is enforced because of unique states in 'xy'.I couldn't get the need of unique states in 'xy'.Could you help me.] (]) 06:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
	Don't respond to bad stats anymore. ] (]) 18:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
			:Well, you split the word into xyz. Conceptually, x is the part leading to the loop, y is what processed in the loop, and z is the trace from the exit of the loop to an accepting state. In the slides you linked to, m is essentially just another name for p. The argument goes as follows. L is regular. Therefore there is a DFA for L. That DFA has m states. Therefore any accepted word with m or more letters must visit a state twice, i.e. there is a loop in the automaton. We can use that loop multiple times to accept longer words. In the pumping lemma itself, we don't use the number of states, because we don't want to rely on a concrete automaton, but make an argument for every automaton that accepts L. --] (]) 13:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)\
	:That would probably be wiser. But I cannot stand bad science or bad math - that's what got me into the climate change arena in the first place. I'll try to restrain myself... --] (]) 19:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
	::I thought it had been proven that 83.12943% of all stats were inaccurate anyway? --] ] 19:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
	::Oh, don't get me wrong - challenge bad stats in article and article talk pages, but at this point it's just not worth it - though I do admit that the 2 cabals per cell math (flawed as it is) is pretty funny. ] (]) 20:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
	:::It's not per cell - it's per molecule ;-). Our cells are hopelessly overwhelmed by cabals! But yes, it's probably time to call this off. --] (]) 20:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
			Okay.Could you tell why the restriction |xy| ≤ m can force ''y'' to have a special property as said in this (p.68).] (]) 07:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
	== Well there's a thought ==
			:Sorry - which slide and which property do you mean? --] (]) 07:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
			Oh I mean to say slide 261 and it's better to read this which says that the author tries to prove the language BALANCE(equal number of 0's and 1's) is regular using the ''Weak'' pumping lemma and he succeeds.While after he proves it using ''Strong'' pumping lemma I think he fails(not sure about this since I couldn't understand the proof).Then he points out that since the condition |xy| ≤ m is enforced it makes 'y' to have a certain property which I too couldn't understand.Could you tell why the author fails while using ''Strong'' pumping lemma.] (]) 08:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
	''We have more reliable sources on the recent NAS member open letter than on this blog. Does anybody think we should have an article on the letter?''
			:Ok. First, an important, indeed central, point. You cannot use the pumping lemma (weak or normal) to show that a language is regular. The pumping lemma states a sufficient, not a necessary condition on regular languages. All regular languages can be pumped, but there are also non-regular languages that can be pumped. Note that the Stanford argument is titled ''An Incorrect Proof'' and see slide 248. If a language is regular, sufficiently long words can be pumped. If this is false, the language is not regular. Now for your question: The weak pumping lemma is just based on the observation that if the word has more letters than the automaton states, processing the word must involve at least one loop, and the loop can be repeated. The "normal" pumping lemma for regular languages goes a little further - its based on the observation that you already need to complete at least one loop when processing the first p letters of the word. This extra constraint makes it easier (and sometimes possible) to construct the counterexample word. Check the proof for "balance" that follows, it's a nice example. --] (]) 09:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
	Maybe we should ] (]) 13:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)		Do you mean to say that using the ''normal'' pumping lemma we can prove that a language is not regular in a few steps?] (]) 10:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
			:Either of the two (weak and "normal") pumping lemmas for regular languages can be used to show that some languages are not regular. Neither can show this for all non-regular languages. But the set of languages that can be proved non-regular with the weak version is a subset of those that can be proved non-regular with the normal pumping lemma. --] (]) 10:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
			Even though I could get the difference between weak and normal pumping lemma I tried searching the web but couldn't understand the examples given over there.Could you give an simple example to show the difference between weak and normal pumping lemma.] (]) 06:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
	=="Welcome to the Cabal"==
			:Check the "balance" example from your slides - all words that have the same number of a and b (I think its 0/1 in the slides). With the "weak" version, you don't know where to pump. So if you pick e.g. the word a<sup>p</sup>b<sup>p</sup>, you could split it as x=a<sup>p-1</sup>, y=ab, <s>z=b<sup>p</sup></s>z=b<sup>p-1</sup>, and you can indeed pump that (every time you get both an a and a b). But with the "normal" version, you know that x=a<sup>k</sup>, y=a<sup>l</sup>, z=a<sup>m</sup>b<sup>p</sup> with k+l <= p, k+l+m=p. Thus you would pump only copies of a into the word, breaking the balance. Hence balance is not regular. I've never seen the "weak" version before, so it's no wonder you have a hard time finding examples. --] (]) 08:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
	That link you just posted on another editor's talk page purports to "out" them. So, posting that link in Misplaced Pages probably isn't a very good idea. You might need to request Oversight to correct that edit. ] (]) 23:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
	:Point taken. Thanks. --] (]) 23:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
	::Yeah... it's still in the history so Oversight ''is'' needed, IMO --]]] 23:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
	:::I've requested it via email. --] (]) 23:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
			Okay.Could you tell why we get "both an a and ab" in the weak version.I think it would only be 'ab' since y only contains 'ab'.] (]) 08:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
	== Please remove your comment from uninvolved ==
			:There is a semantically important space. You get both "an ''a''" and "a ''b''", because "an" is the article that goes with "a" (which starts with a vowel sound), while "a" is the article that goes with a "b", which starts with a consonant. ;-). --] (]) 09:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
	Stephan, please remove your comment from the uninvolved section of the WMC RFE. There is absolutely no argument to be made that you are uninvolved with respect to CC, and especially not regarding WMC. I intend to take this to arbcom if you do not self-revert, as your comment is inappropriate in that section. ] (]) 20:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)		Oh I see.I think you're trying to say that you've really mentioned "both an 'a' and a 'b'" instead of "both of 'a' and 'ab'".It's my fault of how I interpreted your sentence.Don't worry.I think the grammatical session is over.Could you tell whether the 'z' part is b<sup>p</sup> or is it b<sup>p-1</sup>?] (]) 09:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
	:No. It's been there before, with predictable apathy. I'm uninvolved per the definition, and I'm certainly more uninvolved that Lar. Your comment, on the other hand, is completely inappropriate in that section. --] (]) 20:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)		:In the weak case, you know nearly nothing about z. In the non-weak part, you only know that the initial segment xy is less then p long, so (for the word a<sup>p</sup>b<sup>p</sup>), both x and y consist just of ''a''s. The z part is the remaining ''a''s, which may be zero, and all the ''b''s (I try to use "''a''s" as the plural of ''a'' ;-). --] (]) 10:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
			Sorry I would like to know if you have mistaken 'z' for b<sup>p</sup> instead of b<sup>p-1</sup> so we get the expression a<sup>p</sup>b<sup>p</sup>.If we use the 'z' part as b<sup>p</sup> I think we would get the expression as a<sup>p</sup>b<sup>p+1</sup> isn't it?] (]) 10:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
	== Re: Fred Singer ==
			:Another typographical problem, I think. "l" is the lower case letter L, not the digit 1 in the above. --] (]) 10:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
			Could you tell if we use "l" instead of "1" is it possible to get the expression a<sup>p</sup>b<sup>p</sup> in the "weak" version.To be honest I couldn't see an "l" in "weak" version even though I could see "l" in "normal" version.] (]) 06:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
	Although I tend to sympathize and agree with you and WMC more often than not, SV and ATren have the facts on their side on this one. It would be helpful if you could help resolve the problem and work with WMC to bring this to a conclusion. I know that WMC has been harassed for years, but when he's had this much mud flung at him for so long, some is bound to stick. WMC and others need to take a step back and look at the situation with fresh eyes. I'm hopeful that you and others will be able to end this. ] (]) 00:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
			:Yes, sorry, I was confused about which part you referred to. Your conjecture was correct, I have corrected it above. --] (]) 07:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
			Okay.Let's consider a finite automaton that has more than one loop(revisits the state entered again) like this considered before.When we look this image we could see the possible loops are q0q1q2q0,q2q3q2 etc but this (p.18) says that there's only one loop in ''q'' part.So could you tell if we could have more than one distinct loop in dfa as we have seen in the previous image.To check if a language is not regular do we need to look on all possible loops in the dfa to check whether it obey pumping lemma?] (]) 06:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
	:This stuff has been going on for years albeit at a lower level. I'm afraid it won't end until all scientifically literate editors have been driven off the climate change articles. ] (]) 00:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
			:No. The argument for the pumping lemma goes as follows: If a language is regular, then there is a DFA for it. We don't construct the DFA, we don't know the DFA, we just know that it exists and has a fixed finite number of states. Then, when the language has arbitrarily long words, for all "long enough" word, the automaton has to go into at least one loop, and that loop can be pumped. If there are more loops, the word can be pumped in different places, but that is nothing we need for the argument. --] (]) 09:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
	::All true, but nothing is preventing any editors from admitting their mistakes, learning from them, and moving on. ] (]) 00:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
	:::Absolutely. That's a point I've been trying to make to the Science Cabal (as Lar calls us). Keep your own conduct above reproach; don't sink to the other fellow's level. It's not just the right thing to do, but also throws the misconduct of the WR/contrarian axis into sharper focus. ] (]) 00:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::SBHB, was it necessary to take shots at Lar and Misplaced Pages Review in your response here? Not that it should matter here, but most of the participants at Misplaced Pages Review support the IPCC's stance on human-caused climate change. Their criticisms of WMC are for different reasons, the Singer behavior in question being one of them. If you'd like to come to WR and discuss with the participants there, I think they would be receptive to your input. ] (]) 01:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I believe I shall decline your offer. Also, if Lar has not in fact referred to the "science cabal" I will gladly withdraw my statement with apologies, but to the best of my recollection he has done so on numerous occasions. ] (]) 01:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Do you believe there is any truth to a statement that there is a "science cabal" involved with the AGW articles? ] (]) 01:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Define "cabal." By commonly accepted definitions of the term, such as given ], absolutely not. ] (]) 02:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::That's not a productive line of inquiry. Science ''is'' the dominant POV for this encyclopedia, whether some will choose to admit it or not, and I realize that many will not. Claiming that there is a "cabal" of scientists or science-minded editors is like saying there is a cabal of air-breathing, water-drinking primates. Unfortunately, most people don't understand science, and more importantly, its methodology, and if the science "cabal" is guilty of anything, it is ignoring this fact and becoming impatient with the plebs. So, if you aren't here to learn, you have a responsibility to ''teach'', so what happens when the plebs refuse to learn? Here we are. Patience needs to come first, and many simply don't have that capacity or have grown tired of answering the same questions over and over again. ] (]) 07:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
	:''SV and ATren have the facts on their side on this one.'' - I don't quite think so. Yes, behavior on either side has not been perfect in the past. Of course, the slate on the so-called skeptics side gets wiped clean over and over again when socks are discarded, while mud on the side of consistent editors keeps accumulating. But there is nothing in the current behavior that would justify a sanction (unless you take a strong position on spurious enforcement requests ;-). --] (]) 08:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
	::Stephan, surely you understand, that even if WMC sprouts wings and a halo, and starts playing a beautiful melody on the harp, he's still going to be the target of an anti-Angel campaign to rid Misplaced Pages of that pernicious Angel-bias? WMC should probably not be engaging in any controversial or contentious edits for this reason. Ok, so he enjoys the drama, but seriously, what's the shelf life of drama-loving editors? ] (]) 09:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
	:::Sure, I agree with that, too. William is not always particularly wise in either his choice of fights or his methods. But as much as I regret that (and that's not always very - at least he helps to establish the positions of participants), that's a different topic. He is grown up, and he does (slowly ;-) respond to occasional prods by Boris and me. But again, there is no merit in the current enforcement request. --] (]) 09:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
	Stephan, what is your view of WMC's "Martian" reverts? Do you believe they were good faith edits? And if so, please explain your reasoning. ] (]) 09:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
	:My opinions are sometimes available to pushy questioners at my normal consulting rate, EUR 300 per hour, 30 minutes minimum. Ask for a quote to get an idea on the research cost. Or stick to ], where I already discuss your (quite off-topic for this enforcement request) distraction. --] (]) 09:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
			Could you tell the steps we should take to show whether the language accepted by this is not regular.While looking this image I can see loop in many places so don't know which all states we have to make ''x'',''y'' and ''z'' to check whether the ''y'' part contains a loop.] (]) 10:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
	::It's not off topic, and I see no comment in that other discussion on the merits of WMC's Martian push -- in fact, you evaded the question. So I take it that this is a refusal to answer? ] (]) 09:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
			:Sure. The language accepted by the automaton is accepted by a DFA (namely the very one ;-). Hence it is regular by definition (or by equivalency of regular expressions and DFAs, depending on how you define regular languages). So I would take no steps at all to show that it is not regular, as that would be an exercise in futility. --] (]) 12:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
	::: You're a troll. Why not go somewhere else? ] (]) 09:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::Because the CC articles are apparently where the trolls hang out. :-) ] (]) 09:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
	:::::For those who need it: I herewith officially declare this a non-CC article. --] (]) 09:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
	''SV and ATren have the facts on their side on this one'' - baffling. So, V: which of my recents edits do you regard as problematic, and which serious enough to trigger the probation request? Do you regard it as unreasonable to describe Singer as a "retired physicst"? Do you think it unreaonable to say that he is a GW skeptic? ] (]) 09:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
	:Why don't you file an RFC on the talk page? Requesting a wide range of opinions could help your case. Do you understand that even though I don't personally agree with SV or ATren, they are using DR effectively and you are not? SV's enforcement request could be completely wrong, but it could also be a ''convincing'' case. You forget that whenever a single editor goes up against BLP, the policy is weighted towards the subject, not the editor. Perhaps this is an oversight on your part? ] (]) 09:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
	::Except that WMC's edit which was a basic interpretation of the sources is backed up by over 400 google books hits. BLP!!!!!!!!!!!! should never be used to disguise the facts. ] (]) 10:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
	:::The argument that the first sentence on a BLP should reflect the thing for which they have most coverage is a false one, especially if it is a characterisation by third parties versus qualifications etc as in this case. Go and look at, as I have already said, at ] (famous for LiveAid, ] (famous for being a gay bishop) etc and we do not put a characterisation for which they are famous ahead of significant factual biographical details. No big deal, IMHO WMC is wrong as we are all wrong sometimes. --] ] 10:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
			Oh sorry but I still can't get how to know whether an automaton is a ].Do we only need to check if an automaton accepts an ''regular expression'' to check whether it's an DFA?If that's true should we rely on ] to check whether an automaton doesn't accept an regular language and in turn proving that the automaton is not a DFA?] (]) 06:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
	:::Polargeo, I apologize if that's what you took away from my comments. In order to understand something, you need to be able to argue ''both'' sides. If you can't do that, then you don't really understand the topic. Now, SV and ATren have made a convincing argument on the enforcement page. I'm not saying it is right and I'm not saying it is wrong, but let's look at what WMC is arguing in his defense: "Topic ban SV". So, we've got "BLP violation" vs. "Ban SV". Which of these arguments do you think is going to ]? I'm naturally biased towards WMC, but I'm generally in agreement with SV on this one. What does that say about WMC's argument? ] (]) 10:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
			:The definition is at ]. Basically, if you only have finitely many states, no other memory, and the transition relation is a function (i.e. for every state/letter combination there is a unique successor state), you have a DFA. If only the first two are true, you have an NFA, but NFAs can be converted to equivalent DFAs, so both automata classes accept exactly the regular languages. Other automata in this field are ] (which have an extra stack and can recognise context-free languages) and ] (which have a read/write tape and can accept recursively enumerable languages). Also see ]. --] (]) 07:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
			Yeah I think I was really confused between languages and DFA.I thought that pumping lemma is used to check whether an automaton is a DFA.Now only I realized it is used to find whether a language is not regular.When we use the pumping lemma can we use ''any'' DFA to check whether a language is not regular.] (]) 08:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
	:::: I'm not interested in the procedure, but the facts (alas not a very popular attitude on wiki now, BURO etc). But I still find your ''SV and ATren have the facts on their side on this one'' baffling. If you meant, "have the politics on their side" then I'd understand you. By "facts" I thought you meant reality. Can you clarify what that phrase means to you? ] (]) 10:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
			:And you are still confused, if less so. The pumping lemma states a necessary, not a sufficient condition for regularity. So if a language cannot be pumped, its not regular. But if it can be pumped, we cannot say anything, as there are non-regular languages that can also be pumped. And the "any DFA" is at least ambiguous. What we do (when we go back to the underlying argument) is to a assume that ''a DFA'' exists and then show that this leads to a contradiction. Hence there is no DFA, hence the language is not regular. Having the pumping lemme in an abstract from saves us from arguing on that level every time. --] (]) 12:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
	::::Wrong on the ideal struucture of an article is fine. This is sorted out through normal editing practices. BLP violation! Banned form editing BLP articles is another level and is ridiculous. Sanctions are NOT there to sort out the fine structure of an article. If I wished to write a balanced article for Fred Singer the prominant aspect of his life would indeed be his skepticism based on RS anyway. ] (]) 10:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
	:::::@Viriditas. This has become a witch hunt against WMC and I am not about to enforce anything. ] (]) 10:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
	Summary to everyone: Choose your battles. (Notwithstanding the fact that someone, possibly ATren or Cla68, may quote this diff out of context to spin it I'm promoting a ] mentality.) ] (]) 14:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
			I think altogether pumping lemma is used to check whether a language is not regular and that sum of states in x and y shouldn't be greater than the pumping length isn't it?I really couldn't get why the condition |xy| ≤ m is enforced for pumping length 'm/p'.If the condition |xy| ≤ m is violated would it be an issue in pumping lemma?Could you help me.] (]) 06:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
	== Rice ==
			:I'm not really happy with the word "check", as that can be read to imply that you get a guaranteed result. With the pumping lemma we only get "not regular" or "don't know". As for the rest: the stricter the conditions, the easier it is to show that a language violates them, so the more powerful the lemma. We can impose |xy| ≤ m, because xy is the initial part of a word that is longer than than the pumping length, and hence already has to have at least one loop. --] (]) 07:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
			Could you tell whether your last sentence violated the pumping lemma.I think you have to say that it's "no longer than the pumping length".Perhaps that's not a problem.Now only I could get that we impose the condition to speed the pumping lemma method.If we haven't imposed the condition could we still state that a language is not regular in ''less'' speed compared to the ''normal'' pumping lemma?] (]) 08:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
	You forgot the tildes ] (]) 13:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
	:I fixed the tildes, thanks. But I don't get the reference to ]. --] (]) 13:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
	:: Oops: I meant ]... see, it works: ] ] (]) 14:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
	::: I see. When I was in the UK, I only ate rice from Indian and Chinese restaurants, so I don't know the brands. --] (]) 14:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
			:I think my sentence is correct as stated. I don't know what you mean by "speed", but maybe it helps if you actually use the PL to show a couple of languages to be non-regular. The canonical example is, of course {a<sup>i</sup>b<sup>i</sup>| i in '''N'''}, but you can also try {a<sup>i</sup>bwba<sup>i</sup> | i in '''N''', w an arbitrary word over Sigma}.--] (]) 08:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
	Re : thanks. I must have been newted at the time ] (]) 21:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
	:Are you making up weird words on the go to confuse me? Anyways, you're welcome. --] (]) 21:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
	:: Not quite. ] ] (]) 21:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
	:::Always glad to expand my vocabulary (not to mention to learn how to spell it)! --] (]) 21:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
			I meant to say ''speed'' as " more faster the less it takes to prove a language is non-regular using pumping lemma".Could you tell whether the initial part of the word 'xy' should be longer than the pumping length.] (]) 08:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
	==Please don't==
			:It's not a value judgement, so "should" is not quite appropriate. But you can pick a word such that you can pump it within the first p characters, where p is the pumping length. Take a look at for some experience and a feeling for where there is a universal and where there is an existential quantifier. --] (]) 09:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
	Stephan, please don't do things like this. You're only giving Lar more ammunition. ] (]) 20:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
	:Hey! I'm only following his suggestions! --] (]) 20:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
	::That's rather a novel interpretation. Stop playing games. Place, or move back, a comment of yours in the uninvolved admin section, or move one of mine out, and there will be consequences. ++]: ]/] 20:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
	: I agree with SBHB, but with respect to consequences, I'm not fully clear as to why Lar can rule Stephan Schulz is involved, but Stephan Schulz cannot rule Lar is involved? Could someone explain that to me? It seems to me that both of them are right - neither Stephan Schulz nor Lar has the appearance of neutrality required to remain Uninvolved. ] (]) 20:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)		Sorry but I'm trying to ask whether the pumping length m should be greater than the sum of states in x and y or whether the pumping length m should be lesser than the sum of states in x and y in accordance with pumping lemma.] (]) 09:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
	::But Lar has ] while I only have a 6.5 years of constructive Misplaced Pages contributions, several awards for patience and calmness, and a reasonable scientific education. --] (]) 20:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
	::: I don't edit in the topic area. And my constructive Misplaced Pages contributions are somewhat shorter at only 5 or so years. But other than that we're the same, yes. However, editing in the topic area is what matters. Stephan Schulz does edit there, I do not. Further, the other uninvolved admins find me uninvolved. They do not find Stephan Schulz uninvolved. ++]: ]/] 20:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
	:::: Lar, your statement above is a statement of fact. I'm not looking for you to justify your involvement or lack of involvement, or Stephan Schulz involvement or lack of involvement, I'm looking for you to explain how you are permitted to rule that Stephan Schulz is involved and how he is not permitted to rule that you are involved. Thanks! ] (]) 20:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::: I'm uninvolved. He's not. The determination of this has been made, so far, by the uninvolved admins. Perhaps that will change. I suppose I could ask ArbCom for a ruling on it. ++]: ]/] 20:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
	:::::: I think you should do that - it appears that you have ruled he's involved and he has ruled that you are involved. While my stance is that he is obviously involved and you are probably involved, I don't see how one can argue that your ruling is valid and his is not. Absent a ruling from someone with the authority to state that one of you is right/wrong, it would appear that you are both DQed. Alternatively, you could all stop mucking around with your stupid magic discussion section and instead try to resolve the problem - but that's not the goal here, is it? ] (]) 20:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::::: It's been mine all along. Some don't like that. Hence their machinations. I'd say it looks like one team trying to remove a ref they don't like because he's too impartial for their taste. ++]: ]/] 21:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
	{{od}} Only if you're right that you are impartial. If you are wrong, it's a biased ref trying to call games for their team. You'll need to find a way to resolve that dispute, instead of just running into a brick wall over and over. You suggested ArbCom. That would work. You and Stephen could also agree to one arbitor of fact, submit all the evidence to them, and agree with whatever their ruling was about involvement - both, one, or neither of you being unequivocally ruled involved. To just keep reverting away at eachother is disruptive - in fact, given this section, if either of you posts in the "uninvolved admin" section again, '''I'll''' go to arbcom. There - problem solved. ] (]) 21:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
	:Get your request ready, then. The other uninvolved admins find me uninvolved and have said so repeatedly. That should do for you. I have no plans to stop participating as an uninvolved admin. You can't take me out of the game with this ploy. ++]: ]/] 21:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
	:: You seem to have misunderstood me. I'm not trying to "take you out of the game," or whatever ] terminology you latch on to next, I'm try to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. You are not helping. ] (]) 21:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
	::: No, you've misunderstood me. I'm uninvolved. The other uninvolved admins agree. You need to get over it. Don't interfere with the working of the board, because THAT is disruption. But this probably belongs on my talk, as I came here to warn Stephan, not debate you. ++]: ]/] 21:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
			:It's the other way round! You propose that the language is regular. In this case, there is a DFA accepting it (by definition). That has a certain number (say p) of states. So any word of length p or greater has to run though at least one non-empty loop when processing the first p characters. The initial p characters of the word make up your xy, and the "non-empty loop" is the y on its own. Then you can repeat (or leave off) the y. If that makes you leave the language, then your assumption was wrong, and the language is not regular. You don't really need to think about DFA's at all when ''applying'' the pumping lemma, just when proving or explaining it. And in particular, you don't need to think about particular DFA's. --] (]) 09:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			Yeah maybe now I'm on the road.So we're just analyzing the first p characters of a word.Till know I've related 'x' to the initial and states till 'y' and 'y' to the _non empty loop_ and 'z' to the rest of the states left.I think this type of comparison would put you in danger isn't it?It's better to think based on the position of the word.Now we have the word should we look whether the initial p characters of the word repeats?I'm done with the word but still don't know how to analyze the word using pumping lemma to prove a language is not regular.] (]) 10:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
	I have filed this case to get clarity on the involved/not involved status of both of you. You may respond there. ] (]) 21:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
			:Have you tried the pumping game I linked above? No, it's not just the first p characters that repeat, but some subsequence. In the game view, your opponent proposes a p, then you pick a word (usually constructed using p), then you opponent gets to split it, and then you can repeat the y part as often as you like. If you can manage to create a word that is not in L, you win (the language is not regular). Usually, the hard part is coming up with a good word, most of the rest is easy. --] (]) 23:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
	:Thanks, done. --] (]) 00:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
			Yes of course I tried it.Hardly to say if there's any language that needs memory it can't be a regular language and to prove this we use pumping lemma isn't it?Is there any language that doesn't need memory but is not in the class of regular languages?If there isn't anyone then all the languages that don't need memory would be in the class of regular languages isn't it? ] (]) 06:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
	== Involved, yes, but... ==
			== Deepness in the Sky = Exploitation ==
	... generally one of the more considered voices. FWIW. ] (]) 21:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
	:Thanks. Partly, at least ;-). --] (]) 22:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
			If this is about overlong plot summaries or something, then sure, we can stop them from being overlong. But otherwise, A Deepness in the Sky meets all possible criteria for being exploitation fiction. It's a pedantic and unconventional thing to say, but it's true. It's good exploitation, though, I didn't mean to say the novel is bad exploitation. Bad exploitation doesn't win Hugo Awards. Maybe I should watch ] (Q1812665). If I fall in love with the genre, then I should read award-winning hard SF. Did you revert my edit under the false premise that it was unadmiring? ] (]) 12:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
	==Lar RfC==
			:Not at all. I just don't see how "Deepness" meets the criteria for the exploitation genre. It does not "exploit sex, violence, drugs, or other elements meant to attract readers primarily by arousing prurient interest". Sex, drugs and violence to occur, but they don't dominate, and they don't "arouse prurient interest". Otherwise, you could label ] as exploitation fiction, too, or even the ]. If you want to insist on the point, bring a ] making the connection directly. --] (]) 15:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
	You accidentally erased SarekofVulan's view when you added yours. ] (]) 00:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
			:: I'll assume you meant "Sex, drugs and violence do occur". The only thing you've convinced me of is that my contribution is original research. And that's all you need to convince me of. I've actually read A Deepness in the Sky. We can discuss this, but I don't really see the point, because no amount of discussion would change the article. I'm sorry I forgot about the original research rule. ] (]) 06:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
	:Thanks for catching that. Fixed. --] (]) 00:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
			:::Thanks. I'm always sorry to resist well-intend contributions, but in this case I think I'm right. I'm glad you accept the NOR rule. Reasonable people can disagree, and personal competence is hard to ascertain on Misplaced Pages - which is why we ask for reliable external sources. --] (]) 09:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
			:::: There's another problem with the article. Editorializing. There's glittering generalities everywhere, and we already know the Emergents are the bad guys, we don't have to be told that. Can we get rid of the word "totalitarianism", or is ] one of those rules we don't follow? ] (]) 10:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
			== Request for Access in ] ==
	== FYI, at RFAR ==
			Hello! You recently did a full protection on the ] Misplaced Pages page. I came to the page to update one of the polls, but as it turns out, for being "inaccurate". I would assume good faith, but as the only poll removed by this person was the most recent one showing Johnson trailing Petersen it seems to have been vandalism. I would request that the removed polls be restored to the page. However, since there were two polls removed (and I'm not sure who removed the other one), a copy of all the polling data can be found on ]. Thanks, and have a good day. ] (]) 15:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
	I've mentioned your behavior somewhat indirectly but by name in my comments at the Arbcom requests page, here -- ] (]) 16:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
			:Hi ], please discuss any change on ]. If there is consensus for the edit, use ] to request the edit. Or wait till tomorrow - I only protected for 24 hours to take the momentum out of the edit war. --] (]) 16:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
			== Collect essay; second bite at the cherry ==
	== So (joke) ==
			You participated in an that was in mainspace. The result was userfy and it was moved to user space accordingly. The essay has been moved back to mainspace. There is a discussion as to whether it should be renamed and moved. The discussion is . ] (]) 00:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
	You obviously like programming in Piston :-) ] (]) 10:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
			== Precious anniversary ==
	== ] ==
			{{User QAIbox
	You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at ] 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—
			| title = A year ago ...
	* ];
			| image = Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
	* ].
			| image_upright = 0.4
			| bold = "I found the instant<br /> improvability of Misplaced Pages<br /> to be nearly irresistible"
			| normal = ... you were recipient<br /> no. ''']''' of ],<br /> a prize of QAI!
			}}
			--] (]) 13:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
			:Very good! Thanks for the reminder! --] (]) 14:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
			:: Two years now! --] (]) 12:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
			:::I hope I'm still worthy! ;-). --] (]) 14:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
			:::: Yes, three now! --] (]) 06:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
			:::::Hooray! Also, I'm officially old now (as of Sunday ;-). --] (]) 10:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
			:::::: Late: happy birthday! --] (]) 14:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
			::::::: Thanks a lot! --] (]) 14:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
			::::::::... up to four! --] (]) 06:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
			:::::::::...and still alive (though not currently kicking, for lack of suitable backsides ;-). --] (]) 13:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
			... let's outdent for five! --] (]) 09:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
	Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 13:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
			:Outdented it is! Happy reverse anniversary! --] (]) 12:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
			=== 2019 ===
	You noted that the list of involved persons is still very incomplete at the above request - what were the usernames you had in mind? ] (]) 13:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
	:Certainly ], probabl and possibly even ] (although he is currently banned). There may be more - I just checked for some obvious names missing. --] (]) 14:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
	::Any others you can see that have been missed? (ignoring any banned users and users who have not contributed in the last month, except if they are on some stated very-temporary wikibreak). ] (]) 14:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
			<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 32em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 ); border-radius: 1em; border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix">
	== Arbcom ==
			{{User QAIbox
			| title =
			| image = Bachsaal Schloss Koethen.jpg
			| image_upright = 0.75
			| bold =
			| normal =
			}}
			<center>
			<br />'''Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht'''
			<big>]</big>
	Beacuase you have been involved in the recent SPI I am informaing you of the arbcom case ] ] (]) 10:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
			]<br /><br />
	== Why ANI? ==
			</center></div>
			Not too late, I hope ;) --] (]) 13:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
			:It's always the thought that counts. I'm more of a Beethoven guy than a Bach Guy (and, to be honest, also more of a ] guy ;-). Happy New Year to you, too! --] (]) 20:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
			== Buch ==
	Might I ask why you initiated ]? You appear to have bypassed SPI, and not noted any potential sockmaster, but have managed to have the vandal (yes, it was deliberately disruptive) indef blocked as a sock without recourse to warnings, etc. ] (]) 18:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
	:It was an obvious case, impersonating another user, and AN/I has the quickest response times for obvious admin tasks. --] (]) 18:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
	::Not 4im and AIV? Thing is, there is now a blocked vandal with no sockmaster noted. What with the recent debate regarding sock tagging, might this action be unfortunately misrepresented as a way of bypassing the need to determine whose sock it is before the banhammer is swung? ] (]) 19:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::What is "4im"? I don't think I've ever used AIV. It was clear disruption, using a name that suggest being a sock of WMC, using some WMCisms. You can still run an SPI if you want - we've had Scibabys checkusered after the block, too. --] (]) 20:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
	::::<nowiki>{{subst:uw-vandal4im}}</nowiki> is the first and only vandal warning; another dubious edit and... ZAP!! - well, a report to AIV anyway. AIV is easier to use than CC Enforcement requests, and a damn sight faster, too. The other point being, well, if it is likely Scibaby why not add it to the Enforcement page listing...? ] (]) 20:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::::There is no good evidence that he is Scibaby, although that's an interesting possibility. But that would be a new MOO for him. --] (]) 20:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
	::::::See . --] (]) 23:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
			Thanks for that :-). HD is a rather regrettable case; I'd say more except there are some slight parallels to mine :-( ] (]) 09:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
	== My talk ==
			:I had the impression that this was not purely motivated by what's best for the encyclopaedia. And I know that I've got more "patience with questionable characters" barn stars than you ;-). --] (]) 09:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
			::There won't be more problems like that for a while. ] (]) 12:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
			::: Oh, go on, fix the header. I would, but it wouldn't be welcome ] (]) 14:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
			::::I'm confused - which header? I'm also busy: http://www.cs.miami.edu/~tptp/CASC/J8/ (running the ] ;-). --] (]) 09:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
			:::::You mean the speedy? That was already . ] (]) 13:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
			:::::: No, I meant which I've now done; sorry if I was obscure ] (]) 13:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
			:::::: HD has reacted with that good humour and common sense so characteristic of him ] (]) 14:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
			:::::::At least he is terse... --] (]) 09:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
			== ] and ] ==
	You were mentioned on same, toward the bottom. Seems to be regarding this diff: . I just got up after a very late flight and an unplanned 2.5 hour drive home and am not sure what it's all about. Just thought you might want to know. ++]: ]/] 15:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
	:I saw it. It may be that TFD saw my comments and was inspired by them. Google finds 320000 hits for "quote marks", including in grammar guides and our own ], so that seems to be a fairly common idiom. --] (]) 15:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
	::And the total time differential between the oposts allowed him to copy the ''exact sentence''? Remarkable coincidence at that point, especially considering and the fact that the sentence as such finds '''zero''' Google hits. Zero. None. Nil. Truly remarkable that this sentence never used before on the Internet gets used twice in a matter of a very few minutes. ] (]) 12:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
			Hello, Stephan Schulz. I am contacting you to let you know that there are some problems cropping up on the Or Sasson and Islam El Shehaby articles. We have at least one user, ], who claims to be at least related to one of the subjects of the articles and at least fifteen reverts between both articles, including one by myself. I know that you are at least active on the Islam El Shehaby article, but I am less certain if you are involved with the Or Sasson article. Additionally, it seems like the topic is becoming a larger issue that might need more eyes to look into and attempt to come up with resolutions. --] (]) 00:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	::I don't see Collect's evidence as an accusation directed Stephan, but rather a point about the unreliability of behavioral evidence. ] (]) 12:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
			:I only stumbled over both articles by accident, and try to keep the situation from overboiling. It seems to have cooled down (maybe only because of time zones and nighttime, but we'll see). I've left a message at ]. 11:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Precisely. Has Stephan seen this from a person he "knows" is a sock, it would be given as conclusive proof, I fear. ] (]) 12:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
			::Actually, it looks as if things are cooling down overall, but thank you for helping to keep things in order. --] (]) 22:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	::::Show one single instance where I did that, please. Either of you. Back to the original point: As I wrote above, a plausible explanation is that TFD wrote his original comment, went to Collect's user page, saw the discussion, thought "yeah, that bugs me, too" and used the modern wonder of copy and paste to insert it into his comment. I don't know if that's the case, but it is dangerous to assume coincidence when there might be a causal pattern. The other problem is, of course, only looking for abnormalities. Going over all the texts written by involved editors, there will be certain overlaps by random chance. If you dig for them, of course you will find some. --] (]) 13:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::::And if you saw the same 10 word sentence written by a person you "knew" to be a sock - would you have used it as evidence? Consider the proximity of these edits, and the fact that ''nowhere else on the Internet has that precise wording been used'' - seems a bit strong as evidence to you, I suspect! Two editors posting to the same person using the same words within a matter of minutes. ] (]) 13:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Why don't you go and find out if I did? My edits are ]. --] (]) 14:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::New user with "disruptive edits" as proof that it is a sock at . "The usual" is "accepted" per . Your use of "the usual" at "and one more" (no evidence) at "Another one" given as evidence at "no deviation" given as evidence at "the third is different but the same" which is rather an unusual type of evidence at "typical MoO" at "Here we go again" at Not to mention all the ones you added without any comment other than the edit summary of "Next". Want more? And you did use "the usual" contrary to your denaial <g>. Not to mention listing folks with only "Next" as evidence (and that only in the edit summary). ] (]) 14:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::So in no case you found did I use a similarity of phrasing as evidence. And I'm not aware that I ever denied using "the usual" as evidence in general - in fact, I have explicitly defended it as adequate ''for opening an SPI case'' in cases where the sock is well-known and obvious. --] (]) 14:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::And your standard allows for 85% acuracy as sufficient to meet "obvious"? Seems you would have hanged van der Sloot faster than Nancy Grace! My standard of "obvious" is a tad more rigourous than yours, it would appear. ] (]) 16:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::First, have you computed ''my'' quota? But secondly, yes, sure I consider a likelihood of 85% sufficient for ''starting an investigation''. Wouldn't you expect police to open a murder investigation if they are 85% certain? In particular, if they have two indepdendent suspects which are equally compromised, does that mean they should do nothing? After all, the chance that any one of the suspects did it is at most 50%. --] (]) 16:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Standards for an indictment are, in fact, higher than 85%. And police investigate the murder - they are not supposed to investigate a single person with the goal of convicting that single person of "something". And definitely not using as evidence "the usual". ] (]) 16:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
			== ''Animal Farm'' in German ==
	:Yes, I agree with the principle that you or "the usual" would've convicted a skeptical editor based on similar evidence. The nice thing about having collected so many Scibaby convictions is that the IP ranges from ISP's of the falsely convicted will be tagged as "Scibaby" which makes it easier and easier to ban new editors you don't feel should be editing. ] (]) 19:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
	::I assume you talk to Lar? --] (]) 19:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
			Hi! Are you interested in ''''? Somebody's ] about alleged bias. ] (]) 07:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::Yes, of course, but why do you ask? Has he articulated thoughts similar to the ones you just responded to? Or is this simply a diversionary tactic on your part? ] (]) 19:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
	::::Sorry for being imprecise. I assume your comment was addressed to Lar, since it's indented accordingly, and, assuming its addressed to me, it's a completely nonsensical failure of ]. --] (]) 20:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)		:Sorry, I'm offline for the next week - cycling without electronics, and don't have time to become involved now. If it's still relevant in 10 days, and I don't turn up on my own, ping me. --] (]) 19:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
			== Extended confirmed protection ==
	:::::Ah, then you should've asked who the post was addressed to not "who I talk to" since I talk to a great number of people. I admit that the indent was imprecise, but I thought it was pretty clear that I was addressing you and didn't think anyone would really notice the indent since the original post was up there quite a ways. Also, I don't know why you think that's an assumption of bad faith rather than an observation of how the whole "Scibaby crisis" hasn't "gone to waste." ] (]) 20:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
			{{ivmbox|1=Hello, Stephan Schulz. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
			] (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned ] was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following ] with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
	:I'm not sure badgering Stephan is a good approach. A sockpuppet investigation is not like a murder investigation, and the standards of evidence are much lower. ++]: ]/] 04:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
	::Just not sure :) no condemantaion of your travelling support network then. ;) ] (]) 09:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::Let me see. ATren, The Good Locust and Collect all turn up and Lar paternally says I'm not sure about this badgering. Tell it like it is Lar, you are intelligent you know the score, these folks are way over the top but they stick by you unquestioningly where on the other hand you condem a load of editors who are willing to oppose each other when they disagree, who is the real cabal, clique, claque??? ] (]) 09:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
	::::Interesting claim -- but since I disagree with Lar over 30% of the time, and overlap on a grand total of '''two''' articles, any claim about being part of his group becomes a bit ludicrous! Unless ] counts as a major controversial topic? (My big edit there was to not the "American Bricks" patents!) The impetus here was my reseipt of two basically identical posts from two editors in a matter of ten minutes. Did you note that part? ] (]) 11:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::::The usual Collect self selected nonsense statistics. I hope you realise this is the sort of crap that really annoys people about your editing. ] (]) 11:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Polargeo, that appears to be a personal attack. What "people" are you referring to? ] (]) 11:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::Is this a poll of editors annoyed by Collect's editing style? If so, please include me on the list as one of the "people". --] (]) 21:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::Nope. And Stephan Schulz is not Ikip either. I suggest you read the discussions about socks at RFAR currently. Thanks! ] (]) 23:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::I am refering to Collect and his usual statistical nonsense. PA is not designed to be applied at this level and I rather hope that you realise this and don't try to wikilawyer with me. ] (]) 12:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
			In July and August 2016, ] established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
	::Polargeo, I'm not sure you're being very helpful here either. It may be a better approach to try being a bit less blustery. Better, could we all just take the point that small sample phrase correlation isn't always accurate and drop this? ++]: ]/] 14:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
			* '''Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective'''. It should not be used as a first resort.
	:::Come on Lar you cannot be truly impressed by the statistical nonsense Collect keeps coming up with. Please just tell him to stop this.] (]) 14:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
			* '''A bot will post a notification at ] of each use'''. MusikBot currently does this by updating ], which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
	::::Unless I am much mistaken, I'm not sure you're at all clear on what point Collect is actually trying to make here. It has little or nothing to do with statistics, and your repeated reference to stats suggests you've failed to grasp that. But as I said, I think the point has already been made, ''more'' than adequately, and at this point nothing useful is being added. At least not directly useful anyway, although lots of interesting diffs are being generated. So I suggest it be dropped and everyone move on. ++]: ]/] 14:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
			Please review ] carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. <br><small>This message was sent to the administrators' ]. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)</small> |2=Padlock-blue.svg}}
	:::::Yes another mildly hidden Lar threat against me. Statistics, well Collect said 30%. Presenting his usual statistics, you cannot really pick me up on pointing to the obvious. ] (]) 14:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
			<!--Message sent following discussion at WT:PP-->
			<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators/Message_list&oldid=737471142 -->
			== Request in October 2016 ==
	==socks==
			Without any real justification, ] reverted all of my edits to ]. It appears they did so based on a mistaken and erroneous belief that the material was copyrighted by the Newburgh Museum . First, the material on that site is released to the public domain under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. See the website's footer for proof. I know this is the case because I am a director with the Newburgh Museum and authored the material on that website which was used in the Misplaced Pages article. I authored it and allowed it to be posted on the museum's website solely on the condition that it could be used anywhere else, like Misplaced Pages. Therefore, the removal of my revisions were in error and I would kindly ask that you restore all of the edits.--] (]) 03:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
	I cannot see a decent list of banned socks which have played on CC articles to help with Check Users. Can you add to:
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]... --] ] 11:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
	:Sorry, I have not kept track very much. Of course, to each of these you need to add their socks (''e.g.'' ] and ]...). ("e.g." added after TGL's comment). --] (]) 11:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
			== Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins ==
	::Add each of them to "suspected sockpuppets of Scibaby?" I really think you are going out of your way to prove my earlier point about the "Scibaby menace" - the bigger the better. Otherwise, I don't see any logical justification for adding some of those to such a category, especially Ratel, except for inflating the number of <s>communists</s> Scibaby socks. ] (]) 18:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::Sorry, clarified by adding "e.g." above. Your parser seems to be broken on both the grammatical and the common sense level, though. --] (]) 19:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
			Hello,
	::::I blame it on the drugs. ] (]) 19:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::::None of these are Scibaby socks as far as I know (except Scibaby of course). But there are another dozen or so sockmasters who have turned up at GW to run CUs against when cheesy feet show up. Short of going through the entire list of socks and finding familiar names I am not sure how to list them. Was just trying to work out which joker ]. --] ] 20:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
	::::::I have a pretty good idea who the "joker" is. ] (]) 00:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Agreed; '''sometimes a cigar is a just a cigar'''. I suggest this investigation immediately begin with those who've consistently demonstrated a flagrant disregard for wikipedia's rules and policies (e.g. deleting other's comments, commenting in admin only sections, commenting in other's sections at RfC or ArbCom, civility, WP:Verify, etc, etc ad infinitum) since such disregard for rules would be consistent with sockpuppetry. I'm glad we see eye to eye on this Boris. ] (]) 01:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::I was thinking more about the common pattern of people who think they are much funnier than they actually are and have a tendency to irony and sarcasm ... --] ] 06:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
			Please note that ] based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your ] in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the ] for additional information. '''Important''': Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the ]. ] (]) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::Unfortunately I can't be too funny on wikipedia - I'd have been banned long ago if that was the case due to the over-reactionary tendencies and bad faith assumptions (tell a kid not to do something...) around here. Cheers. ] (]) 06:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:Mike V@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mike_V/All_admins&oldid=749162175 -->
			:I find the assumption that I have "a phone" (which really seems to mean an advanced smartphone) to be quite unreasonable. --] (]) 20:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
			== A new user right for New Page Patrollers ==
	== Are you sure? ==
			Hi {{BASEPAGENAME}}.
	Re , are you sure? As I said . If you look in the history, the banned tag is added by an anon with the comment "redundant, and more or less community banned" ] (]) 16:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
	:It's a serial sockpuppeteer for whom the banning policy (revert all edits on sight) has been applied for years, as well as someone who will not be unblocked by any administrator without a community discussion first. I think it's safe to call it a de facto ban. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 16:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
	:: I'm not sure I really care about the details, and this may be angels dancing on pinheads, but "This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that he or she has abusively used one or more accounts." seems quite adequate, and also accurate. The banned template is ambiguous and has no clear source other than an anon edit (though now it is Stephan's, so it does have a clear source, so that is good). But the trouble is the template produces "This user is ] from editing Misplaced Pages" and Scibaby isn't on that list, which is confusing ] (]) 16:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
	::: your concern. I'd say he's pretty well community-banned, per the old "blocked forever" policy. --] (]) 17:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
	:Regarding , could you please provide me with a link to the ] or ] discussion where Scibaby was banned by the community? I have been unable to locate any such discussion. Without that, he may be blocked, but he isn't banned. It's an important distinction and may be crucial to extricating Misplaced Pages from this long-term mess. ] 17:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
	:: Why don't you just propose whatever you're going to propose and see if anyone bites. Rules are not legalistic formulations - obviously, you're going to propose an unblock for Scibaby, so just do it and be done. His status as blocked where no one will unblock or banned is irrelevent. ] (]) 17:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::By long convention, indefinite block + no admin willing to unblock + some amount of time elapsed = banned. By that metric, Scibaby is clearly banned. But in general I agree with Hipocrite, in that it's not really worth arguing about - legalistic discussions about block vs. ban usually don't go anywhere meaningful. And I'm completely unable to see how a legalistic resolution of that distinction will "extricate Misplaced Pages" from dealing with Scibaby. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
			A new user group, ], has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at ]. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
	== ] ==
			It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available ] but very often a friendly custom message works best.
	An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located ]. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ].
			If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at ]. <small>''(Sent to all admins)''</small>.] (]) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
	Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ]. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:
			<!-- Message sent by User:Kudpung@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators/Message_list&oldid=748418714 -->
	*The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
	*Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
	*Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a ] of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
	**"Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
	**"Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
	**"Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
	**"Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"
	:The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.
	*All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
	*Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
	*The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
	*All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
	*Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Misplaced Pages.
	*Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
	*Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)
			== ]: Voting now open! ==
	On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ <font color="#F09">Amory</font><font color="#555"><small> ''(] • ] • ])''</small></font> 00:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
			{{Ivmbox|Hello, Stephan Schulz. Voting in the ''']''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
	=== Sub-issues question ===
	It shouldn't be too difficult, so can you please reword your question to fit the "one-sentence" part of the request? Thank you.
			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	==Suggestion==
	Stephan, this is not helpful. Please follow your own wise advice and consider self-reverting. ] (]) 16:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
	:But man, it's hard! Seriously, I cannot make out half of what he says. Is it me? --] (]) 16:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
	:: Pardon me, and honest assessment with this may help you to better comprehend. ] (]) 17:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::That is truly beautiful. The question is do we define that it is ] that the Earth's future rests on? Please do not dump you toxic waste in my Garden sir. I thank you for not doing so. Dumping your toxic waste in my garden is not conducive to a productive relationship between us. A civil relationship which will ultimately be of benefit to all concerned. It does not matter if we are right or wrong about the toxic waste those who are most civil will create a better world for our children and our children's children and will ultimately rule the world. Unfortunately scratch below the surface veneer of civility and all too often you find no true civility and indeed a complete lack of principles and respect for their fellows. ] (]) 08:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
			If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''.
	== And if you want a quick response ... ==
			|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
			<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/2&oldid=750798221 -->
			== ]: Voting now open! ==
	... then explain your edit on my talk page quickly, because I need to go offline very soon and I'll be away for hours. -- ] (]) 16:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
	:Spelling my name seems to be a running joke on Misplaced Pages... --] (]) 16:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
	::No, that's not it at all. Explanation on my talk page. Correction made at AN/I. Gotta go. -- ] (]) 17:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::Sorry, should have added a ;-) there. I don't mind terribly much. --] (]) 17:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
			{{Ivmbox|Hello, Stephan Schulz. Voting in the ''']''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
	== Couldn't agree more! ==
			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	But then again we all have to follow the rules even when they are inconvenient. ] (]) 22:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
	:Um, no. See ]. It all depends on "the rules". --] (]) 14:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
			If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
	::Well, I don't think limiting oneself to single sentence questions is comparable to exterminating a race, but I suppose I get your point. I'm more of an inclusionist myself and think you should be able to write it however you want and if they don't want to read it then that's fine. Cheers. ] (]) 21:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
			|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
	:::TGL that is so bang out of order it stuns me, redact it now and you had better fucking mean it when you apologise, jesus christ man, what the hell is wrong with you? ] (]) 22:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/2&oldid=750798221 -->
	::::Mark, if you are joking, add a ;-). If not, I don't think TGL said what you think he did - I certainly don't feel attacked by this comment. --] (]) 22:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
			== Dispute Notification ==
	:::::I think he thought I was making a jab at your initials, but I could be wrong. Additionally, I tend to use "strong" words/phrases like "exterminate" which sometimes draw forth emotional reactions even when used innocently (part of why I was banned!). ] (]) 22:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Careful there. Is it really wise for a locust to use words like "exterminate"? ] (]) 23:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Well, is it really wise for a Doctor to use words like "exterminate"? --] (]) 23:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::OK, now I'm totally lost. ] (]) 23:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::You must read the ]! And move to a civilised country, of course ;-) --] (]) 23:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::You misspelled "civilized." HTH. ] (]) 23:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Ouh my....this is gounna be a loung jouurney... --] (]) 23:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
	== A brilliant idea for you, if I do say so myself ==
			I have filed a dispute on the article of Fidel Castro. I do this because it is recommended "If you begin a discussion of another user on a common notice board, it is expected that you will notify the subject user by posting a message on their talk page". Do not report me as vandal. This is the only instance in which I will write something here. If this is not the way to do it, let me know how it is done. ] (]) 16:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
	And I do. You should create a "Stephan Schulz" spelling template and then template the editors who get your name wrong. You might combine this with a StephanSchulzSpellingBot to automatically search for misspellings of "Stephan Schulz". I think this would save much time and effort and contribute to a more efficient encyclopedia. -- ] (]) 14:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
	:Nice idea. But at the moment I'm still planning the great climate science analysis bot (nicknamed "JWBDeathTrap"). And before I even start that, there is the ] deadline... --] (]) 14:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
	::Too late: ] -- ] (]) 19:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
	==Evidence?==		== Nice try ==
	Do you really think there's any point in submitting evidence? ] (]) 20:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
	:I think submitting small amounts of well-ordered evidence cannot hurt. Unfortunately, I have a real deadline next week (see above). --] (]) 20:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
	::If you ''don't'' submit evidence, then you've given people a quick way to discount any concerns you might have about the eventual outcome. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 20:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::So it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" sort of thing. (Realizing that "damned" is a blatant ], so I've hung myself before I even started.) ] (]) 20:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
	How interesting that we now find out that the other skeptic friendly administrator '''also''' had a secret opinion on the content all along. ] (]) 13:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
	:You weren't surprised at this, surely? ] (]) 14:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
	:: By an administrator advancing a content position through the use of tools? No, not at all. Isn't that why people become administrators? ] (]) 14:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::I did it for the groupies. It's been a bit disappointing so far. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
			Sorry but ] isn't going to work here bucko. Keep it up and this will eventually make its way all the way up to a request for arbitration. What are you so afraid of ol' Jimbo seeing?--] (]) 15:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
	To whom are you referring, Hipicrite? Who has a "secret opinion"? ] (]) 23:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
	:], obviously. ] (]) 00:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)		:Go ahead. Or preferably do something productive. --] (]) 16:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
			== Indelete ==
	::Really? Based on what? Maybe we should ] these skeptic admins and threaten to <s>blacklist</s> ban them, in the hopes they'll ] others. ] (]) 04:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
			Hi,
	== XKCD has ]s ==
			User JzG deleted my page due to a blocked or banned user that originally created it. My page was created three years ago and remains valid regardless of this users recent actions.
			Please restore it.
			Emit - Misplaced Pages
	, hover for bonus funnies. Also, kudos for using the shortcut to ]. - ] <small>(])</small> 14:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
			https://en.wikipedia.org/Emit
			] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 23:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	== Witch hunt? ==
			:I don't know anything about the topic area and I have no time to become acquainted with it. By restoring a deleted user's contribution, I would be responsible for it - which, given the constraints above, I don't want to be. You yourself have a ], so it's better if you don't take on this responsibility, either. But maybe {{ping|JzG}} is willing to discuss the issue? Guy, at a first glance the page seems to be substantial and reasonably sourced. Emit, if there is no direct solution, your best chance is ]. The page in question is, BTW, ], not ]. --] (]) 16:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
	Stephan, please re-read my questions on Hipocrite's page, and explain to me how it's a witch hunt. Those questions were polite and reasonable; in fact, much more reasonable than Hipocrite's own questioning of others on sock puppetry. He has ''admitted'' having socks and having disclosed them, so my request for clarification was completely within bounds. Please retract. ] (]) 19:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
			:: The article was created by an undisclosed paid editor. All edits were by that editor or SPAs. This is blatant promotion. 17:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
	:Nope. Especially because he has admitted to previous socking, it's none of your business. Unless you have evidence of current abuse, assume good faith. Now that you have the information, what will you do with it? --] (]) 20:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
			:::Ok, I see. Sorry, Emit, I don't restore undisclosed paid editors. --] (]) 18:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
	::Yes, it is my business, because he has said he disclosed them but I found no disclosure. I am doing research for the current CC case, and the knowledge of an involved editor's disclosed socks is relevant to that. It was a simple question that he responded to with hostility, and you and Guettarda piled on with baseless accusations. Ironically, this kind of hostility and piling on is the root problem in this topic area, and is the kind of thing that will be central to my evidence. ] (]) 20:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
	::: Sorry, are you alledging that you did work to find disclosure? What did you do, exactly? ] (]) 20:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
	::::I searched your user page, your talk page, and your recent history. I didn't find anything, so I asked. ] (]) 20:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
			== Administrators' newsletter - February 2017 ==
	:::"and the knowledge of an involved editor's disclosed socks is relevant to that" - how? --] (]) 20:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::: So that I can research the contribution histories of those socks to see if there is anything related to my evidence. Remind me again, why was this inapproprate? He ''admitted'' using socks and disclosure of those socks, I just asked for his disclosure. ''There is nothing wrong with that''. ] (]) 20:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
			] from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please ]. Your ] is welcomed.
	== Gallery fix ==
			] '''Administrator changes'''
	Thanks for fixing that and for your opinion on WP:SHIPS. I really should have hit the preview before hitting submit (I forgot that galleries by default use a 250 pixel image for a thumbnail). ] (]) 15:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
			:] ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ]
	:No worries. I think my last opinion on WP:SHIPS was a while ago, though - or do you mean ]? --] (]) 15:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
			:] ] • ] • ]
	::My mistake, I thought you posted on WP:SHIPS and not the ] article. ] (]) 17:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
	== Suggestion #2 ==
			:*A ] to workshop proposals to amend the ] at ] has been in process since late December 2016.
			:*] closed with no consensus for implementing ] with new criteria for use.
			:*Following ], an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
			] '''Technical news'''
	How about a finding that "too many findings of evidence are suggested with no evidence; nor is any forthcoming when asked for"? ] (]) 18:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
			:*When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (])
	:It has a nice meta-ring to to, so it appeals. But I don't see what difference it would make if accepted, so it's probably not worth it. --] (]) 18:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
			:*Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Misplaced Pages, an ] closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (])
	Your most recent responce to lar is not helpful. Please consider revising it such that it dosen't make clear what is clear. ] (]) 18:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
			:* The Foundation has ] a new ] to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
	: Err, mine or Stephan's? ] (]) 18:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
	::Probably , and I agree that it wasn't a helpful comment. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::It may not have been friendly, but I think it was necessary. --] (]) 18:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
	::::Sorry Stephan, but I disagree. Explaining that the so-called "analysis" represented several common statistical and logical fallacies rolled into one would have been useful. But challenging the person's math skills was not necessary and shifted the focus from the obvious inanity of the "analysis" to your own choice of words. When facts and logic are on your side you don't need to take swipes at the other fellow -- doing so only works against you. ] (]) 02:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
			] '''Arbitration'''
	== Why do you think so? ==
			:*The Arbitration Committee released ] to the Wikimedia Foundation's ].
			] '''Obituaries'''
	Well there is no name to the byline, which an article in a newspaper usually has, op-ed or editorials not so much. Do you not think you should have gone to talk before reverting btw? ] (]) 19:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
			:* ] (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Misplaced Pages seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
	:On the contrary. Editorials usually do have named authors, news articles do not. Neither is a hard and fast rule, though. Editorials contain opinions and commentary, not reporting. And editorials are not, usually, posted under "Home > Features > Science > Article". No, since it's a clear case. --] (]) 20:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
	:{{EC}}Generally speaking, ] is a reliable source. AFAIK, they have a staff of professional journalists and editorial oversight. ] (]) 20:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
	::Ok guys, thanks. As you know i have to be extra careful with regards to blp`s ] (]) 20:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::Actually, you have to be extra careful with evaluating sources... --] (]) 20:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
	::::Actually i have to be extra careful about everything :) Cheers ] (]) 20:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I think you can safely go to the pub and have a pint there. I'll be in Edinburgh from July 13th to 20th. I'll be fairly busy, but if you are close enough, we can have one on me in The Peach (if I'll find it) or some other pub... --] (]) 20:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
	::::::That`s a real nice offer, and if it were not for the 5 hour drive i`d take you up on it, but driving that far for one pint would be a killer :) ] (]) 20:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::I'd make it two pints, but I get your point. Perhaps some other time. --] (]) 20:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::If ever your near ] give me a shout :) I`ll buy a guinness from the pub on the green ] (]) 20:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
			----
	== Would you please respond to this ==
			{{center|] • ] • ]}}
			13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
	Hi, you would be able to respond to much better than I would. At the AFD talked about I did suggest looking at WMC's article history and talk page but I guess that wasn't enough. Thanks in advance, --]] 16:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:Samwalton9@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/First_issue&oldid=763126991 -->
	:I added a short comment, but I'm not sure it is worth it. The nonsense of Solomon's claim us clear to anyone who care to check the articles with an open mind. I don't know if we can reach the rest. --] (]) 11:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
			== FYI ==
	== ] moving to Workshop ==
			apologies, but I think you've been sucked in to the hand waving .... for the first time since I started here in 2011, so I'd also like to express my esteem for essentially every contribution you make. But no one's perfect ''forever''...... (respectfully happy grins) ] (]) 14:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
	This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read ] to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "''workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible''." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ <font color="#F09">Amory</font><font color="#555"><small> ''(] • ] • ])''</small></font> 20:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
			:Ive always found that explaining and explaining and explaining and explaining is the most effective approach - not for the benefit of the committed deniers (per "you cannot reason someone out of a position he has arrived at without reason"), but for the benefit of the bystanders. And it drives the deniers crazy. Me, too, unfortunately ;-). You probably know this portrait of me: https://xkcd.com/386/ --] (]) 14:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
			::That's my idea too, for the first two go-rounds. After that, my experience has been that further revolutions just seem to drill a hole deepeer and deeper, and the third parties aren't listenting anyway. ] (]) 17:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
	== Spoofed user agent strings ==		== Revert on ref desk ==
			I'm not reverting your revert because I don't want to get involved in a revert war with an admin, so instead I'll discuss why I removed that item from the ref-desk:
	Re : I didn't think to ask. I figured the open proxy evidence would be enough. I'll direct Brandon's attention to this section though, and ask if he can take another look. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 22:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Ok, thanks. --] (]) 22:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	::The UAs appear to be legit. ] (]) 00:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Ok, thanks. So either ] applied, or we have another sock master. --] (]) 00:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
			"How does the disability benefits agency prove when people are faking mental illness?" - No one on the reference desk is in a position to answer that question. Disability agencies function differently all over the developed world.--] (]) 12:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
	== You're at ANI ==
			:Hi Walt! No need to shy away from actions due to admin status -(at least for me - I do about 5-25 admin actions a year, and that should not have any influence on the discussion). But by your argument, any question about any government or societal field would be speculative. But a) there are common themes, b) we can provide context with the answers and c), in this case, we can assume the context of a modern, highly developed Western society, both from the question and from the link to the UK page the user provided. If we only answer perfectly candid, unambiguous questions, the RefDesk will be both boring and useless. --] (]) 13:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
	Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. <font face="Papyrus"><big><big>—]</big></big>(])</font> 01:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Thanks. I have commented. But I go to sleep now... --] (]) 01:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	== hello? ==		== thanks ==
			...for reviewing sources at List of Scientists blah blah. ] (]) 12:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
	http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wether
			:You're welcome. I was only satisfying my personal curiosity. --] (]) 12:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
			== Formal mediation has been requested ==
	] <sup>]</sup> 16:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
			{{Ivmbox
	:Sorry, must have unintentionally hit the wrong button. I certainly did not want to undo that change. --] (]) 16:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
			| <!---MedComBot-Do-not-remove-this-line-Notified-Should an article in the journal Energy and Environment be considered a "peer-reviewed article"--->The ] has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Should an article in the journal Energy and Environment be considered a "peer-reviewed article"". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. ] is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the ], the ], and the ], '''please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate.''' Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 April 2017.
	:must be the weather ;) ] <sup>]</sup> 16:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::It was only 43°C today, and we have air conditioning <small>for printer and server rooms - humans are less relevant, apparently ;-) </small>. But it looks like a really good thunderstorm is brewing up... --] (]) 17:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
			Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.<br>
	== I'm sure you mean well ==
			<small>Message delivered by ] (]) on ] of the Mediation Committee. 01:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)</small>
			}}
			== Request for mediation rejected ==
	But please don't do this kind of thing again ] (]) 17:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
			{{Ivmbox
	:Really, what's the purpose? It's not less incivil if he undoes it. What we both want is that he understands his limitations and stays within them. But I don't see how this can be achieved by trying to make him jump through hoops. This only leads to further alienation. --] (]) 17:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
			| The ] concerning Should an article in the journal Energy and Environment be considered a "peer-reviewed article", to which you were listed as a party, has been ]. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the ], which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the ] of the Committee, or to the ]. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see ].
	::It would nto have been retracted as it is not an attack, it is a request that WMC stop spamming the fact that i am sanctioned all over the shop when there is no need. Do i mention his sanctions at every given chance? Also my daughter was bitten by a dog today, i figured i could use WP to get my mind off of it, fat chance of a bit of peace here though ] (]) 17:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::* Misplaced Pages is not here for you to blow off steam. If you can't be civil, walk away from the keyboard ] (]) 17:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::* Sorry to hear about your daughter. I hope she gets well soon. But ]. You are, honestly, not able to evaluate sources. That's not a character flaw, but it is a fact, and one recognized formally during the CC probation. You have not only violated the letter of the restriction, you continually violate the spirit by aggressively pushing your preferred sources (most of which are bad). What do you expect? That William or I argue each case de novo? Sorry, but my time is limited. I expect William's is, too. I bet that if you stop pushing bad sources, he will stop pointing out your sanction. But you still seem to think that your sources and what you learned from them are good, and that all you need to do is get Misplaced Pages to accept that. However, your sources are bad and as a consequence your understanding of the domain is somewhat limited and quite wrong. Mine is limited as well, in particular in comparison to WMC and Boris, but at least I'm aware of my limitations. As a rule, I am quite willing to be civil and friendly and explain things (within my time budget). However, I have no tolerance for misrepresentations and bad science. --] (]) 18:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
			For the Mediation Committee, ] (]) 16:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)<br>
	::::WMC: MN said he wanted to "get my mind off of it", not "blow off steam". Please don't misrepresent what MN said. ] (]) 18:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
			<small>(Delivered by ], ] the Mediation Committee.)</small>
	:::::WMC i said as was pointed out i wanted to do something to keep my mind off of the fact that a dog was chewing my 2 year old daughters face, your reply shows the sort of person you are. I will not interact with you again, ever. ] (]) 18:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
			}}
	:::::: Go to the hospital, now. Take the dog - it will likley need to be put down. Contrary to public opinion in the UK, there is rabies there. ] (]) 19:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	== Question ==		== ANI note ==
			Hi, I've quoted a discussion between you and another editor at a current ANI: ("Another contributor pointed out the personal attacks (]....)
	Stephan, what did you mean by ''"Is English your native language? You seem to fill in a lot of things not said with your assumptions."'' on my talk? ] (]) 11:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			I've been told it's polite to notify an editor being commented about, so I'm letting you know about the thread in question: ]. Alternatively, here's the . ] (]) 02:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
	:ATren, Having been and looked there is a bit of a non sequitor I think. WMC reverting someone whom he noted was "burying the embarrassing bits" does not amount to WMC being motivated to embarrass. e.g. I have removed "embarrassing bits" about the alleged paternity of Prince Harry from his article and people have occasionally put them back, recognising that they were embarrassing but motivated by the feeling they were sufficiently notable. Noting the embarrassing nature of something does not mean declaring it a consideration in its inclusion. Stephan is not a native English speaker but I suspect in this case his syntax may be adequate. --] ] 12:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Indeed. And this is not the only case where you (ATren) seem to fill in gaps in what was written with your own internal assumptions. --] (]) 12:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::I've laid out my case in detail below, in response to BozMo, in case you'd like to respond. ] (]) 12:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			== Christian parties ==
	::BozMo, nobody in that debate had ever used the word "embarrassing", or anything like it. WMC introduced that term, so it's a bit of a stretch for him to say someone else was moving it for that reason.
			I agree with your edit of the "same-sex marriage in Germany" article. I also think that the CDU isn't any more Christian than let's say the SPD. But when you compare the CDU to the Tories in the UK you nevertheless miss an important point. The CDU still emphazises a lot on its Christian background - something the Tories don't do. I want to give you a couple of examples: Peter Tauber's explanation why he voted in favor of same-sex marriages http://blog.petertauber.de/?p=3100, Volker Kauder on guiding principles of CDU politics http://volker-kauder.de/zur-person/politische-grundsaetze/index.html or Volker Kauder's explanation for the CDU's stance on social market economy http://volker-kauder.de/cms/upload/zur-person/C2.pdf I could go on and on with examples like that. I just take Peter Tauber, the CDU's general secretary, and Volker Kauder, leader of the CDU in the Bundestag, as an example. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::Furthermore, what ''was'' WMC's reason for including that in the lede? He's ''never told us that''. His assertion is that he listed "embarrassment" as ''not a reason to remove it'', but if that's the case, he should be able to tell us ''what '''his''' reasons were for including it'', right? If not embarrassment, then why? ''WMC has never answered this'', and still refuses to.
			:I don't know if you noticed it, but that edit was from 2013 ;-). Anyways, there are certainly some CDU members with a strong Christian belief, but that is shared by other parties. Yes, the UK conservatives may be even further down the line, as they never had "Christian" in their name, but the difference is marginal.As as you can see, CDU members can find reasons for and against the same position in Christian principles. --] (]) 08:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
			== John Christy article edit ==
	::Obviously, his reasons must be strongly rooted, because he reverted at least three times, twice reverting a ''sitting arbitrator'', so why does he refuse to detail them?
			Hi Stephan Schulz. I noticed that you changed the wording of my edit from:
	::There is also other evidence as well. As someone noted on the talk page at the time, there was other context to the Martian claim that was not included, context which qualified the claim and would have softened the "embarrassment" significantly. If the intent was not to embarrass, then why were the qualifications not included? Perhaps WMC can answer this as well, but he's ''never'' discussed his motivations for any of this.
			''Christy and his UAH colleague Richard McNider wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal in which they demonstrated that climate models projected temperatures consistently higher than real-world satellite and balloon data.''
	::But let's play devil's advocate and assume he was acting in good faith here: does it make any difference? Do we all agree that inserting an obscure, non-notable, 40-year-old out-of-context factoid into the ''lede'' of a BLP is a singularly ''bad'' thing to do? And then, to ''forcefully'' keep it there even though multiple people (including an arb) are strongly against keeping it there, isn't this the ''definition'' of tendentious editing behavior?
			to
	::Regardless of his motivation, this was very poor editing, and it indicates that this editor either (a) is motivated to embarrass or otherwise demean his opponents (bad faith) or (b) is '' fundamentally incapable of properly evaluating the appropriateness of including such claims'' (good faith). Either way, it's evidence that this editor should ''not'' be editing these topics.
			''Christy and his UAH colleague Richard McNider wrote a commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal claiming that climate models projected temperatures''
	::But even given all this, perhaps if WMC would ''explain'' the edit, ''acknowledge'' the inappropriateness of it, or even ''apologize'' for inserting it, we might be able to put this aside. But he ''steadfastly refuses to speak about it'' other than to deny his intent was to embarrass. Telling us what it ''wasn't'' is not enough, he needs to tell us what it ''was'', and then we can evaluate from there. ] (]) 12:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			I see your point of not putting too much weight on an opinion piece, and that my original wording did just that - but the new wording seems to suggest that all they do is claim the models are running hotter than satellite/balloon data. I notice in the article they do more than make a claim, they try to make their case and use satellite/balloon data and compare it to average model projections. I'm wondering if maybe the wording can be changed to something like
	:::I don't think this version of the ] is compelling. --] (]) 13:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::This is about what I expected -- you provide no explanation but shoot down others' explanations. Since you apparently have a better imagination than I, why don't you ''enlighten me'' as to his motivations?
			''Christy and his UAH colleague Richard McNider wrote a commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal '''arguing''' that climate models projected temperatures...''
	::::Or, another question: ignoring good/bad faith assumptions, do ''you'' think the edits were at all defensible? ] (]) 14:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I don't know his motivation, but I have several possible good faith explanation. As for the second question, BLP policy has evolved significantly over the last 18 months or so, and I don't think it's useful to now harp over ancient edits. --] (]) 14:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Stephan, BLP was firmly established at the time those edits were made, and besides, they were bad edits even without citing BLP -- at the very least, weight, notability and POV (the latter for pulling the claim out of context). And, please share your good faith explanations if you have them. Why are you being evasive? Maybe I'll even agree with you -- even if I can't "imagine" it myself, I might agree with it. ;-) ] (]) 14:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			I wanted to get your thoughts because it looks like you put some thought into your edit. ] (]) 17:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
	:::Personally I think the edits were bad, but then I said at the time I did not think they should be in the article so that's not surprising. There is a problem with the nature of human judgement which means it is very difficult to call bad faith on subjective judgement. I think Kim and WMC quite often make calls which I can completely understand but disagree with based on the fact they see patterns based on their field of view which run against my field of view. They obviously feel that we should give the WP audience a reasonable representation of what an individual is really like on a broad reading of notable sources. I generally feel that selection based on the stuff they see talked about is a real distortion risk. But they both listen to arguments and so do I. It is a bit like Iran. I regard Iran as a perfectly decent country with nice people who suffered greatly under an abusive US puppet government in the past and were a bit dramatic in breaking away from US control than some of our colonies were. People who live in New York and read the US newspapers often actually end up with the feeling that Iran is more evil than the US and argue stuff like the prime minister of Iran is globally most famous for winding up the Israelis (that's a prime minister, someone with some sort of notability inherently)! It is completely absurd, but perfectly reasonable US citizens honestly believe it and we have to deal with them. Perfectly decent people like Kim and WMC really think Martian stuff is representative of Singer. Being cross with them is not the answer. --] ] 14:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			:Well, the problem is that Christy and McNider were plain wrong, because Christy's (and Spencer's) interpretation of the satellite data was wrong over and over again. See ]. I would suggest that "claim" is strong enough. But I'm not strongly opposed to "argue". --] (]) 18:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
	::::But BozMo, this is the whole reason "perfectly decent people" <s>like Kim and WMC,</s> are ''topic banned'' -- because they are ''too close to recognize their own biases''. That's what we're ''supposed'' to do. When a Republican edits toward his own POV a Democrat's BLP, we warn him off, because he cannot be impartial. To continue the Iran anaology, if those "perfectly decent US citizens" come here and edit ] to reflect their POV, do we allow them to? <small><sup>Disclaimer: this is not a comment specifically on the Iran situation, about which I know too little to properly comment; I was just continuing the analogy</sup></small>
	::::The issue here is that the system is ''broken'' for these few editors. They have edited so long and have so many defenders that even when there is obvious evidence of either bad judgement (AGF) or bad intentions (ABF), they are still allowed to edit these articles. Now perhaps I have given the impression that I think they are "evil" for editing this way; if I did, then I did not intend to. It's not good versus evil, it's POV vs NPOV, and these editors (by virtue of their editing history alone) have too much of a POV to properly edit these BLPs, regardless of their intentions. Perhaps I've focused too much on the "intentions" part, and that's muddied the underlying POV issue. I may alter my arguments to emphasize that I'm not trying to prove intent, only show the intrusion of their POV into their editing. ] (]) 14:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Getting a bit ahead of yourself here - aren't you? When have i ever been topic-banned, banned or anything of the like? Do please tell. --] (]) 20:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::I'm sorry, BozMo listed you and WMC in his comment, and I responded clumsily. I've struck it. But I still stand by the points I made. ] (]) 20:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Not sure I agree with you on topic bans. Self=awareness of POV is important not having none (no-one has none). Outside BLPs I don't see much of an issue in CC. Within BLPs there are cases where this happens but I think re-education is better than banning. --] ] 15:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::OK, I'd be open to "re-education" -- but doesn't that start with the editor acknowledging there's an issue? Look at the rest of the discussion in this thread and tell me: is WMC even aware that the edit was bad, or why it was bad? I honestly can't tell, and despite repeatedly asking that simple question, I can't get a straignt answer from them. ] (]) 19:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::I am done here. I don't see why WMC should be held to a much higher standard than we hold others to. --] ] 22:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::Unbelievable. All I asked was for him to explain his edit, and I'm holding him to a higher standard. This entire conversation has been surreal. ] (]) 02:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::: Notice how ATren has elided different issues here. ''obvious evidence of either bad judgement (AGF) or bad intentions (ABF)'' - well, I disagree, but lets assume for the sake of argument these are true. That *still* doesn't lead on to 'it's POV vs NPOV'' - this is a simple logica failure ] (]) 15:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::That is because you ''reject the premise'' that this was a bad edit. That, in a nutshell, is the problem. ] (]) 16:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::: I was talking in general, rather than about any specific edit. If you're still stuck on the Martians stuff: yes you're correct: the substance is true. All you're arguing about is whether it belonged in the lede or not ] (]) 16:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::You well know that truth can be framed in such a way as to be misleading, and that's exactly what happened here when the context of the claim was left out. Do you disagree with that? And furthermore, misleading or not, do ''you'' still believe it belonged in the lede? ] (]) 16:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::But in any case, now that you've found this discussion, tell us: do you still believe that was a good edit? If so, why? And if not, then why did you believe so at the time? ] (]) 16:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::: Gosh you are intrusive aren't you? ] (]) 16:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::Why not just answer, WMC? ] (]) 16:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			::OK. Change made to "arguing". I also see that you put "claiming" instead of "using" for the scurvy example. I really don't see how this is an improvement, but what can one do? I don't want to start edit warring on this... <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	'WMC has never answered this, and still refuses to.'' - ATren is lying shamelessly ] (]) 15:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Then point me to your answer. ] (]) 16:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:: Even you can see the logical difference between not responding yet, and refusing. Once you've done that, and relaised that you were wrong above, you can strike your error ] (]) 16:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::I'm confused. Do you ''intend'' to respond, or do ''refuse'' to respond? ] (]) 16:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::As a computer person you should understand that this question can be truthfully answered "yes" or "no", wether he does answer or not. --] (]) 17:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Do I really have to draw a ] to interpret these responses? Why not just a straightforward answer to my straightforward questions? ] (]) 19:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::I too would be interested in reading WMC's rationale for edit warring to keep that information in the lede for the Singer article. ] (]) 04:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::As would I. This entire conversation is an excellent illustration of the many problems with this faction. When one person is asked to explain or answer, others join in and evade, then take umbrage on being called on that. Simple questions, put directly, are answered with evasion over and over, and attacks on the questioner thrown in for good measure. StS, you say you have several alternate explanations. Put some forward then. WMC, why are you unwilling to answer the questions asked you directly? Do you think no one notices your tactics? ++]: ]/] 04:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::If you are interested in in reading WMC's rationale, why do you ask me? ], you weaseled around with unspecific generalities, and then vanished when called on it... --] (]) 07:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::Well earlier in this thread you wrote ''"I don't know his motivation, but I have several possible good faith explanation"'', so you could share them. ] (]) 12:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	If you want to ask *me* a question, you know where my talk page is ] (]) 08:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Right, and if you guys have trouble locating it, here are some links to help: . :-/ ] (]) 12:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
			:::Well, after some reading, I think Christy's claim of a (wrong) scientific consensus on scurvy opposed by a few brave (correct) sceptics in the mid 18th century is bizarre. In general, we should not implicitly endorse unreliable opinion pieces by restating their claims in Misplaced Pages's voice. If you can find another phrasing that does not endorse the wrong claim, feel free to discuss it. Or go by ]. --] (]) 21:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
	== discussion ==
			== Dow Jones & Company is publisher of WSJ ==
	Your editing is being discussed at en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy). See the sockpueppets section <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			Regardless, ] is the publisher of the WSJ ... ? ] (]) 19:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
	== One would not know ==
			:It apparently wasn't in November 2007, when the article was published. The reference describes the provenience of the given article, not the current status of the WSJ. Moreover, ownership of a publishing house does not generally make the owner the publisher - the publishing house remains the publisher. --] (]) 20:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
			::Oy...I misunderstood you. You are more right than I thought ;-). --] (]) 20:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
			== ] of ] ==
			]
			The article ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
	You misspell like a native - and you catch the references, too. ] (]) 13:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
			<blockquote>insufficient evidence for notability</blockquote>
	:I've been reading much fiction in English ever since the later ] novels were only available in bowdlerised versions in German (or not at all). And I was teenager enough at the time to fail to notice how much bowdlerising improved them ;-). I also spend about a year in English-speaking countries, either teaching or doing science, and I've been online since 1986 or so. Some of that has left its mark. I recently found myself misspelling phonetically, something that for a long time I did not do. I don't know if that's a sign of increasing familiarity or early dementia, though... --] (]) 13:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Your colloquial English is very good (and it appears to be Brit-Eng rather than US-Eng, too), which requires the ability to think within the language and tends me toward a "familiarity" diagnosis - as does the ability to promptly recognise humour. Of course, not being a doctor and not even interested in selling snake oil on the internet means I am not an expert. ] (]) 14:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Well, whenever I feel that my level of English is dropping, I'm re-reading one of Dorothy L. Sayer's ] novels, which combine some of the most elegant English ever written on the meta-level with some interesting colloquialisms for direct speech. --] (]) 14:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
	== LHVU ==
			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
	Re your defence of LHVU: so you think his agreement with a 3 month ban for H makes sense? ] (]) 16:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
	:I think it's a mistake, but it's an honest mistake. I tolerate a wide range of opinions, as long as it's clear that they are opinions. --] (]) 16:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
			Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ''']''' (]) 01:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
	==Alrighty==
			:Well, I might have looked for more sources, but I was offline, cycling through Indochina for the last weeks. --] (]) 18:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
			== ANI Experiences survey ==
	You can go fuck yourself.] (]) 14:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
	:I think that's anatomically implausible. --] (]) 15:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
			Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
	== Request ==
			The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
	Can you translate this review for ] please )It`s dutch but i think that is similer to german?) ] (]) 08:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Hi Mark. Sorry. Dutch is about as similar to German as it is to the Anglo-Saxon part of English - in other words, not very. Grammar and roots are related, which makes it not to hard to learn, but apart from that it's completely incomprehensible. Dutch split from what would become current German before William the Bastard imported Norman French to Britain. --] (]) 08:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Never mind mate Andrew posted a translation on his Blog, can you tell me if the magazine coupled with the translation on BH qualify as reliable? ] (]) 09:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::I don't know the Dutch press very well, but would assume that the magazine qualifies. Montford's translation not, however. What do you want to use it for? --] (]) 09:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::It`s a review of the book. The magazine is a science magazine. ] (]) 09:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::So what do you want to use it for? And it's at best a popular science magazine (like e.g. ]). Those vary from rather good (like SA) down to tabloid level (like ]). --] (]) 10:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Sorry i want to use it`s review in the HSI article ] (]) 10:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::If you just want to use the review as is, the question is less one of reliability and more one of notability and weight. --] (]) 11:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::It`s a pretty notable magazine, it is the one which first published McIntyre`s and MckItrick stuff. But what does weight have to do with a book review? ] (]) 11:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::O and this one from Quadrant magazine ] (]) 11:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::Yes the science seems to be completely wrong! Several magazines have articles that say the Hockey Stick Illusion has debunked the science. That does not prove science wrong, you need scientific literature to prove science wrong. ] (]) 11:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::@Mark. You need to present exactly what you wish to use the source for (the text) so that we can confirm it meets requirements. ] (]) 11:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
			*https://wikimediafoundation.org/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement
	Erwin van den Brink writing in Natuurwetenschap & Techniek has said "The book The Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford, reveals a staggering picture of how those involved in climate science are dealing with criticism. The subtitle, “ClimateGate And The Corruption of Science”, was added at the last possible moment, as this final chapter is about "ClimateGate", the leaking of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia". <ref name="Erwin van den Brink">{{cite web|url=http://www.natutech.nl/00/nt/nl/48_63/product/59883/The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion.html|title=The Hockey Stick Illusion|last=van den Brink|first=Erwin|publisher=Natuurwetenschap & Techniek|page=1|accessdate=27 July 2010}}</ref>
			If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.
	John Dawson writing in Quadrant Magazine has said, "The Hockey Stick Illusion is the shocking story of a graph called the Hockey Stick. It is also a textbook of tree ring analysis, a code-breaking adventure, an intriguing detective story, an exposé of a scientific and political travesty, and the tale of a herculean struggle between a self-funded sceptic and a publicly funded hydra, all presented in the measured style of an analytical treatise.".<ref name="John Dawson">{{cite web|url=http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2010/7-8/the-tree-ring-circus|title=The Tree Ring Circus|last=Dawson|first=John|publisher=Quadrant Magazine|page=1|accessdate=27 July 2010}}</ref>
			*]
	The dutch translation is a bit rough, some guesswork in there i`m afraid ] (]) 11:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
			Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, ] ] 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
	:If I read NWT site correctly it isn't published in the magazine. The 'review' is actually located in the bookshop of NWT Online and so I wouldn't categorize it as a review, but as a blurb or sale pitch. NWT isn't unbiased in making the book look good. Now it could be that NWT's shop is still unbiased, but it would seem to me that this needs to be proven first. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			<!-- Message sent by User:PEarley (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=User:PEarley_(WMF)/ANI_survey_massmessage_list&oldid=17479636 -->
	:And a better translation would be: <blockquote>"The book The Hockey Stick Illusion by the British sciencejournalist Andrew Montford, reveals a staggering picture of how those involved in climate science are dealing with criticism. The subtitle, ClimateGate And The Corruption of Science, might have been added at the last possible moment and the same for a final chapter about "ClimateGate", the leaking of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia"</blockquote>With possibly moving the second sentence apart, as the first sentence is the ending of a paragraph and the second one a start of a new paragraph. Also I am unsure if sciencejournalist is a real word, but the word "wetenschapjournalist" means a journalist who only reports on science (hence my use of sciencejournalist).] (]) 15:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
			== ArbCom 2017 election voter message ==
	== Beyond the pale ==
			{{Ivmbox|Hello, Stephan Schulz. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
	Accusing me of being in a faction with "Scibaby"? That needs redaction, soonest. ++]: ]/] 17:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
	:You need to buy a sense of humour. I think it sells for US$ 3.88/bushel at Wallmart. And you need to stop making powerful but unsubstantiated pronouncements. Oh, and when I say "faction", I mean a mere "confluence of editors". --] (]) 18:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
	:: You need to include a smiley or some other marker. Given that you don't seem to have any ability for accepting humor, that's the least that can be expected. I nevertheless expect a redaction, or at least clarifying remark, at my talk. ++]: ]/] 18:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
	:::At the risk of repeating myself, "you need to stop making powerful but unsubstantiated pronouncements". --] (]) 18:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	==Voluntary CC article restriction==
	Please consider signing the CC restriction, as explained . ] (]) 01:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
	:I have (considered). Thanks. --] (]) 07:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
			If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
	== trademarks ==
			|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
			<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/10&oldid=813413927 -->
			== oscillatory motion ==
	Just find it funny that the circle-R is found on ''every single Misplaced Pages page'' (other than editing page for some reason). Years ago I got a letter insisting that the AMPAS needed the mark. ] (]) 11:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
	:I'm not an expert on trademark law, so I defer to the MOS. Note, however, that there are also plenty of instances of "Misplaced Pages" without a trademark sign, and they are on each page. IP owners are, in general, known for rather expansive interpretations of their rights... --] (]) 12:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
	::I had a course on patent and trademark law as applied to entrepreneurs, and the message given was that courts will only protect those who are zealous in protecting their intellectual property rights. Misplaced Pages is zealous by having the message on ''every'' content page. The requirement is only that each page have the note, not that every instance therein be also marked. Blame my background at CompuServe which was rigorous in requiring that forums avoid any legal hassles <g>. ] (]) 14:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
	:::...while here we gladly take on the ], and rejoice at the thought of being confused with ] and hence a target of ] ;-). --] (]) 14:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
	:::For clarification, zealously enforcing your ] is usually wise because worst case scenario you trademark can become a ] meaning you lose trademark protections. That article has a few examples, a modern one is how Google discourages people from using the word 'googling'. Patents however are a different matter. There is no real need for zealous enforcement AFAIK, hence ] and ] strategies can work. ] (]) 13:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
			Re-re-re-reading that edit about "oscillatory motion", what is the right way to remove nonsense from a sincere question? ] (]) 01:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			:In general, per ], you should not edit or remove others comments from public talk pages, unless they are clear vandalism. Since the ref desks operate very similarly to talk pages, I think it's a good idea to follow the talk page guidelines. On the content question, the statement is actually quite correct. A ship rolls essentially like a pendulum. Wave motion may start it going, but the period of the rolling motion is not the frequency of the waves, but the natural oscillatory rate of the ship. You can observe this with a small model if you tilt it to one side in calm water - the ] will make it roll back, but in doing so, it will pick up ] that keeps it going beyond the even keel and make it list to the other side, unto the righting moment stops that motion and reverses it - and the cycle repeats. --] (]) 01:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
			::Compare "would a big sheet that captures air make it possible to jump out of an airplane and stay alive?" answered with "You have to realize that Earth attracts any other object" The article on ] doesn't explain what happens once a ship starts rolling either. My question was if bubbles could prevent or counteract the whole movement, I obviously wasn't asking for a rehearsal of basic physics I learned 30 years ago. ] (]) 23:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
	I am not exact sure what you are referring to in this edit summary: , but he is identified as an environmentalist in the info box as well. ] (]) 17:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
	:I have no strong stance on the environmentalist or not issue (meaning, I don't think he is one in the prevalent sense of the word, but there are few good sources either way). I've reverted the edit in question because I believe ] is a ] of long-term disruptive and banned ]. --] (]) 17:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
	== reverted ==		== LOL ==
	Why did u revert my comment at ]? ] (]) 18:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)		Nice response on the Mathematics RD ! Yes, I did feel just a little bit embarrassed about proposing an engineering solution :) ] (]) 14:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
	:See my comment at you page. Clumsy fingers... ---] (]) 18:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)		: ;-) --] (]) 16:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
	::Thats cool. ] (]) 18:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
			== Happy Holidays ==
	== Question that maybe you know the answer to... ==
			{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	Hi, do you know of any easy way to check to see who assessed what articles for GA, FA and so on? I'd appreciate some guidance on this if you can. Thanks in advance, --]] 12:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
			|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
	:I don't think there is a better way than going to the article talk page and follow the links. GAR is usually done by one editor, but FAR is much more comprehensive, and a consensus process. That does not mean that you cannot slip a FAR for an obscure target in under the RADAR, though. --] (]) 13:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
			|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Happy Holidays'''
	::I think I found what I'm looking for. I don't know too much about this except what I've learned a bit about from ] who I think is one of the best in the field, at least that I'm aware of. Thanks for your help since I may have to go that route if I don't find what I'm looking for the way I'm doing it. Be well, --]] 13:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
			|-
			|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ ] (]) 00:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
			|}
			:Thanks! I'm ready for the break! Best wishes for the new year! --] (]) 00:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
	== Attention and participation ==		== Survey Invite ==
			I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.
	As you might know, ''The Signpost'' has been reporting on the Climate change case for the past several weeks. One of the drafting arbitrators is clearly unhappy with my reporting, and a couple of other users share a similar view. However, some users disagree (and on at least one occasion, one case participant disagreed with the objection raised (). Each user is obviously going to have their own opinion, but irrespective of the outcome, I think actual participants in the case (who are involved in the dispute or may be affected) should add their input. Therefore, I think your attention and participation is invited ]. ] (]) 09:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
			Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_6R0IacIaXfno1RX&Q_CHL=gl
	== In case... ==
			I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Misplaced Pages that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.
	...you haven't realized why the first revert didn't seem to work; you were seeing the cached version from the doc page. You had it right, it just needed a null edit. –]] 22:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
	:I was guessing there was some weird interaction with the caching system, but was not to certain. Thanks for confirming... --] (]) 22:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
	::It struck me as an odd photo for a CfD. –]] 22:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
			Sincere thanks for your help! ] (]) 23:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
	== Thanks ==
			== ] of ] ==
			]
			The article ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
	I wasn't very happy with myself but it was sourced to something explicitly linking it to Dr. Laura so chickened out in removing it ] (]) 13:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
			<blockquote>Every reference that exists has the competition organizer listed as one of its authors.</blockquote>
	:Actually, we ec'ed - I was going to remove the sentence you took out, as well. I don't see what this adds to the topic, and it does cast a negative light on the otherwise non-notable son. --] (]) 13:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
	== ] ==
			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
	Hi Stephan, to Talk:Halle Berry seems to have made a bit of a mess around line 325. I can't see what you were trying to do, so perhaps you can have a look and try to sort it out. Cheers --] (]) 23:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
			Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> <span style="background-color:#cee">]</span> ] 13:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
	: It's {{diff|Talk:Halle Berry|380009545|380006685|this edit}} and I {{diff|Talk:Halle Berry|380085631|380054224|fixed it}}. This seems a copypasta mistake of some sort; the text I cut is present elsewhere. Cheers, ] 03:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
	::No idea what happened there. But thanks for fixing it! --] (]) 04:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
			:Thanks for the pointer - I've added a few more references. There are plenty more at , but I'm off to the plane to (no joke) go to participate in this years IJCAR and CASC. --] (]) 13:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
	==Proportion==
			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
	is a bit of a stretch. Do you think you might strike it? ] (]) 04:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].
	:It's more than a stretch; it's ''shameful'' to compare a Misplaced Pages editor to a woman who risked her life to oppose segregation in the deep south. ] (]) 05:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
	::I stand by the comment, if not by ATren's interpretation. I've clarified it, though. --] (]) 21:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
			The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
	== "I'll be on the road in California, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada" ==
			Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> <span style="background-color:#cee">]</span> ] 13:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
	Five most entrancing things I saw in my road trips to Utah and (northern) Arizona (never been to California or Nevada, but it's high on the list); you may well have seen these already, most people could probably come up with a similar list:
	#Grand Canyon helicopter ride (only about 20 minutes, but No. 1 on the list; also: Grand Canyon at dawn, Grand Canyon at sunset; going up to the edge of one of the rocks; catching a glance of a mountain goat; making a mental list of all the languages I heard at the canyon (seven or eight); rolling down the windows in the drive just to the south of the canyon to catch the scent of the pines; the tarantula I saw for the first time; souvenir paperweights of scorpions and tarantulas under glass that my nephew and cousins kept for years after I gave the things to them as gifts; hell, every damn thing about the canyon);
	#] -- surprisingly affecting; it is one enormous piece of geography made by man. May be farther to the north than you're going (just south of Salt Lake City). You stand next to a truck the size of a small house. You look down into the pit at trucks the same size that look like the tiniest insects. That hole is one of the biggest things ever made by human beings that you can see at once -- kind of like Manhattan, but all made by one organization.
	#Monument Valley. Like the Grand Canyon, no pictures can quite prepare you for the feeling of being so small in that huge landscape. ] comes close. ] had his ashes scattered over Monument Valley after his death.
	#Southeast Utah. The closest thing to the planet Mars on Earth. Red rock. Sky. Nothing else. Nothing. (Actually, ], by design, and inspired by Krazy Kat.)
	#This
	#Bonus: ] enormous piece of geography created by a meteor. Iron filings on the ground, from the meteor.
	:-- ] (]) 00:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
	:Thanks a lot. We are somewhat limited because we have 3 set times and places to be (friends, and a pre-booked Hotel in Vegas), but I'll keep this in mind. In particular Meteor Crater! --] (]) 06:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
			== Change the name of: ] by ''StartPage'' ==
	==Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision==
	I inadvertently missed you out earlier and have had to carry this out now. I've put this on editors' talk pages where they have been !voting - feel free to reword if you think what I've done isn't quite right. "Please note that contributors should not be voting here. I'd appreciate it if you'd remove your !vote (and reword if appropriate). What we are looking for is constructive criticism (such as alternate wordings or alternate remedies) . If you aren't around I may remove your !vote myself, and you might want to then modify your comment. If you need to respond, please respond on my talk page. Thanks." On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 18:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
	:I don't really understand the request. I think the proposal in question is fundamentally flawed and should be rejected. I stated one reason why. If you object to the !vote form, feel free to strike the vote part and leave just the argument. But I see no point it providing alternate wordings for a proposal that is simply broken. --] (]) 08:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
			Good morning. I think that you should change the name of: ] by ''StartPage''. Since the name of: ] is out of date. The updated name is: ''StartPage''. Thank you. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	== Questions ==
			:Hi Notewiki2000. I see that there is a RfC already underway. If it terminates successfully, and I'm not too late, I can do the move. --] (]) 09:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
			== Automated theorem provers ==
	If you are able to do so, a response to would be appreciated. ] (]) 18:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
	:Answered there, hopefully in a useful manner. --] (]) 08:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
			You probably have noticed I am undertaking some improvement attempts on articles relating to automated theorem proving .... please be aware I struggle with the topic and am to a degree mainly concerned with getting citations attached to existing articles and am most happy for any contributions I make to be improved. Thankyou. 04:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
	== Kohnen Station ==
			:You are very welcome. I have a bit of expertise, but my time is rather limited (I need to maintain one ;-). --] (]) 07:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
			== ArbCom 2018 election voter message ==
	Hi. I just imported ] from de, but (ahem) left some of it in Foreign due to my abysmal German. You couldn't give it a quick polish could you? Thanks ] (]) 21:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
			{{Ivmbox|Hello, Stephan Schulz. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
	: Actually, I may have garbled a bit: I thought it was just the logistic base, but it looks like they drilled a core too... I'll try to fix it up ] (]) 21:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
	::I couldn't find any foreign in it. I'll go over it when I'm back in Germany (albeit I've been hoodwinked into giving a presentation at a meeting that starts on ] Monday - I come back on Saturday, and going East is always hard for me...). --] (]) 03:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
	:::I'll check it vs. the es one. ] (]) 04:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	== Did you ever get to see ==
			If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
	Meteor Crater? -- ] (]) 01:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
			|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
	:No, nor even the Grand Canyon or Monument Valley. I did get to climb ], though, and hike Navajo Loop in ]. We had such a good time that we will probably go back next year - the main question is if we do the South-West again, to check the missing attractions, or wether we go for Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons. --] (]) 07:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/10&oldid=866998363 -->
	::I saw Angels Landing from below and stopped at Bryce briefly, but since I wasn't hiking or camping, I don't think I got the real value of those visits. Bryce is nice, but the WP article doesn't have a picture that really captures the forest-of-chimneys rocks I saw. Yellowstone has a new visitor center. -- ] (]) 15:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
	:::I could do without the camping in most parks, but we did camp in Lassen Volcanic, Yosemite, Bryce, Arches (well, Moab, Arches was fully booked) and Canyonland. We booked anything from boutique hotels to Motel 6 at the other places. But if you don't hike, you really miss some of the best parts. The view from Angels Landing or the rim of ] is unimaginable. And it's so amazingly quite - coming back into a city with all the traffic was quite a shock. I'll check through my images if there is anything good from Bryce I can upload. But have you checked ]? --] (]) 15:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
	:::Take a look at ] or ]. --] (]) 22:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
	::::Yes, those do it. I like this one with the frosting (but I was there about this time of year and never saw it that way). ] Yes, I remember the quiet in the daytime (were there crickets at night?). I've got I-95 to listen to here (I guess electric cars and trucks will eventually make it quieter). Around here, being outdoors means you have to take precautions against West Nile Virus and ticks with Lyme disease, and it lowers my enthusiasm for hiking. I hear people still get bubonic plague in the Four Corners area, apparently because rats and the like get among the garbage. Here we had a coyote in the back yard yesterday near the garbage bin. Why go out to see nature when eventually nature just comes to us? ... Well, maybe for the quiet. And the views. -- ] (]) 00:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
	::::And don't forget to pack the zucchini. -- ] (]) 00:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
			== sorry, but... ==
	==Comment on enforcement page==
	Stephan, your comment is a blatant personal attack on another editor, with no justification provided. I am sorry to escalate, but I do not believe Misplaced Pages can tolerate such comments. If you wish to reconsider I would gladly withdraw my request. Thank you, ] (]) 22:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
	:No, it is not. It's an observation. It's not a nice observation, but then it's neither a nice situation nor nice behavior. --] (]) 22:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
	::I'm sorry you don't seem to see the need for a boundary in what we say about each other. I suspect if everyone were permitted to do this, eventually you might see the problem. ] (]) 23:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
	:::Oh, I see boundaries. But they cannot be allowed to become impediments to communication. See ]. --] (]) 23:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
	::::Stephan, while your observation is correct saying such things can and will be used against you. Honesty is ''not'' the best policy on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 00:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Yeh, found a whopping list of diffs against me. I should have listened to you, R. ] (]) 22:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
	:::::While you are certainly right, don't forget the latest Cabal newsletter, where the change of roles was announced. Dr. Bill will become the patient, wise, silent guy, you take over his role as the valiant and compassionate defender of the big climate lie, and I get to stay the uncontrollable monkey clown nobody but Cla68 takes serious. --] (]) 21:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Sorry, it went into my spam folder. Carry on... ] (]) 13:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
			I'm not remembering where I know you from! —] (]) 18:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
	== Just a quick question ==
			:Maybe you don't. I know you as the C-FAQ maintainer from the glory days of Usenet, when I was just a young student in university. --] (]) 18:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
			== ArbCom 2019 special circular ==
			<div class="notice" style="background:#fff1d2; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height:40px; line-height:130.7%; font-weight: 130.7%;">
	I'm just tying up loose ends here but, but could you please clarify whether you see yourself as an involved admin for on-going CC enforcement purposes or not? The reason I'm asking is that I was sure I'd seen a posting from you on just this point but can't find it anywhere. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 13:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
			{|
	:I think you might have seen my reply that is now archived away. In short, I don't think you are heading towards a good definition of "involved" if you rely on content contributions as the only or primary factor, and I also don't think involvement in one part of the climate change topic necessarily implies involvement in other parts. I'm uninvolved per the definition used in the CC probation, but I don't claim I'm totally uninvolved, and I have not acted as an uninvolved admin in the last several weeks. However, unless the committee explicitly decides otherwise, I will continue to perform routine admin actions as I have in the past. I'm not aware that any of those has raised any criticism except for one opinion months after the fact that I have explicitly and invite the committee to investigate and rule on. --] (]) 13:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
			|valign="top" style="padding: 0.5em 1em 0 0.25em;"| ]
	::Thanks for the diff and the clarification. I'm not really talking about routine admin actions: I was specifically asking about enforcement of discretionary sanctions. I hope this helps ... &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 13:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
			|<span style="font-size: 125%;">'''Administrators ] secure their accounts'''</span>
			The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
			* Use strong, unique passwords for your Misplaced Pages account and associated email
			* ] if your Misplaced Pages account password or email password is reused on another website, , or weak
			* ] for improved security
			|}
			<span style="color:#5871C6;cursor:pointer" class="mw-customtoggle-ArbCom_2019_special_circular">{{clickable button 2|1=View additional information|link=no}}</span>
			</div><div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-ArbCom_2019_special_circular" style="display:none">
			<div style="border-style: dotted; border-color: #886644; border-width: 0 3px 3px 3px; padding: 0 0.5em 0.5em 0.5em;">
			{| style="border-left: 3px solid black; padding-left: 1em;"
	== Obama - Anon ip issue on Sanctions page ==
			|{{null}}
			; Why have I received this message?
			: All administrators are receiving it.
			; What prompted you to send this message?
	Hello ], I am writing to direct your attention to an issue ]. At the very least, contains legal threats. Thanks. ] (]) 15:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
			: Recently, several Misplaced Pages admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were ]. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh ] after losing control of their account.
	:Thanks for letting me know. I don't think I can usefully reply, but if you bring it to ] attention, I expect someone to take care of this. --] (]) 15:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
			; What do I need to do?
	== bloody fantastic ==
			: Only to follow the instructions in this message.
			:# Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).
			:# Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).
			:# Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers.
			; How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)?
	wow ] (]) 12:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
			: You can find out more about 2FA at ].
	:You're welcome! --] (]) 12:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
			|}</div>
			</div>
			<small>This message was sent to all administrators following a ]. Thank you for your attention. For the ], ] 02:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)</small>
	== Check your email ==
			<!-- Template:ArbCom 2019 special circular -->
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cameron11598@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Bradv/Adminlist-mms&oldid=891852932 -->
			== Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular) ==
	Thanks ] (]) 12:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
	:Either the Intertubes are jammed, or you wrote to me under an unexpected pseudonym on an unexpected topic, or you forgot to press "send". About when should I have received something? --] (]) 12:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
	::Whatever Doug tells you, do ''not'' send him a cashier's check. No matter how much of Saddam's gold he promises you. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 15:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
	:::Ever since I got that US$150 million in diamonds from South Africa I've refrained from taking up lesser offers, no matter how much I would like to help widows, orphans, deposed ministers, and bank employees to secure their hard-stolen funds from the rightful owners. --] (]) 15:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
	::::You mean you've never replied to the Nigerian finance minister? He tells me that he has a very special offer for you... ] (]) 16:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Sorry, wrong Stephan. My bad. ] (]) 08:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Ok. No worries. Some people got some amusement out of it, at least. ;-) --] (]) 09:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
			ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
			Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are ] to "have strong passwords and ]." We have ] our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, ] remains an ''optional'' means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
			We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
			For the Arbitration Committee, -] 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)</small>
	== ] ==
			<!-- Template:ArbCom 2019 special circular correction -->
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cameron11598@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Bradv/Adminlist-mms&oldid=891852932 -->
			== Task force climate change ==
	This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
			Hello Stephan Schulz,
	* A ] of ] is authorized for the entire topic area of climate change. Enforcement requests are to be submitted to ], which is to replace ].
	* Experienced administrators, and especially checkusers, are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the topic area.
	* Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages or ] of them.
	* The following editors are banned from the topic area of climate change, and may not appeal this ban until at least six months after the closure of this case (and no more often than every three months thereafter);
	<div style="margin-left: 4em;">{{div col|cols=3}}
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	{{div col end}}</div>
	* The following users have accepted binding voluntary topic bans;
	**]
	**]
	* The following administrators are explicitly restricted from applying discretionary sanctions as authorized in this case, as is any other administrator fitting the ];
	**]
	**]
			You are currently noted as a participant of the ]. With much of the activity in this task force about ten years ago, I think it's time for a revival. Global warming is getting a lot of attention in the media now and it's therefore important our articles are up-to-date, accurate and neutral.
	On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,<br/> ] (]) 18:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
			I've updated the task force page and the to do list and invite you to have a look at the page again, add something to the TO DO list or start collaborating by improving one of our many articles.
	== {{user|Sunrise Hunter}} ==
			] (]) 16:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
	Howdy, I went ahead and moved Sunrise Hunter to a indef block as a VOA. One pro forma comment, one about how Misplaced Pages has failed, and then a rapidfire sequence of vandalism does not seem to be an asset to the project. Feel free to change if you disagree, but it seems like a straightforward VOA situation to me. --] (]) 10:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
	:No, I'm fine. I just saw them on the rampage so slapped on a block to stop them now without wasting much time to evaluate overall behaviour. See my block comment. --] (]) 10:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
			== "Don't see why ANY IPs or new users need to edit this page" ==
	== '']'' ==
			That {{xt|undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used for discussions internal to the project}} reference is not a ground for excluding IPs, which are not accounts. Checking the history, the protection came at 23:26, 12 June. The only undisclosed alternative account that had posted prior was "A poet not named Sam". To exclude all IPs when the matter could have been dealt with by blocking the account was wrong. I hope you will unprotect. ] (]) 15:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
	I have copy-edited the plot section per your request at DYK? It now no longer looks like a three year old wrote it. I think it could easily pass for an twelve year old's writing at this point. ] (]) 16:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
	:I went over it, too, so now it's probably at the level of an 11 year old foreigner. Can you verify that I picked the right proposer for the last sentence? --] (]) 17:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
	::Oops, I didn't notice you had even edited it. You got it right, it really is a crazy movie; one minute he's trying to rape her, then he apologizes and she accepts his marriage proposal. Also, the Tommy character becomes convinced she's prostituting herself and he barges into her home and yells at her "My money's just as good as theirs. Just close your eyes and pretend I'm one of them!" I added some info to clarify the plot and who the characters are a little. Not sure about the hook, will think of a different one later if this one doesn't work. ] (]) 19:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
	:::I put an alternate one in there, but I'm not gonna lie, its not great. I'll see if I can think of another one tomorrow. ] (]) 10:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
	::::Yes, I saw it, and found it, to be honest, a bit boring. But maybe others like it better. If I have time, I might think of one myself. Unfortunately, we have no secondary source for the plot - you could make something very hooky from those relationships. --] (]) 11:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Oh there's this: and I used it when writing the plot section to help myself remember all the details, I just didn't link it there because usually plot sections don't have citations. I tried two more hooks, but they're bland as well. No worries if it gets bypassed. ] (]) 07:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
			== Editorial Independence to Force Communication ==
	== Automated reasoning ==
			Hi Stephan, would you agree to modify your ] to my suggestion, to use ] instead, to warn all editors that they are subject to secret behavioral rules by secret judges based on secret accusations, with no right of representation, defense, or appeal, and provide instructions for contacting the Board, CEO, and Chief of Community Engagement to ask for a revision to the T&S policy? ] (]) 05:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
	Hi Stephan,
			:Hi Ellen! Sure. Given the initial reaction, this is probably a better idea. How do we do this technically after people have already commented? The easiest might be "Proposal 6"... --] (]) 05:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
	I am new on Misplaced Pages and this is my first article editing. Please give me more suggestions and ideas how to make it better. Thank you.
			::Please do, and copy my " '''Support''' ] (]) 05:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC) " into it, please, as I have to travel now. You might also want to {{tl|hat}} Proposal 5, up to you. ] (]) 05:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
	--] (]) 07:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
	:I think you are doing well. Make sure you add enough sources, and just keep adding content. Sometimes the Wikimagic works and massages what you provide until it is even better. --] (]) 07:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
	==conceded==		== Burke ==
	I cannot match this as a comment... --] ] 07:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
	:I admit it was a low blow... --] (]) 10:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
	::talking of which I have to see my German cousins again soon so you could help me prepare. How many decades is it since the last significant German mathematician died? --] ] 13:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
	:::Hmmm. Germany shipped off nearly all working brains in the 30s and 40s, and recovery has been slow. Do you count the exported ones? Hilbert died in 1943. Zermelo ten years later. Löwenheim died 1957, and Ackerman puts us into 1962. Zorn is one that left during the Nazi regime, he died in 1993. Konrad Zuse (d. 1995) was more of an engineer. Nobody later comes to my mind right now - but I'm a computer scientist. Few of us have had the time to die yet ;-). --] (]) 13:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
			Don't feel bad about Burke - just because he's been rather hijacked by loony-tunes on the right of late doesn't negate all the good in him. See, for example, ]'s ''Liberty and the Liberal Heritage'' for a rather different perspective than we are used to seeing today. ] (]) 10:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
	== Your vandalism of Keith Briffa ==
			:Yes, I know. It just struck me that "be very careful when changing an existing working system, even with the best intentions", is a very Burkesian conservative position. And maybe also an engineering perspective ;-). --] (]) 11:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
			== climate change task force ==
	Dear Dr Schulz, could you please immediately stop vandalizing the article about ]? Thank you very much. Are you a sockpuppet of William Connolley? --] (]) 14:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
	:I've read this. --] (]) 14:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
			Hi Stephan, I'm just guessing here... do you want to remain listed as "active" at the climate change task force? There has been nothing doing there forever, but it seems there might be some interest reviving it or converting it to a project. ] (]) 04:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
	== You beat me to it! ==
			:Hi NAEG! I still check the Watchlist somewhat frequently to spot problems, but I'm busy with other research, so I'm not that active. But sure, keep me listed! --] (]) 05:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
			== Please support the ]! ==
	They're not even very hard any more. We used to get a better class of trolls than this... ] (]) 16:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
	:See the quote on my main page... --] (]) 16:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
			] the Wikimedia Sustainability Initiative!]]
	== Emacs ==
			Hi Stephan Schulz, as a member of WikiProject Climate Change, I would like to invite you to support the Wikimedia ] by adding your name to the ]. Thank you, --] (]) 18:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
	Okay, I'm downloading Emacs 23.2 for Windows. Maybe that will be better. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">— ] <font color="#000000">(])</font></span> 01:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
			:Thanks for asking. But while I think sustainability is an important topic, I'd rather stay focussed on more narrow scientific topics. --] (]) 18:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
	{{cot|Previous post before I started the download}}
			==Mainstream view source issue==
	I think I've found the file that you mentioned over at the ]. It wasn't a <tt>.emacs</tt> file, but a <tt>.emacs-singular-cust</tt> file. Whatever one of those is. Anyway, here's the contents:
			Hi Stephan, don't want to distract your focus, but I'd very much appreciate your assistance with assessing a potential source. ] is stuck due to lack of a good reliable secondary source for the current outcome; the best so far is a which asserts the anti-science view uncritically. from Mainz presents a mainstream position, and in google translation looks pretty good to me. The magazine claims it's "written by independent journalists from all over the world." Can you give a quick assessment of how good this is as a reliable source, and perhaps how it compares to the newspaper piece? . . . ], ] 19:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
	(custom-set-variables
			:Hi Dave. I read the article - I think it's a good article, everything that maps onto my mental model checks out. It does not, however, clearly state the actual outcome - it mostly refutes claims by (some) interested parties. I've not heard of the magazine previously - it's certainly not a classical mainstream journalistic outlet. From looking at the authors and some publications, it's a (US-)liberal leaning outlet, it tries to provide quality journalism, but with a lot of opinion pieces. It's about 2.5 years old, and certainly has some intellectual heavyweights (e.g. ]) among its authors. But I doubt if it is convincing as a principal source on a politically disputed topic. I've personally had some discussion with friends about the Ball/Mann lawsuit, and about all we could agree on is that so far, there is a lack of reliable sources on the outcome. --] (]) 20:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
	'(Info-button1-follows-hyperlink t)
			::Thanks Stephan, that's very helpful. Will think it over, sounds better than other current options but hope good quality clarification appears fairly soon. . . . ], ] 20:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
	'(complex-buffers-menu-p t)
	'(font-lock-maximum-decoration t)
	'(kill-whole-line t)
	'(line-number-mode t)
	'(mouse-yank-at-point t)
	'(next-line-add-newlines nil)
	'(paren-mode (quote paren) nil (paren))
	'(require-final-newline nil)
	'(show-paren-mode t nil (paren))
	'(singular-cursor-key-model (quote terminal))
	'(singular-help-same-window t)
	'(singular-section-face-alist (quote ((input . singular-section-input-face) (output))))
	'(transient-mark-mode t)
	'(truncate-lines t)
	'(uniquify-buffer-name-style (quote post-forward-angle-brackets)))
	(custom-set-faces
	'(font-lock-comment-face ((t (:bold nil :foreground "Red"))))
	'(font-lock-doc-string-face ((((class color) (background light)) (:foreground "green4"))))
	'(font-lock-function-name-face ((t (:bold t :foreground "blue3"))))
	'(font-lock-keyword-face ((t (:bold t :foreground "violet"))))
	'(font-lock-string-face ((((class color) (background light)) (:foreground "green4"))))
	'(font-lock-type-face ((t (:bold t :foreground "violet"))))
	'(font-lock-variable-name-face ((t (:foreground "black"))))
	'(info-node ((t (:foreground "blue" :bold t :italic t))))
	'(info-xref ((t (:foreground "blue" :bold t))))
	'(paren-match ((t (:foreground "Red"))) t)
	'(show-paren-match-face ((((class color)) (:foreground "Red"))))
	'(singular-section-input-face ((t (:bold t))))
	'(singular-section-output-face ((t (:bold nil)))))
	I tried to use your code, but I couldn't. Can you suggest some changes to make the Emacs readable? <span style="white-space:nowrap;">— ] <font color="#000000">(])</font></span> 00:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
	{{cob}}
			== Aye ==
	==DYK for The British Alpine Hannibal Expedition==
			{{User QAIbox
	{{tmbox
			| title = ]
	|style = notice
			| image = Apfelbaum und Pappeln, Ehrenbach.jpg
	|small =
			| image_upright =
	|image = ]
			| bold =
	|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], )</small> and add it to ] if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the ].
			| normal = ... with thanks from ]
	}} ] (]) 06:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
			}}
			Thank you for having supported ]. --] (]) 09:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
			:I still miss his with and insight... --] (]) 10:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
			:: So do I. I kept it in my edit notice (to stay for my wikilife), on my talk throughout 2019, and on top on my talk today, - simply the (if you click on precious), and many have been wonderful. --] (]) 13:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
			:: Today, I am proud of a , ], finally! - I moved both threads back ]. --] (]) 19:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
			== A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process ==
	== Barnstar ==
			Hello!
			The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate ] that followed ] you’ve been part of.
	{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
	|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
	|rowspan="2" |
	|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Reference Desk Barnstar'''
	|-
	|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Thank you for being so patient and inversting so much time while trying to help me resolve my Emacs and SINGULAR problems. Your kind acts do not go unnoticed and are very much apprciated. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">— ] <font color="#000000">(])</font></span> 15:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
	|}
	:Thanks a lot. I'll put it onto the front lawn with the others. --] (]) 21:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
			Please fill out to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
	==]==
	You are invited to participate in the ''']''' which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in ], and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 26 October 2010 (UTC)
			The privacy policy for this survey is . This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
	== Your comment at Rogers Talk Page ==
			Thank you for your participation, ] 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
	"I can't help the feeling that this debate is not concerned with precedence and fairness, but with justifying a predetermined result and getting it over with as quickly as possible."
			<!-- Message sent by User:Trizek (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=User:Trizek_(WMF)/sandbox/temp_MassMessage_list&oldid=19553910 -->
			== ArbCom 2019 election voter message ==
	Exactly. And in the haste to reach a pre-determined result, they are creating dangerous precedents.
			<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
	* "Is it OK to block someone for violating a topic ban even if they didn't violate the ban? Sure, why not, they did it to WMC, so it must be OK."
			<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2019|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
	* "Is it OK to redefine a well-know term to mean something else so you can impose a block? Sure, why not, they did it to WMC, so it must be OK." --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 13:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
	::Power grabbing without community approval, very dangerous and very silly. ] (]) 15:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
	:::]. Or, in this case, "Do not prefer temporary convenience to painful consensus". --] (]) 15:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	==It's raining thanks spam!==
	* Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
	* There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (], ], ], and ]). You can also consider becoming a ]. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for ] yourself!
	* If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks &bull;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 02:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
			If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. ] (]) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
	== Talk:Man ==
			</td></tr>
			</table>
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Coordination/MMS/01&oldid=926750232 -->
			== Book project, request for interview - How to Build a Fact: The Misplaced Pages Paradox and the Perilous Future of Knowledge ==
	I see you and R.A. crossed out some alleged sock entries. Trouble is, those editors are not currently blocked for sockpuppetry. Although you might be privy to inside info. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
	:See ]. If they aren't blocked yet, they should be soon. --] (]) 22:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
	::Aha, a sock farm. Which still leaves open the question of where SAT came from. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
	::I like the sockmaster's comment on the 28th, "... if I had a wife, I wouldn't want her looking at it either...", which says more about the editor than he might have intended. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
			Greetings!
	:I'm kind of surprised that {{Userlinks|Ben Dawid}} wasn't on the list. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
			I hope this finds you well, considering everything that is happening. My name is Nathaniel James. I am writing a book that will very much hinge on telling the story of the creation and maintenance of the Global Warming article, and I hope you’d be willing to talk with me about it. The working title for my book is How to Build a Fact: The Misplaced Pages Paradox and the Perilous Future of Knowledge. I published a longer overview about the project at the Village Pump and on my ], including more background information about me, and I encourage you to take a look for the broader context.
	== Yeah I'm 9 ==
			Samantha Lien of the Foundation did some asking around for key editors on the Global Warming article. Just to be transparent, she also recommended Raul654 and William Connelly, and I am reaching out to them as well. I would love more referrals for people to talk with. I also want to check with the three of you to see if it would be ok and not disruptive to occasionally reach out to Global Warming editors on the article’s Talk page.
	but I aint taking no shit from you. You think you're all that cos of ur admin powerz? You can't stop me you little bitch! I'm gonna mash you to a pulp... ] (]) 09:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
	:What are the chances that this character (now blocked) is the guy in that Sun piece? His typing is about as bad, but that's the internet for ya. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 10:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
			Would you be open to an interview?
	== Re: ] ==
			At this stage, I’ll be doing what I’m calling “framing interviews” with the goal of getting input on what core editors think are/were the most important moments or elements in the history of the article that I can research more deeply. I think 30-40 minutes will suffice. In the future, I hope you will be open to at least one longer interview in which my questions will be more specific and shaped by my research. To give you a sense of timeline, I am focused on writing a proposal, including a sample chapter that is not directly linked to the Global Warming article. Then I will focus on the first section of the book, which is actually about the French Encyclopédie of the period leading up to their Revolution, so it will probably be quite a while before I come back for a longer interview. But I think being in dialogue with key Global Warming editors early will help me shape the narrative overall.
	It's the irony,I think.
	Some countries have special relationships (for example,80% of our exports go to the USA) and just as with personal relationships, the connections are usually quite complex and hard to fathom by others. In this case its somewhat like a married couple where one spouse just doesn't appear to see what others might see in the other spouse...but really he or she sees it very clearly....BUT also is committed to the relationship and makes a conscious choice to assume the best motives on the part of the spouse and...now get this...knows that the spouse is capable of good behaviour when he/she wants to be and sometimes refuses to clean up the mess made by the spose's bad behaviour but insists that he/she clean it up mostly by themselves. A case could be made that the other western countries who came rushing in to get their citizens out were acting in a ] manner, in effect, taking the problem off of the Pentagon's hands, whereas Canada maybe took the position: "Ok, you say this person is a terrorist and a threat and a murderer, you locked him up as a child and took away his civil rights, we're assuming you've got really good evidence for doing this to one of our citizens so we want and expect to see you follow through with a trial and evidence to justify what you have done." I realize this is not a soundbite but seldom are important events adequately addressed with soundbites. I can assure you, Canadians are the least naive people on the planetn with the possible exception of the Russians, but we have become blood allies with the American people because of WW1,WW2,Korean War and Aghanistan War + extreme cross-border breeding, physically and commercially, which means we expect America to treat our citizens with respect and justice and, usually, what one expects is what one gets; the other thing to remember about Omar Khadr is . ] (]) 20:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
			Thanks for taking a look. Feel free to ask me anything. If you’re open to an interview in the next couple of weeks, I can send you a scheduling link to save on the back and forth.
	== Your reference desk contribution ==
			Cheers,
	Hi Stephan! I issued a general thanks to everyone who replied to my question about LaTex at the reference desk, but I want to acknowledge your answer, especially. I probably would have given up on the idea of learning to use it if you hadn't stepped in with your comments. Thanks so much for giving me the benefit of your lights, there. I appreciate it. Best, &nbsp;–&nbsp;<font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 05:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
	:You're welcome. It took a while for me to get into LaTeX, but I find it excellent for many applications, especially now combined with PDF generating drawing tools. Last year, I prepared slides for a new course, and I found ] and LaTeX to be both somewhat painful, but for different reasons. Keynote was great for images and funky effects, LaTeX (with the Beamer class) was much better for anything mathematical, surprisingly better for some simple but useful funky effects, and much better at helping me produce content. In the end, I had 6 lectures in Keynote with embedded LaTeX formulae, and 8 in LaTeX with embedded images generated in Keynote. Of course, the students only saw PDF. Also of course, slides are really not where LaTeX main strengths lies, though once they have acquired the basic toolset, people use it for both slides and even posters. --] (]) 08:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
	::LaTeX is a very steep learning curve, and once you get past it, it can make your life easier from producing everyday nice-looking documents to submitting academic papers to even making websites. Plus, lots of other software uses LaTeX and/or TeX interpreters. So I'm glad you're not giving up! ] (]) 08:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
	:::Thanks again, Stephan, for this additional info, and you too, Awickert, for your encouragement. &nbsp;–&nbsp;<font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 14:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
			NJ
	== Erdös number ==
			] (]) 02:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
			:Hi Nathaniel! Sure, I'm willing to help, although I'm fairly busy. And you kinda stole my idea, if from the opposite angle (I've had the title ''Promoting the big lie - Misinformation in the age of information transparency'' in my todo file since long before ''Merchants of doubt'' came out, with chapters planned on Revisionism, Creationism, and Global Warming denial (entries not related to automated theorem proving in that file tend to not be done (yet!))). If you send me an email (the link on Misplaced Pages should work, or find my home page via the user page - it also has the address), I can send you some more suggestions in a more private environment - I'm fine with discussing this in public, but I don't know if everybody else is. Also, if you plan an interview, it's probably a good idea if you can send me a few of the core questions up-front, so I can refresh my memory with respect to particular dates via the Misplaced Pages history). --] (]) 06:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
			== Snow close of RfC re ]? ==
	Hmmm, looking into the Erdös number question leaves me unhappy(not with you). I'll recite the facts that led me to post it, but I'll have to remove it.
			Could you as – if I'm not mistaken – an uninvolved admin have a look at the following?
	In 1998, John Burtkett, Steve MacIntyre and Rob Painter were collegues of mine. The four of us co-authored a pair of papers, with the involvement of our boss, Steve Sonlin. Those papers were submitted, accepted and published. Then, John Burkett and I worked on consolidating the two papers into a single paper for submission. We ended up abandoning that effort. All of us worked on both papers. When it came time to submit, my recollection was that we put Rob and Tom's name on one, with myself and John on the other. I just checked, and my recollection is flawed, as I was paired with (item 3 on the list) while Tom was paired with . I had totally forgotten that Steve was named. I guess I "remembered" being paired with John because we were working on the rewrite together and he reported to me.
			Just a few days ago on the following question: "Should the page ] be categorized as a guideline or a (type of) essay"? Although the discussion – which was somewhat acrimonious at times – has lasted only three days, the editor who opened this RfC wrote:
	While working on the rewrite, and putting together author CV, John mentioned he had co-authored a paper as part of his thesis work with his thesis advisor at school, and by the way, his thesis advisor had once co-written a paper with Paul Erdös. I was gobsmacked, as my co-authorship with John gave me an attractive number. However, as we did not complete the rewrite article, I technically cannot claim the credit. I thought I remembered thinking that abandoning the rewrite didn't cost me the number, because I had the original paper with John, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Too bad, as the original assignment of authors could have been just about any combination, but it is what it is, so I'll remove it. The irony is that when I saw the template, it meant someone here cares about it, and I had hoped someone would ask. What unfortunate timing.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 20:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
			If I have counted correctly, one contributor opined this was not the right question, writing '''Neither'''. One came out clearly for '''A Type of Essay'''. 12 others !voted '''Guideline''', and two more contributors even wrote that it should be '''Policy'''. It would thus appear there is no community support for deprecation of the guideline status, and that the chance that this may change by a protracted discussion is negligible. &nbsp;--] 21:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:Sorry, I just tried to make a joke - I didn't want to burst your number. I always use for computing Erdös numbers, but it probably does not know about actuarial papers. The only Philbricks that come up in their data base are Douglas and C. Russel (jr.). Burkett indeed has an Erdös number of 2 (via Arun Kumar Varma). --] (]) 21:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
	::Thanks for simply striking and not making a bigger deal. Actually, I'm quite mortified, as I always thought there was some question about my claim (because I assumed the Journal in which I am published would not be on the list), but I honestly thought I had co-authored with John. I was once the North American editor of and we had a multi-year battle to get listed in the . I resigned my position before it got resolved, and it looks like it hasn't yet succeeded. That Journal was more oriented to academics than the Casualty Actuarial Society publications, so I have no doubt the places I've published don't make the usual lists.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 22:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
			:I may be formally uninvolved, but I do have a strong opinion on which sides arguments are better. In my RfA I said that I would rather not close an RfC against a strong numerical majority. ;-). --] (]) 22:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	== FYI ==
			== ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message ==
	. You made a similar statement to SBHB. If you have anything to add, please let me know.
			<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
	] (]) 06:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
			<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
	:See - does that clarify things? --] (]) 14:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
	::Yep. ] (]) 15:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	== Question (man) ==
			If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. ] (]) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
	Hi, you were active over at the ] article I think. I'm not sure exactly if you were active prior to the AN/i discussion or not but anyways I have a question that I can't seem to find an answer to. At the top of the talk page of Man there is a censor template that looks like it's out of place and only there to make a ]. Should the template be up there? The editors who keep returning it there say it's to let any editor who comes to complain about the nude picture. I don't see how this would be a warning to anyone nor do I see it as a good faith move. What do you think? There is a discussion plus more over at . I am being asked to send out a message to get editors to return now that the article is no longer protected and talk page is pretty quiet. I am not going to be involved after I send out the notices and that depends on what kind of notices are being requested because I will not breach canvassing. I could use another opinion on things here and I trust your judgement. So if you have time would you give your opinion about things. It's not a long read to catch up. Thanks in advance, --]] 13:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
			</td></tr>
	:Hmmm. I don't remember when exactly I joined the discussion at ], but it certainly was in connection with the image discussion. I find it honestly weird that there are people who don't expect to find a picture of a man (and nothing else) at ]. I think the ] template has been created for exactly such situations. If not there, where would it be used? Unfortunately, I'm fairly busy right now, and will be away with at best sporadic net access over the weekend, so I cannot promise anything. But thanks for the compliment! --] (]) 13:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
			</table>
	::Hey no problem being busy. As for the template I don't know when it would be used but maybe I should go there and start a discussion to delete it since to me it seems to be used to make a point and also as an attempt to maybe stop discussions. Then again maybe I'm being too sensitive about it. :) That's why I need a sanity check from someone I know and trust. :) I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving. Don't worry about the article. It will be there with the image somewhere I'm sure. Take care and thanks, --]] 13:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Coordination/MMS/01&oldid=990307860 -->
	:::Thanksgiving -> wrong continent. But I was invited to a Real American Turkey Dinner (tm) when I taught at U. Miami in 2002. I'll have to say that the appeal of Pecan Pie, Turkey breast, and gravy is less strong when the AirCon is struggling to keep the temperature below 30 degrees centigrade ;-). --] (]) 13:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
	::::Sorry, I keep forgetting this is not a universal holiday which is a shame since it consist of good food and usually good company, at least it is for me. :) Are you saying you taught at the University of Miami? Like in FL? Or is this somewhere else? I have a reason for asking, --]] 13:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, I taught and at the ] in 2002. The ] is not, strictly, in Miami, but it is in Florida. ], on the other hand, is neither in Miami, nor in Florida... ;-). --] (]) 13:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
			== Featured article review ==
	==Rouge admin==
	I have read the page and simply don't understand what a rouge administrator is? ] ] 11:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
	:You need to get the ] from the ] and set it to rouge to decode that page! --] (]) 13:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
	::That is going to be a problem for me since I don't believe in CABALs. And if I don't believe in them, they may not believe in me. ] ] 13:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
			I have nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ].
	==File permission problem with File:AtlanticPuffin 4677.jpg==
	]
	Thanks for uploading ''']'''. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
			I know you haven't been involved recently with this article, but I hope to get knowledgeable input from people who haven't. ] (]) 11:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
	If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
	* make a note permitting reuse under the ] or another acceptable free license (see ]) '''at the site of the original publication'''; or
	* Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to '''{{NoSpamEmail|permissions-en|wikimedia.org}}''', stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter ]. If you take this step, add {{tl|OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
			:Yes, you (both singular and plural) have done such a good job with the climate articles that I could go back to that other world and do computer science. Thanks! I'll see if I can take a look... --] (]) 20:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
	If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to '''{{NoSpamEmail|permissions-en|wikimedia.org}}'''.
			==Help on Wikiproject Climate change project==
	If you believe the media meets the criteria at ], use a tag such as {{tlp|non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at ], and add a ] justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See ] for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
			Hi,
			any chance you want to help out on increasing coverage and info on this ?
	If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in . '''Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged''', as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no permission-notice --> ] (]) 16:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
			]
	:I've contacted the original creator, who has send an email for permissions-en. However, why the word of a random guy with an email account is OK, while the word of a random guy on Misplaced Pages (who also has an email account!) about the release is not OK seems to be weird, and incompatible with ]. --] (]) 17:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
			]
			--] (]) 16:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
			:Want to, maybe. But while I know some of the techniques (biochar, (re)forestation, direct carbon capture...), it is not an area I'm particularly familiar with - and worse, I have no time to become familiar at the moment. So I'll stay out of it for now... --] (]) 14:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
	== Thank you! ==
			== Precious anniversary ==
	Vandalism arrived in good shape and is settling in nicely. thank you! ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 20:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
	:It's a pleasure! Meow! --] (]) 20:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)		{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Six}} --] (]) 06:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
	::AWWWW I was playing with the newbie vandal fighter. ] (]) 15:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)		:And so we meet again! ;-). --] (]) 07:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::AWWWW the newbie vandal fighter was watching recent changes. <code>-.-</code> — {{User:Waterfox/Signature}} 15:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
	::::Now that is a much better signature :) ] (]) 15:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
	::::You are doing a good job. No hard feelings I hope. ] (]) 15:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Nah. — {{User:Waterfox/Signature}} 15:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
			== Thank you ==
			Reading the talk page archives of ], I cannot help but applaud you and your valiant defense of the article against the vast hordes of misinformed people, partisan hacks, reality deniers, and trolls. If I was in your shoes, I almost certainly would have ] after a month at best; how you managed to do this for <em>years</em> is beyond me. ] (]) 13:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
	{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
			:Thanks, it's appreciated. I am a fairly patient person (some would say lethargic ;-), which helps. --] (]) 14:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
	|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|]|]}}
			== ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message ==
	|rowspan="2" |
	|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Good Humor'''
			<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
	|-
			<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2021|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
	|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | thank you, that gave me a much needed laugh. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 15:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
	|}
			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
			If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
			</td></tr>
			</table>
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1056562944 -->
			== pluto dwarf planet ==
			I was just taking a trip down memory lane and saw that you were the first person to explicity declare ] as a ] in .
			Anyway, thanks for the contribution that you would've forgotten about. ] (]) 02:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
			:I did not remember that, so thanks for reminding me! But it's also not quite correct. See e.g. . --] (]) 10:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
			:: ] (]) 12:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
			:::Check the next edit ;-)! We have a weird hobby! --] (]) 13:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
			== Administrators will no longer be ] ==
			A ] Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove ] from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with ], choose to ] this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the ]. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:Barkeep49@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators/Message_list&oldid=1058184441 -->
			== Luke 2:1-21 ==
			]
			1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
			2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
			3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
			4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
			5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
			6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.
			7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
			8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
			9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
			10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
			11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
			12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
			13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
			14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
			15 And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.
			16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
			17 And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.
			18 And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.
			19 But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.
			20 And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.
			21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
			Merry Christmas and God bless <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:]? Should really just delete the spam, but couldn't resist the cultural reference. A Merry Winter Solstice to all, and hope you and yours stay safe in these troubled times. . .], ] 22:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
			::I get to read the Luther version every Christmas to great hilarity. And then my niece and I go hunting for the three magi (they are in Matthew 2, not in Luke). So I get to sow the seeds of scepticism while pretending to follow Christian tradition. ;-). Of course, few things are better to create atheism than actually reading the bible... --] (]) 22:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
			:::There's a lovely parable there! Best wishes for the New Year, . ], ] 22:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
			:::: And to all... ] (]) 09:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
			:::::Indeed! Best wishes, nights, and all. I hope you are all doing well. I planned to visit ye olde island (I have an open invitation to Edinburgh, and may finagle one to Cambridge), but with the plague, all things are on hold. --] (]) 11:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
			:::::: If you're ever in the Fens, let me know and we can have a beer or two ] (]) 11:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
			::::::: Sure! Looking forward to it! --] (]) 13:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
			== Merchandise giveaway nomination ==
			{| class="barnstar" style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory;"
			| ]
			| style="vertical-align:top;" | <div style="text-align: center; font-size: x-large; font-weight: bold; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; color: {{{textcolor|black}}}">A token of thanks</div>
			----
			<div style="color:black; text-align:center;">Hi {{safesubst:<noinclude/>BASEPAGENAME}}! I've ''']''' (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, <span style="color:#AAA"><small>&#123;{u&#124;</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">]</span><small>}&#125;</small></span> <sup>]</sup> ~~<noinclude/>~<noinclude/>~~</div>
			| ]
			|}<!-- Template:Merchandise giveaway nomination --> ] (]) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:Nnadigoodluck@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mass_message_senders/Shell-0105&oldid=1063056307 -->
			:Thanks. I like topical shirts (I usually wear my ] shirts), so it's appreciated. --] (]) 22:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
			== How we will see unregistered users ==
			<section begin=content/>
			Hi!
			You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
			When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
			Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin '''will still be able to access the IP'''. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on ] to help.
			If you have not seen it before, you can ]. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can ] to ].
			We have ] this identity could work. '''We would appreciate your feedback''' on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can ]. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
			Thank you.
			/]<section end=content/>
			18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:Johan (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=User:Johan_(WMF)/Target_lists/Admins2022(2)&oldid=22532495 -->
			== New administrator activity requirement ==
			{{ivmbox|The administrator policy has been updated with new ] following a successful ].
			Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
			#Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
			#Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period
			Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
			}}
			22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:Barkeep49@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=All_administrators&oldid=1082922312 -->
			== Greetings ==
			Hi Stephan, I am currently writing my master thesis regarding Misplaced Pages and Climate Change WikiProject. I was wondering if you would have time to have a chat/interview regarding this? Best regards, Anda Bordieanu
			:Hi Anda! Sure, I can probably find a bit of time. I'm currently travelling, but will be back next week. How and when do you want to do this? Text or Zoom or something else? --] (]) 20:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
			: Hi Stephan, thank you so much for getting back to me! Next week would be perfect! What time zone are you currently on? And do you have any preferences regarding a day and a time? I think ZOOM would be better than text! -Anda <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			::Hi Anda. I'm in Europe/Berlin (actually Stuttgart, but the time zone is the same ;-). Zoom is ok. I'm fairly flexible, but I have a couple of floating appointments (where the Doodle-dust has not yet settled). What would be a good time for you? --] (]) 20:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
			:::I am flexible myself as I am working part time and you are in the same time zone as me, I am in Copenhagen. How about Thursday next week would that suit you? I am available the whole day. Otherwise, let me know and I can find another day. ] (]) 20:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
			::::Hi Anda, Thursday is possible. Can you send me your email via Misplaced Pages Email ("Email this user" should work), so I can send you a Zoom invitation? 10:00 am would be good for me, if it takes no more than one hour. --] (]) 07:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
			{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Seven}}
			== Precious anniversary (2022) ==
			--] (]) 05:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
			:Another year - wow, that went quickly! Thanks! --] (]) 06:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
			== ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message ==
			<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
			<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">]</div>
			<div class="ivmbox-text">
			Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
			If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
			</div>
			</div>
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1124425177 -->
			== On Scientism ==
			Thought I'd share this with you:
			https://kirkmillerblog.com/2022/09/28/c-s-lewis-critique-of-scientism/
			God bless ] (]) 04:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
			:Thanks. I like a good discussion. But I think Lewis misses the point. A lot. Basically, because while he might understand theology and philosophy (probably much better than I), he does not understand science and the philosophy of science. The most basic justification for science is that it works. Reliably, over and over again it uncovers new laws and refines them unless they predict the behaviour of the universe in better and better agreement. I would have loved to see a discussion between Lewis and ] indeed. --] (]) 06:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
			::It's motivated reasoning. Science conflicts with cherished belief, so science must be discounted. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 13:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
			:::Science does not give ultimate answers. Religious/superstitious people seem to mistake this strength for a weakness. ] (]) 13:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
			::::Right. Science is a way of telling fact from falsehood. The modern usage of the word fact is almost always the scientific one, so much so that the legal term from which it was taken is now seen as an oddity. Fact, from facta, that which was done. Empirical verifiability, not rhetorical superiority. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 23:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
			== Precious anniversary ==
			{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Eight}}
			--] (]) 07:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
	Sometimes laughing is the only plausible reaction to the state of the world. Thanks for the star! I'll put it onto the front porch with the rest. --] (]) 15:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)		:Wow, what a short year! Thanks! --] (]) 16:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
			== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==
	== Current events ==
			<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
	]
			<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div>
	In a democratic society, good decisions can only be expected from an informed population. Oppose censorship, both online and offline.
			<div class="ivmbox-text">
	:Democratic society is a myth. Join the Cabal instead... leave the five orange pips on the sundial --] ] 22:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
			Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
	::Yes, but one must uphold the appearance! We have always been at war with <s>Arbcomm</s> <s>EastAsia</s> <s>Sadam Hussein</s> <s>the Taliban</s> <s>South Korea</s> North Korea! --] (]) 14:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
	]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 16:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)]]
	{{clear}}
			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	== Thanks! But more help is needed... ==
			If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
	I enjoyed your comment on the ANI thread about the ], but I was wondering if you can help defuse the situation at the article talk page.
			</div>
	Currently, Elonka's comment as an "uninvolved administrator" urges people to remove sections of text sourced to a Wikileaks cable, a well-known and apparently undisputed source which ''might'' be primary in nature (though that too can be argued).<sup></sup> OhConfucius took up the cause. Editors of the article strongly protested this move, and reverted, leading to an edit war, and she said that she has "cautioned" them against reverting further such deletions.<sup></sup> The stage is still set for a confrontation in which editors choose between following administrator advice or following ]. (I'm currently arguing about that policy with her on my own talk page)
			</div>
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1187131902 -->
			==Disambiguation link notification for May 4 ==
	If you could, I wish that you could tell people at the CFDI talk page to disregard her suggestion to remove the Wikileaks source and everything based on it, and just go back to ordinary editing. Otherwise this is all going to blow up again. ] (]) 15:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
	:I cannot tell people what to do (well, I probably can, but I have no particular right to expect them to follow, and I usually avoid it on principle). What I can do (and have done, I hope) is telling them that admins have no special power and that someone who relies on his or her admin status in a content conflict is wrong and should not be given any special weight. --] (]) 08:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
			An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ] and ].
	== I enjoyed ==
	Your {{tl|adminnote}} on an {{tl|adminnote}} on ANI. ] (]) 15:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)		(].) --] (]) 05:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
			:Thanks, Bot. Fixed. --] (]) 14:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
			== Precious anniversary ==
	==Requesting your guidance==
			{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Nine}}
	Hi Stephan. As an experienced editor (not as an admin) who knows all policies by heart, I would like to request some orientation about wiki policies regarding a proposal to do a batch or mass article merger involving more than 30 articles . I really appreciate if you can drop by and provide some guidance about the proper way to proceed (not on the merit of the merger).-] (]) 02:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
			--] (]) 09:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			:Again! Thanks! And I'm still here, too! --] (]) 11:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:Do you ever give up? You reported this at the ] and the administrator already gave you an answer. That does not mean you have harass another user just because you do not like the response that was given. I will be nominating a bunch of articles separately very soon, so be prepared. Regards, <small>] (] • ])</small> 04:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
	::I have no opinion on the merger (I sold my last car 13 years ago, so I'm not an expert ;-). I certainly don't know all policies by heart, or even at all. However, I agree that having a centralized merge discussion with links from all affected articles makes sense. There is no need for a ], so if the centralized discussion supports merging of some articles, but has no consensus on others, just apply uncommon sense. --] (]) 09:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for your opinion on this matter.--] (]) 13:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
			== Invitation to participate in a research ==
	== Hi Stephan ==
			Hello,
	As an experienced admin could you please wave your admin tools in an uncontroversial way. I have settled down at ] and would like to get all of my talkpage archives together. Could you possibly undelete ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. Also if you think I am not a risk to the pedia could you add my permissions rollback and autopatrolled which I had as Polargeo 2. ] (]) 15:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
	:Absolutely. I don't know that you are not a risk to the 'pedia ;-), but I'm certain that you are not a risk to the content. Expect delivery over the next few minutes as I figure things out. --] (]) 17:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
	::Hmmm. I've granted the rights, but I cannot find any deleted archives. In fact, I cannot find any edit you made to an archive page under ]. Are you sure these archives exist? --] (]) 17:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
	:::Thanks. Whoops, fixed redlinks now. ] (]) 17:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
	::::Done. Be happy! --] (]) 18:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I am happy. Thanks. I've been called an asshole twice today on wikipedia so I must be doing something right :) ] (]) 18:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
			The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
	== Antient history ==
			You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
	Funnily enough, I read ] a month or so ago. A good read but (as my uncle the historian pointed out) they all think / speak modern-day-y ] (]) 15:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
	:I read it some time last year, I think, and yes, it displays a rather anachronistic world view. As a product of the ''Academia Cantabrigiensis'', I assume you can just go off and read Cicero in the original, or course ;-). --] (]) 15:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
	:: Good heavens, you insult me sir! I am of course a product of ''Universitas Oxoniensis'' ] (]) 16:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
	:::I'm very sorry to hear that. But if you are from the Art School by the Thames, I at least expect you can read not only Cicero, but also ] in the original. --] (]) 16:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
			The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
	== Keith Lockitch article ==
			Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
	I don't know if you remember me, since it has been some time since I actively edited the Global Warming article, but I question your decision to remove this reference . First I must say I was impressed by your vigilance - you seem to be right on top of things. But the question I have is that I was unsure of how to attribute the source, as it was written by () the ]. Being as this section of the Global Warming article is about the stances of libertarian think tanks and free enterprise institutes, I thought a source from the ARC would be considered accurate for describing the viewpoint of such an organization. I can see changing the attribution directly to ARC, but would you please elaborate on your conclusion - why is this an unreliable source for this organization's stance on the issue? »]<small><sup>(]|])</sup></small> 22:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
	:I have multiple concerns. First, just because a think tank links to an article that does not mean they fully endorse its position. Secondly, that article is not about global warming to begin with, but rather about some purported economical effects. And thirdly, as far as I can tell this article is written by a theoretical astrophysicist, who is neither a notable nor a competent commentator on this issue or on global warming in general. Why would you add this particular position, and attribute it to ]? It might find a home in ], but even then I'm sceptical about using such bad sources, if only for the precedent. --] (]) 22:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
	::Thank you for your reply. I can understand your first concern - Dr. Lockitch is a at the ARC, but is not listed directly in their Staff or Directors pages. Still, Dr. Lockitch associates himself with the ARC on page two of the source I provided. In so doing, he says he is speaking for this institution. Lockitch has written over a hundred and fifty articles which have been hosted by the ARC, including approximately half of the articles listed on the ARC's home page for Science & Environmentalism linked above. I'm unsure what the criteria would be for a writer to be considered a qualified representative of an organization, but subjectively, Dr. Lockitch would seem to fit the bill. Addressing your second point, I chose that part of the Global Warming article specifically because the sentence immediately before it was talking about projections of the economic cost of stricter controls - a subject the Lockitch article addresses directly. In my opinion, it fits in the context of the rest. Thirdly, the ], whose position is described in the sentence before the one I added, is not host to "environmental experts," but its stance was still considered notable enough to mention in our article. The only difference I can see between the sources used for that sentence and the sentence I proposed to add is that those sources actively disparaged the organizations in question as promoting "denialism," while mine was written by one of them. And finally, I'll admit my draft wording for the sentence was a bit wonky. As I said, I was unsure of who to credit the article to due to its being hosted off-site. I am still of the opinion that the ARC would not be misrepresented by this attribution, and I can easily reference material hosted on-site which is in line with this same position. I think it's a reliable statement of a noteworthy organization's stance on the issue, and I think it would not be inappropriate to include in the article.
	::As a final note, I'm unfamiliar with E&E. Just for future reference, was there some specific past incident which discredits its journalistic credibility that I should be aware of? »]<small><sup>(]|])</sup></small> 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
	:::Check out page on ]. It pretends to be a peer-reviewed journal, but rather than controlling quality, the review process ensures the proper bias. This may or may not be due to its social science (as opposed to natural science) background. As for the rest, I suggest to move this discussion to ]. --] (]) 23:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
			Kind Regards,
	== Reference Desk Removal ==
			]
	] has decided to remove a question, including your response, on the reference desk . You may comment on the ]. ] (]) 04:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
	:No worries. I agree that removal was not the best of ideas, but it was as good faith as our answers, so it's no big deal to me. --] (]) 09:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
			<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
	== BLP violation in edit summary ==
			<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins&oldid=27650221 -->
	] applies to all pages on Misplaced Pages, including the reference desk. ] (]) 02:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
			== Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research ==
	:What Stephan said is unflattering, but it is (a) true, (b) verifiable, and (c) made about a public official whose privacy is not at issue. No BLP violation here. ] (]) 03:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
	::Raul, you are joking, right? ] (]) 07:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
	:::About Stephan calling Bush a torturer? Absolutely not. . Hell, he's proud of it. Not a BLP violation - not even close. And I'm getting very tired of seeing the BLP policy stretched like taffy to cover things it was never intended to cover, in order to stifle discussion. ] (]) 07:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
	::::"Stifling discussion"? The thread was about how nutrition in American prisons allowed prisoners to bodybuild, and Stephan's comment had nothing to do with that conversation. Instead, he was enlightening everyone on his negative opinion of Bush. He said, "I spit on Bush the torturer" in the edit summary. Also, Bush did not say in your link, "I am a torturer", so you are not accurately representing what it said, instead putting your own, subjective interpretation on it. Bush said, "I ordered waterboarding." Not the same thing. So, it is a BLP violation as well as an inappropriate comment. ] (]) 07:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
	:::::If person A orders person B to torture person C, both persons A and B are guilty (morally and legally) of torture and thus are torturers. But don't take my word for it - there are literally tens of thousands of sources out there calling Bush a torturer. The very, very specific search query ''"Torturer in chief"+Bush'' gets over 25,000 hits on Google, including links to the LA Times and The Nation on the first page. "Bush the torturer" gets another 10,000, including Salon and the Daily Mail on the first page. So definitely true, definitely verifiable, and definitely not a BLP violation.
	:::::As for its relevance, if Stephan's comment was irrelevant to the reference desk discussion, then '''that''' is what A Quest For Knowledge should have said here. He made no mention of it (which undercuts your claims). Instead, AQFK used twisted the BLP policy. And Stephan's comment's alleged irrelevance to the reference desk discussion has no bearing at all on whether or not it was a BLP violation. ] (]) 08:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
	::::::I've not much to add to what Raoul said. However, I did not write "I spit on Bush the torturer" - I wrote "Spit on Bush the torturer". I should probably have added an exclamation mark. It's not a simple statement of fact, it's a suggestion. Publicly showing our disgust for torture and torturers is something we all should do for the health of society. --] (]) 08:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
			Hello,
	Whoop! Whoop! ] alert ] (]) 08:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
	:So the British editors are up and probably at work? Goddamn, I should get to bed soon. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 08:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
	::Who do you call British? Next you'll claim I graduated from Oxbridge or something.... --] (]) 09:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
	::: Limeys, Krauts, Frogs... its all just ] to the colonials ] (]) 09:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
			I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ].
			Take the survey ''''''.
	Did Bush ever say "I am a torturer"? If so, then I agree, it's fine. If not, then continue below.
			Kind Regards,
	If Bush admitted "I am a waterboarder", and ''you'' assert "Waterboard is torture", then the assertion "Bush (is a) torturer", or the even stronger "Bush ''admits'' to torture", is ''your'' opinion, and it doesn't belong here. It's both a BLP violation (by virtue of stating it unqualified) and soapboxing.
			]
	I should say that I basically agree with Stephan's opinion on this being torture, but I am ''shocked'' that some very experienced Wikipedians above still don't get the distinction between "admits waterboarding" and "admits torture". And this ongoing problem of established editors conflating their own opinions with actual fact is a huge problem here. And even arbcom seems reluctant to deal with it. This kind of stuff is why I find myself so often in disagreement with people with whom I otherwise share a world view. ] (]) 12:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
			<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
	:Oh, I get it. I just disagree. Fact and opinion are not diametrically opposed. And it is a fact that waterboarding is torture as much as its a fact that the Earth is roughly spherical. For both opinions you find fringers that oppose it. That does not change their status as fact. Heck, even Bush weaseled out of answering the question if waterboarding would be torture if applied to US prisoners by others. --] (]) 12:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins_(reminders)&oldid=27744339 -->
			== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
	::You really believe that "earth is round" is as unambiguously factual as "waterboarding is torture"? ''Really'' Stephan? Do you not see how absurd that assertion is? ] (]) 12:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
	:::Well, if you put it that way, no. That the Earth is round is a scientific claim about out reality, and thus, in principle, refutable. That waterboarding is torture is an ontological fact about language and concepts, and correct by definition. So no, the claim that waterboarding is torture is (very slightly) more factual than the fact that the Earth is round. However, the difference is negligible in practice - the approximate shape of the Earth is established fact by any useful definition of (scientific) fact. --] (]) 12:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
	::::Actually, I also agree that waterboarding is torture. You can't on Misplaced Pages, however, call a living person "a torturer" as it is a violation of our BLP rules. It's also, as well, inappropriate to bring it up out of the blue in a reference desk dicussion in order to publicize our political views to other Wikipedians. It's an example of boorish behavior alienating other editors who might otherwise respect the editor in question's opinions on a wide variety of topics. ] (]) 12:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
	:::::Sing hey the mystic sailor that you are. Much though it is good to have a go at bashing tGS about waterboarding I don't agree that it is possible to determine completely whether either of these statements are "true" (at least in the sense of "could converge to being arbitrarily true with a series of provisos") without first deciding who your "observer"/mind is. You cannot relate words to the real world without some sort of mind to do it and commonality between minds is fortunate and prevalent but not assumable. Sure I regard both as facts but that does not mean I can assume another rational being will in either case unless I define rational as always agreeing with me (which isn't a bad definition). I kind of badly explained this but I don't recommend my own skills as a communicator. --] ] 13:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
	Stephan Schulz: You know very well that this person never tortured anyone. Nor has there ever been any conviction by a single court of law. You're supposed to be an admin. Act like it. ] (]) 06:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
	:Bush didn't torture people? I suppose superficially, that is true. However, it is a well-established principle in law that whoever orders something be done is ultimately responsible for the effects of their orders&mdash;see ]. Perhaps you should consult '''', , '''', '''', '''', or to see if they consider the Bush Administration's "enhanced interrogation techniques" to not be torture.<p>Was Stephan's edit summary well-advised or necessary? Probably not. Was it unfactual? No. Did it have a place in the discussion? Yes. More to the point, why the hell are you hounding him over it? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 06:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
	::You, like Stephan and Raul, seem not to understand the difference between measurable scientific fact and ontological assertion. That's a real problem around here. ] (]) 19:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
	:::That you would attempt to lecture anyone on scientific facts is laughable, given your editing history here. ] (]) 19:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
			<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
	== Oops! Sorry about the collapse! ==
			<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
			<div class="ivmbox-text">
			Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	My collapse of part of the ] was not intended to include your reply, but as it turned out, it does not seem to matter too much. Sorry! ;-) --] (]) 14:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
	:No hard feelings... --] (]) 14:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
	::That collapse caused me to develop ]. ] (]) 14:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
			If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
	== Heads up ==
			</div>
	{{you've got mail}}
			</div>
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->

---

Latest revision as of 00:04, 19 November 2024

This is Stephan Schulz's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

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

Archives

2004-12-13 to 2008-04-15

2008-04-15 to 2009-01-22

2009-01-22 to 2009-09-01

2009-09-02 to 2010-04-14

2010-04-14 to 2011-06-16

2011-06-17 to 2012-08-02

2012-08-03 to 2013-06-21

2013-06-22 to 2015-12-22

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

• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• help pages
• village pump
• my (Angela's) talk page.

Redirect

Hi Setphan, I am afraid that if you won't take the action now, it won't happen in the coming months at all: Should you redirect "Data Serialization Languages" to "Serialization? If in computing, these terms are enough synonymous, it can be nice.

Ben-Yeudith (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Done, albeit for the singular data serialization language. But every user can create redirects - it's not a special right for admins. See Misplaced Pages:Redirect. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Wheat

Wheat, yes, wheat. If you pick a species that has trouble with heat, you will see that. But is that a good way to evaluate the overall situation? I've come to your talk page to ask a question -- is the goal of this type of discussion to reach truth, or to make debating points? (actually there is a third possibility -- you may be genuinely unaware that it's not a representative example). I've come to your page because I believe such a question is better asked in a less-public forum. I realize your page is still public, which is unfortunate; I would ask it in a fully private way if I could do so. Feel more than free to take your time in answering, or for that matter, to delete this on sight. Best wishes. Really. CometEncke (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi CometEncke! Let me first point out that I linked to two studies (the first two that sprang to my eye as applicable), and that only the first concentrates on wheat, while the second looked at about a dozen different crops. What I try to say is that this is a complex, multivariate problem and that the simple answer is likely to be wrong. I'm usually always interested in getting to the bottom of the subject matter (some say to a fault), but I've come to realise that I cannot do that with all of reality (despite the hubris expressed by the Bacon quote on my front page). So unless it's really within my field or I'm extraordinarily interested, I apply some heuristics. One such heuristic is that if someone says that something is "obvious" or even "blindingly obvious", I take a short track to Google Scholar and check some related papers. If that shows me that the problem is indeed complex and multifactorial, I assume this is a case for H.L. Mencken ("...neat, plausible, and wrong"). In this case I think that the nuanced, conservative discussion by the IPCC is more justified than "it works in my greenhouse for cucumbers, therefore CO2 will save us from world hunger" (sorry for the hyperbolic summary - I trust you get my point). If you want to convince me otherwise, you would either need to make an incredibly clear and short and convincing argument, or get your opinion published in a serious peer-reviewed venue, so that I know that you convinced real experts of the validity of your argument.

If you have a real need for private conversation, my email is enabled. But I normally prefer to keep Misplaced Pages discussions in the open - after all, making knowledge accessible is the whole point of the project. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, OK, but as any farmer from a hot region will tell you, wheat is not for the hottest weather. Rice and millet do much better; maize can also be an option, though extra CO2 doesn't help it much. If your goal is to come up with crops that do poorly in hot weather, even with extra CO2, you can find them. But from the standpoint of food production, surely the more relevant question is not whether there exist crops that do poorly under those conditions, but rather, whether there exist crops that do well under those conditions. And the answer to that is a resounding "yes", as a little googling will tell you, or even just checking the population figures for South Asia. If you follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of where you may want it to lead, you will find that multiple, independent strands of evidence all point to the same conclusion, including the CO2 data themselves (the trend of the May-October drop, that is). And yes, it will be blindingly obvious, screaming at you like the evidence in a murder case where the jury got it wrong. CometEncke (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

CometEncke, congratulations on your blindingly obvious thoughts – however, for this reasoning to appear in Misplaced Pages, it must first be published in a reliable third-party source. A scientific journal is the best place to get credence. . . dave souza, talk 18:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I have the feeling that you only read about half of what I wrote. Anyways, even stipulating that you are right that there are some crops that will do better, it's far from trivial that it's possible to replace existing agricultural systems - you need not just suitable climate (and remember that that will keep changing for a while), you also need skills, seeds, suitable soil, tools, and markets, to name just a few. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Where's the Bacon? My search-fu didn't find it, am hoping this was a reference to the title page of On the Origin of Species, but any Baconian epigram will be of interest. . . dave souza, talk 18:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I have taken all knowledge to be my province, which according to q: FrancisBacon is from a letter to William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley. My pretentious user box is at User:Stephan_Schulz/knowledge. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Very modestly placed in the userbox, didn't know about that one. . dave souza, talk 19:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"I have the feeling that you only read only half of what I wrote." In one case, you are right. After I looked at your "wheat" paper, I felt it was sufficiently irrelevant that I didn't go to the second one. Interestingly, this whole discussion got started because I felt pretty much the same thing and said so on the article talk page, not only in relation to you. So perhaps in that sense we are alike. I agree with you that our discussion has gone beyond the level of what can be included in Misplaced Pages, which is an additional reason to take it here, as opposed to the article page. As to your question of whether the agricultural system can keep up, I would refer you to a graph of worldwide grain harvests. I am curious whether you still think your "wheat" argument is evidence against my assertions about where agriculture is likely to head in a high-carbon world? DS -- welcome to the party. The scientific journals do talk about this all the time -- here is two reviews of a whole lot of literature, , which, according to google, have been cited 400 and 600 times, respectively. A whole lot more out there. The evidence is truly overwhelming. As this user astutely notes, facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Fortunately such is the case for food production and will remain so no matter how many people mock me for saying "blindingly obvious". CometEncke (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Now I have not only the feeling that you read only half of what I wrote, but that you also read things I never wrote, and don't really read things you suggest we should read ;-). I have not made "a wheat argument" - I have made a plausibility check on you claim that it is "blindingly obvious" what the effect of higher CO2 on agriculture is, and found that it is very much not obvious. Indeed, the first source (in New Phytologist) you offered above very much said so. The second (the Oecologica paper) has very little predictive relevance for real-life open-field agriculture, as it is not a literature review, but a description of one experiment in a glass house with otherwise controlled conditions. Even then the paper concludes that "these data show that plant responses to elevated atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 depend on complex of partially compensatory processes which are not readily predictable". So I'm at a loss to understand where your "blindingly obvious" is coming from. As for the graph: You do understand that grain harvest are not primarily influenced by CO2, but by new cultivars and by the increased use of energy- and nutrient-intensive farming techniques, many of which are unlikely to be sustainable in the long term. Indeed, I find it a bit ironic that that the first hit Google gives me for "graph of worldwide grain harvests" starts with ""Global Grain Stocks Drop Dangerously Low as 2012 Consumption Exceeded Production... The drop was largely because of droughts that devastated several major crops—namely corn in the United States (the world’s largest crop) and wheat in Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Australia". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"Require further study". Sure, there is a lot we still don't know, and this was even more the case in the past. There is plenty of debate about all sorts of details. I'm still curious if you still believe your wheat reference is significant. If so, why? If not, why not say so? You may have noticed in this discussion that I have had no hesitation agreeing with you on certain questions when I thought you were correct. I guess I'm challenging you to do the same, or, if you can't, to explain it. Such action would give me confidence that a search for truth is more important than plausibility attacks, and would further give me confidence that moving on to other issues has value. CometEncke (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but my perception is not that you agree on certain questions, but that you are moving the goal posts. Remember, this started out as a discussion over at talk:Marco Rubio about the question if a number of sources, one of which headlines (!) "Marco Rubio says human activity isn't causing climate change" are enough to support the claim that "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of climate change, arguing that human activity does not play a major role in global warming". Then you made claim about the IPCC (which Boris has refuted over at User_talk:MastCell#Rubio_and_climate - let me refute it here again, more explicitly: "Evidence since AR4 confirms the stimulatory effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) in most cases and the damaging effects of elevated tropospheric ozone (O3) on crop yields (high confidence). Experimental and modelling evidence indicates that interactions between CO2 and O3, mean temperature and extremes, water, and nitrogen are nonlinear and difficult to predict (medium confidence)" (executive summary, page 488, emphasis mine))) and about the "blinding obviousness" of the influence of CO2 on agriculture. Now we are discussing if wheat, a major staple crop and the major source of plant protein is a good example for discussing the claim that the effect of increase atmospheric CO2 on agriculture is "blindingly obvious" - apparently because wheat is more sensitive to heat than some other crops. So let me state it here: Yes, I think this is a relevant example for the claim that the situation is not blindingly obvious, but complex. If you are looking for something that we probably agree on: I agree that an increase in CO2 from the base level to a moderately increased level alone increases primary plant productivity for most plants in situations where growths is not limited by the unavailability other resources. But that is something the IPCC acknowledges as well. It just doesn't stop there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my question. And sorry for responding slowly -- real life had me off wiki for a few days. Now for the question about the overall effect of CO2 rise on plant growth. I am glad we agree on the effect of CO2 in isolation. Now let's examine the combined effect. There are three things we need to consider: the direct effect of CO2, and the indirect effects of rising temperature and changing rainfall (I won't say rising or falling; more on that in a moment). Rising CO2, we agree, in isolation, stimulates plant growth. I think it's fair to say, in addition, that the effect is large. For a doubling of CO2, I would suggest that it would not be remotely credible to suggest that the stimulatory effect of CO2, in isolation, would average only 10%, across important crop species (however one defines that). I would suggest that even only 20% would be surprising, though it would be out of the range of "not remotely credible" at that point. Now, temperature. You and I both agree that a doubling of CO2 will produce a rise in global average temperature. The IPCC I believe estimates 3 degrees C. I think that's an overestimate but will accept it arguendo. Before making any prediction, simply an observation about current agriculture: the pattern is that the warmer the region, the greater the harvests tend to be, at least across most of the range of current temperatures on Earth. In terms of agricultural productivity, Nigeria > Mexico > France > Norway > Alaska > Greenland > Antarctica, for example. I am unaware of any evidence one way or the other about the hottest regions with reasonable amounts of water. It would be interesting to know that. I mean, obviously the Sahara has very little agriculture, but I think "dry" is the issue there more than "hot." So let's save that question for water. In light of this, I believe it is fair to say that the temperature increase, in isolation, is likely to produce an increase in agricultural productivity. It is possible that the hottest regions may suffer a loss; I am not sufficiently familiar with the evidence to answer that. But for the regions listed above, an increase seems certain for temperature zones from France on down and likely even at the Mexico level, ignoring water for the moment. Nigeria I don't know one way or the other. But overall, in light of this, it seems fair to expect that temperature would also produce an increase.

Now, changes in rainfall patterns. The IPCC talks from time to time about "more droughts." But have they made any effort to quantify whether or not we are currently seeing no droughts? I am unaware of any such effort. I find this curious; certainly the IPCC has shown that it can quantify a claim when it desires to. Furthermore, "more droughts" is a claim which could be quantified in terms of actual precipitation data. Make a mathematically reasonable definition of "drought" or "precipitation variability"; I don't care what it is. A yeare with less than 50% of the mean precipitation (drought); the standard deviation of precipitation divided by its mean level over a 20-year period ("precipitation variability"); whatever. Then, based on actual rainfall data, it would be possible, and I daresay not difficult, once one had gathered the data, to determine a trend. One could then determine what that trend is, and put it in the IPCC report.

Feel more than free to correct me on this, but as far as I am aware, the IPCC has not done any such thing. That suggests to me that the data do not show any unfavorable trend in droughts to date. Feel more than free to correct me on this if I am wrong. But if I am not wrong, then I will infer from that that so far, precipitation patterns have not become any worse than they were in the past. Because if they had, we sure as hell would have heard about it.

Therefore, overall, we have one change (CO2) which is uniformly favorable to harvests, and dramatically so. A second change (temp.) which is mostly favorable, or possibly entirely, depending on what happens at the hottest end of the scale. And a third one (rainfall) which I infer that data (as opposed to models) don't show overall worsening. Lastly, at high CO2, the plants need less water overall. So even some worsening in rainfall, if it were to happen, would be overwhelmed by that effect. Hence my "blindingly obvious". There is actually one more piece of evidence, weaker than the others IMO, it's possible there is another cause, though I'm not aware of one. That's the trend in the May-Oct. in the Hawaiian CO2 data. That drop has been increasing over time. Not uniformly, there are ups and downs, but the overall trend is clear. This drop is generally attributed to the Northern growing season. If the drop is increasing, the natural inference is that said growing season is getting stronger. It is possible there is another explanation, though I haven't heard it. CometEncke (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

How do you get from "an increase in CO2 from the base level to a moderately increased level alone increases primary plant productivity for most plants in situations where growths is not limited by the unavailability other resources" via "Rising CO2, we agree, in isolation, stimulates plant growth" (drops a lot of qualifiers) to "uniformly favorable to harvests, and dramatically so"? It's not just crop plants that profit - weeds do likewise. And "uniform" is the opposite of what the sources say - indeed, it's very much non-uniform. There is also very little data on plants grown in cultures (where they compete for resources). As for droughts: It's not just annual precipitation thats relevant, but precipitation at the right times of the year, not to mention the vanishing buffering capacity of vanishing glaciers. Winter snow that melts in spring is useless for irrigation in summer. As for the rest: I suggest you take a look at the IPCC reports instead of speculating about what they don't contain. WG2AR5C3 deals with hydrology, and WG1AR5C2 has information on the development of precipitation and the hydrological cycle. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants prokaryotes (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I did drop some qualifiers. It's a fair point. Sorry about that. The IPCC has lost my confidence with its repeated over-predictions. We are up to their 5th report now, and so far we are well below their temp. predictions for the first four, taking business-as-usual emissions, which is more or less what we've had. How many times can one cry wolf? Why go after *me* so hard; isn't this about finding truth? CometEncke (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You might want to look at this page and the papers referred therein. Of course, the IPCC reports are current and evolving science, so their predictions are not perfect. But they are, contrary to cherry-picking contrarian claims, quite good. "This" thing we are doing is cutting through misinformation and misunderstanding. I'm a computer scientist - indeed, I'm an expert in a very small field of algorithm design, logic, search heuristics, with a smattering of knowledge about air traffic control and machine learning. I don't have the hubris to believe I can contribute significantly to finding "the truth", or even the increasingly better approximation to the truth that science gives us, in a field as wide and complex as climate science - at least not without overturning my career and starting again at an undergrad level. On the other hand, I have a decent layman's overview of the field, and I can sometimes recognise claims as plain wrong. If I see those, I try to correct them. I assume good faith, i.e. I assume that my debating partners will be happier to improve their understanding than to score debating points. On the other hand, if not, I have little sympathy. I can't stand e.g. creationists who serve the same over and over refuted claims over and over again. If you don't trust the IPCC, that's your prerogative. But making wrong claims about them and their reports is not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see how this discussion has gone. My comments have been full of statements like "feel free to correct me on this, but . . .", or "I did do x. Sorry about that", or even "There might be another explanation, but I haven't seen one." (FWIW I did think of one possibility afterwards. No idea if it fits or not.) If the intent was to win me over, it's been done; it would have involved noticing more places where I was obviously correct, and making corrections gently, rather than focussing relentlessly on the negative, and above all, realizing that learning from the other guy is a two way street. So, in this case, you've lost me. You may feel that was a foregone conclusion. It wasn't, but it's a done deal now. Still, best wishes, and better luck next time. I'm a technical person too. I don't want to get specific, but you can be sure that if I believe something to be factually correct, I don't care in the slightest whether or not it fits with any opinion I have; I will revise my opinions, not facts. Random case in point, Adnan Syed from "Serial" is innocent. Not "not proven guilty." Proven not guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. In time, the courts will agree, at least up to "not proven guilty." Bank on it. Kevin Urick should be in prison, but that will never happen. And best wishes, still. Really. CometEncke (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we have different expectations. I'm not proselytising for a religion, trying to safe souls whatever the cost. Also see Richard Dawkins on a related topic of methodology. I had no idea who Adnan Syed is, nor why you brought him up, but I notice that you apparently have formed a very strong opinion on the issue - based on what? A polemic podcast? I'm not saying you are wrong, but I find no substantial support for you being right, either. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I brought him up to make the point that I base opinions on facts and evidence, everything else be damned. My mind was actually pretty clear before the polemical (and dead right) cast came out. A friendly wager the courts agree and AS is out this year. CometEncke (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Cold blob (North Atlantic)

Hi Stefan, i just created a new article, maybe you can have a look https://en.wikipedia.org/Cold_blob_(North_Atlantic) Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the later answer - I'm busy with some real life science and questionable discussions ;-). I don't know enough about this to do a useful review off-the-cuff. If I find the time, I'll look later. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, also new Climate action, and Climate change and national security. prokaryotes (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Complexity of Addition in Finite Automata

I couldn't understand the finite automata shown in the Article on Finite Automata(P.65).It might be because I'm weak in binary mathematics.Addition is very simple.I can't get why the author has shown 'addition' as complex.Could you help me and give a brief explanation of each state given in the finite automata.JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@JUSTIN JOHNS: I'm rather busy at the moment, and the slides are missing the main part (the presenter). But as I understand it, the automaton is processing a sequence of 1-bit-additions (least significant bit first) and checks if the overall addition is correct (so it's not performing addition, but verifying addition). The alphabet of the automaton consists of the individual combinations of 3 bits (the first two are the input, the last is the lower order bit of the output), i.e. each of the characters of the alphabet is one of the 3-bit combinations (written as a vertical vector with a dash, but that is just syntactic sugar). As you probably know, a 1-bit addition has a two-bit result (1+1=2= (binary)10)). This extra bit is the "carry" bit, and if you build a multi-bit adder, you must take it as an additional input for the next bit slice - see full adder. The automaton starts in the state R0, and R0 says "the carry bit is zero". It then checks the character - there are 4 valid additions, and 4 invalid ones.The valid ones are 0+0=0, 1+0=1, 0+1=1, 1+1=10. The last one also sets the carry bit, which is why the automaton goes to the state R1 ("the carry bit is 1"). All other variants are wrong and lead to the error state. In R1, there are again four correct results, and 4 wrong ones. But since we now have the carry bit as an additional input, the correct results are 0+0+c=1, 0+1+c=10, 1+0+c=10, 1+1+c=11, and the other 4 are wrong. In the first case (0+0+c=1), the carry bit is consumed and we drop back to R0. And of course, once the addition is wrong, it stays wrong (which is why the error state goes to the error state with the whole alphabet). It's apparently "complex" to understand, which is why you have to ask ;-). On the other hand, it shows that verification of addition is at worst linear in the number of bits with respect to time complexity and constant with respect to space complexity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah this answer gives me a sense of hope for my doubts.Could you list the four invalid ones for the state R0.JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's the combinations missing from the list I gave above: (00/1). (01/0), (10/0), (11/1). Now you list the wrong ones in R1! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be 0+0+c=0,0+1+c=01,1+0+c=11,1+1+c=11 but I'm not sure.I really understood the wrong states you listed above by these two sentences you've mentioned:"the first two are the input, the last is the lower order bit of the output","so it's not performing addition, but verifying addition".Could you tell why the states in R1 are only 4 because we could also list 0+1+c=11 as a wrong state isn't it?JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we must first get the notation straight.The three states of the automaton are R1, R2, and error. The alphabet is a set of 8 letters, Σ = {00/0, 00/1, 01/0, 01/1, 10/0, 10/1, 11/0, 11/1}. Transitions take a state and a letter and produce a new state (which I will write (S,l ->S'). The transition table is

 Delta  | 00/0  | 01/0  | 10/0  | 11/0  | 00/1  | 01/1  | 10/1  | 11/1  |
 -------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------|
 R0     | R0    | error | error | R1    | error | R0    | R0    | error |
 R1     | error | R1    | R1    | error | R0    | error | error | R1    |
 error  | error | error | error | error | error | error | error | error |

If the carry is 1, i.e. if you are in R1, then 0+1+c=10 (decimal 2), so indeed (R1, 01/1 -> error). You got 1+1+c=11 wrong - if c is one, then 1+1+1=11 (decimal 3), i.e. (R1, 11/1 -> R1). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow that's really great.Now I could understand the states present in the automata and their transitions.To be honest I really understood the answer after analyzing the document many times before you have posted the answer.Also I dont' have a reliable internet connection.So sorry for checking the answer too late.It's my mistake to ask a question without properly looking the document.Anyway that's a great help and thanks for your kindness and patience.JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem. You're welcome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Query

This seems kinda like it's in your bailiwick. Does it actually mean anything? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, for me it reads like Woowooowoooo, and Scientific Research Publishing does little to change my initial impression. The IF of the journal seems to be 0.00. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I read it and thought "WTF?" And an article with over half the citations being to the author's own work usually isn't a good sign. But as I said, it's outside my field. (You may or may not want to comment here.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't really think it's anyones field (not mine, to be sure), but rather something made up. There are some interesting analogies between entropy in physics and information theory, but this does not mean that you can translate every informal idea from some information domain into any arbitrary physics domain. I already commented at RS/N, maybe a bit to cynical... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement

Hi Stephan, I created an essay regarding the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement on Meta and I am now looking for ideas regarding the project. I saw that you're interested in sustainability, so I'd love to hear your comments and maybe even have your support! Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Pumping length of DFA

Do you mean to say that we can only use finite languages for pumping lemma?Could you tell the pumping length for this dfa?Does this DFA accept an infinite or finite language.Could you help me.JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 08:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Justin. No, that's not what I'm saying. Maybe we should list a couple of facts to be sure there is no misunderstanding:

1. An alphabet is a finite set of letters, and a word is a finite sequence of letters from an alphabet. In particular, all words have finite length.
2. A language is a set of words. A language can be finite (as e.g L={a, ab, aab, abb, bab}) or infinite, as e.g. K={a, aa, aaa, aaaa, ...}. Note that all words in K are finite (indeed, words are finite by definition). However, in K there is no upper limit to the length of a word - for every bound, say n, there are words of greater length, e.g. aa (n times a, followed by one more a). This is true for all infinite languages.
3. A language is regular if and only if there is a DFA that accepts it.
4. All finite languages are regular. You can simply construct the DFA as a trie - see the one on the right for L. Please not that the DFA does not have a loop (i.e. there is no way to visit a state twice when processing one word).
5. The pumping lemma says that all regular languages have a pumping length p, and that all words longer than p can be pumped. If such a word exists, then the language is necessarily infinite. All languages with pumpable words are infinite.
6. But there is a second possibility, namely that there is a p so that there are no words of length greater than p. This is the case with all finite languages. The pumping lemma is true for finite languages because there is a p so that the condition on pumpable words becomes vacuous - you can pump all words of length greater than p, because there are no such words, i.e. you can pump all the 0 words of length greater than p.

As for your example: The automaton has a reachable loop that can lead into an accepting state (indeed, it has several such loops), hence it accepts an infinite language. It does, for example, accept all words of the form ba for any natural number i. I don't know a sharp boundary for p, but if you chose p as 4, you are on the safe side - with 4 transitions, the automaton has to visit at least one state twice, so any word of lengths 4 or larger has to go through a loop - and whenever you go through a loop once, you can go through it any number of times. I'm sure @BenRG: will step in and explain if I made any more errors ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a good description of pumping lemma and how we apply it to finite and infinite language.I could see that it's easy to find the pumping length p for finite languages since all we need to do is find a length greater than p such that there aren't any words so we can pump 0 words as you have mentioned.Could you tell is there any way to find the pumping length p for infinite languages.Do we only need to look if a state is revisited to find out it's pumping length p?JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you have a language and a DFA for it, the number of states gives you an upper bound for p. You can also minimise the DFA, possibly getting a better bound for p. I'm not aware of a universal method to find a sharp bound. But maybe you are on the wrong track altogether? The pumping lemma is most often not used to actually pump a language, but to show that a language is not regular, because it cannot be pumped on all long words. In that case, you assume that the language is regular, then you postulate the existence of p, and then construct a word in L that is longer than p, but cannot be pumped. For that, you don't use a concrete value like 3 or 5, but construct your word based on p. That contradicts the pumping lemma, and hence you know that the assumption that the language is regular has to be false. The canonical example is to use ab to show that {ab | i in N} is not regular (your would pump more copies of a into the word, thus breaking the symmetry). Note that ab is much longer than p - n fact, it's twice as long. But also note that we don't use a fixed value for p (indeed, since the language is not regular, no such value exists). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your effort.That made my doubt clear on how to find p for infinite languages.I was really stuck on whether p is actually the number of states in a DFA or is it any other number that takes you through a loop.Now after you told about the 'upper bound' it's sure that there won't be any p such that it's greater than the number of states.Could you tell why we enforce the condition |xy| ≤ m (number of states for dfa) for pumping lemma.In this article(slide 23) it tells that the condition is enforced because of unique states in 'xy'.I couldn't get the need of unique states in 'xy'.Could you help me.JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, you split the word into xyz. Conceptually, x is the part leading to the loop, y is what processed in the loop, and z is the trace from the exit of the loop to an accepting state. In the slides you linked to, m is essentially just another name for p. The argument goes as follows. L is regular. Therefore there is a DFA for L. That DFA has m states. Therefore any accepted word with m or more letters must visit a state twice, i.e. there is a loop in the automaton. We can use that loop multiple times to accept longer words. In the pumping lemma itself, we don't use the number of states, because we don't want to rely on a concrete automaton, but make an argument for every automaton that accepts L. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)\

Okay.Could you tell why the restriction |xy| ≤ m can force y to have a special property as said in this lecture(p.68).JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry - which slide and which property do you mean? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh I mean to say slide 261 and it's better to read this lecture which says that the author tries to prove the language BALANCE(equal number of 0's and 1's) is regular using the Weak pumping lemma and he succeeds.While after he proves it using Strong pumping lemma I think he fails(not sure about this since I couldn't understand the proof).Then he points out that since the condition |xy| ≤ m is enforced it makes 'y' to have a certain property which I too couldn't understand.Could you tell why the author fails while using Strong pumping lemma.JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok. First, an important, indeed central, point. You cannot use the pumping lemma (weak or normal) to show that a language is regular. The pumping lemma states a sufficient, not a necessary condition on regular languages. All regular languages can be pumped, but there are also non-regular languages that can be pumped. Note that the Stanford argument is titled An Incorrect Proof and see slide 248. If a language is regular, sufficiently long words can be pumped. If this is false, the language is not regular. Now for your question: The weak pumping lemma is just based on the observation that if the word has more letters than the automaton states, processing the word must involve at least one loop, and the loop can be repeated. The "normal" pumping lemma for regular languages goes a little further - its based on the observation that you already need to complete at least one loop when processing the first p letters of the word. This extra constraint makes it easier (and sometimes possible) to construct the counterexample word. Check the proof for "balance" that follows, it's a nice example. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that using the normal pumping lemma we can prove that a language is not regular in a few steps?JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Either of the two (weak and "normal") pumping lemmas for regular languages can be used to show that some languages are not regular. Neither can show this for all non-regular languages. But the set of languages that can be proved non-regular with the weak version is a subset of those that can be proved non-regular with the normal pumping lemma. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Even though I could get the difference between weak and normal pumping lemma I tried searching the web but couldn't understand the examples given over there.Could you give an simple example to show the difference between weak and normal pumping lemma.JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Check the "balance" example from your slides - all words that have the same number of a and b (I think its 0/1 in the slides). With the "weak" version, you don't know where to pump. So if you pick e.g. the word ab, you could split it as x=a, y=ab, z=bz=b, and you can indeed pump that (every time you get both an a and a b). But with the "normal" version, you know that x=a, y=a, z=ab with k+l <= p, k+l+m=p. Thus you would pump only copies of a into the word, breaking the balance. Hence balance is not regular. I've never seen the "weak" version before, so it's no wonder you have a hard time finding examples. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay.Could you tell why we get "both an a and ab" in the weak version.I think it would only be 'ab' since y only contains 'ab'.JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a semantically important space. You get both "an a" and "a b", because "an" is the article that goes with "a" (which starts with a vowel sound), while "a" is the article that goes with a "b", which starts with a consonant.  ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh I see.I think you're trying to say that you've really mentioned "both an 'a' and a 'b'" instead of "both of 'a' and 'ab'".It's my fault of how I interpreted your sentence.Don't worry.I think the grammatical session is over.Could you tell whether the 'z' part is b or is it b?JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

In the weak case, you know nearly nothing about z. In the non-weak part, you only know that the initial segment xy is less then p long, so (for the word ab), both x and y consist just of as. The z part is the remaining as, which may be zero, and all the bs (I try to use "as" as the plural of a ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I would like to know if you have mistaken 'z' for b instead of b so we get the expression ab.If we use the 'z' part as b I think we would get the expression as ab isn't it?JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Another typographical problem, I think. "l" is the lower case letter L, not the digit 1 in the above. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you tell if we use "l" instead of "1" is it possible to get the expression ab in the "weak" version.To be honest I couldn't see an "l" in "weak" version even though I could see "l" in "normal" version.JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I was confused about which part you referred to. Your conjecture was correct, I have corrected it above. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay.Let's consider a finite automaton that has more than one loop(revisits the state entered again) like this dfa considered before.When we look this image we could see the possible loops are q0q1q2q0,q2q3q2 etc but this lecture(p.18) says that there's only one loop in q part.So could you tell if we could have more than one distinct loop in dfa as we have seen in the previous image.To check if a language is not regular do we need to look on all possible loops in the dfa to check whether it obey pumping lemma?JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 06:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

No. The argument for the pumping lemma goes as follows: If a language is regular, then there is a DFA for it. We don't construct the DFA, we don't know the DFA, we just know that it exists and has a fixed finite number of states. Then, when the language has arbitrarily long words, for all "long enough" word, the automaton has to go into at least one loop, and that loop can be pumped. If there are more loops, the word can be pumped in different places, but that is nothing we need for the argument. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you tell the steps we should take to show whether the language accepted by this automaton is not regular.While looking this image I can see loop in many places so don't know which all states we have to make x,y and z to check whether the y part contains a loop.JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure. The language accepted by the automaton is accepted by a DFA (namely the very one ;-). Hence it is regular by definition (or by equivalency of regular expressions and DFAs, depending on how you define regular languages). So I would take no steps at all to show that it is not regular, as that would be an exercise in futility. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh sorry but I still can't get how to know whether an automaton is a DFA.Do we only need to check if an automaton accepts an regular expression to check whether it's an DFA?If that's true should we rely on Pumping lemma to check whether an automaton doesn't accept an regular language and in turn proving that the automaton is not a DFA?JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The definition is at Deterministic finite automaton. Basically, if you only have finitely many states, no other memory, and the transition relation is a function (i.e. for every state/letter combination there is a unique successor state), you have a DFA. If only the first two are true, you have an NFA, but NFAs can be converted to equivalent DFAs, so both automata classes accept exactly the regular languages. Other automata in this field are push-down automata (which have an extra stack and can recognise context-free languages) and Turing machines (which have a read/write tape and can accept recursively enumerable languages). Also see Chomsky hierarchy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I think I was really confused between languages and DFA.I thought that pumping lemma is used to check whether an automaton is a DFA.Now only I realized it is used to find whether a language is not regular.When we use the pumping lemma can we use any DFA to check whether a language is not regular.JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

And you are still confused, if less so. The pumping lemma states a necessary, not a sufficient condition for regularity. So if a language cannot be pumped, its not regular. But if it can be pumped, we cannot say anything, as there are non-regular languages that can also be pumped. And the "any DFA" is at least ambiguous. What we do (when we go back to the underlying argument) is to a assume that a DFA exists and then show that this leads to a contradiction. Hence there is no DFA, hence the language is not regular. Having the pumping lemme in an abstract from saves us from arguing on that level every time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I think altogether pumping lemma is used to check whether a language is not regular and that sum of states in x and y shouldn't be greater than the pumping length isn't it?I really couldn't get why the condition |xy| ≤ m is enforced for pumping length 'm/p'.If the condition |xy| ≤ m is violated would it be an issue in pumping lemma?Could you help me.JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 06:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really happy with the word "check", as that can be read to imply that you get a guaranteed result. With the pumping lemma we only get "not regular" or "don't know". As for the rest: the stricter the conditions, the easier it is to show that a language violates them, so the more powerful the lemma. We can impose |xy| ≤ m, because xy is the initial part of a word that is longer than than the pumping length, and hence already has to have at least one loop. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you tell whether your last sentence violated the pumping lemma.I think you have to say that it's "no longer than the pumping length".Perhaps that's not a problem.Now only I could get that we impose the condition to speed the pumping lemma method.If we haven't imposed the condition could we still state that a language is not regular in less speed compared to the normal pumping lemma?JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I think my sentence is correct as stated. I don't know what you mean by "speed", but maybe it helps if you actually use the PL to show a couple of languages to be non-regular. The canonical example is, of course {ab| i in N}, but you can also try {abwba | i in N, w an arbitrary word over Sigma}.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I meant to say speed as " more faster the less it takes to prove a language is non-regular using pumping lemma".Could you tell whether the initial part of the word 'xy' should be longer than the pumping length.JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not a value judgement, so "should" is not quite appropriate. But you can pick a word such that you can pump it within the first p characters, where p is the pumping length. Take a look at the pumping game for some experience and a feeling for where there is a universal and where there is an existential quantifier. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm trying to ask whether the pumping length m should be greater than the sum of states in x and y or whether the pumping length m should be lesser than the sum of states in x and y in accordance with pumping lemma.JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It's the other way round! You propose that the language is regular. In this case, there is a DFA accepting it (by definition). That has a certain number (say p) of states. So any word of length p or greater has to run though at least one non-empty loop when processing the first p characters. The initial p characters of the word make up your xy, and the "non-empty loop" is the y on its own. Then you can repeat (or leave off) the y. If that makes you leave the language, then your assumption was wrong, and the language is not regular. You don't really need to think about DFA's at all when applying the pumping lemma, just when proving or explaining it. And in particular, you don't need to think about particular DFA's. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah maybe now I'm on the road.So we're just analyzing the first p characters of a word.Till know I've related 'x' to the initial and states till 'y' and 'y' to the _non empty loop_ and 'z' to the rest of the states left.I think this type of comparison would put you in danger isn't it?It's better to think based on the position of the word.Now we have the word should we look whether the initial p characters of the word repeats?I'm done with the word but still don't know how to analyze the word using pumping lemma to prove a language is not regular.JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried the pumping game I linked above? No, it's not just the first p characters that repeat, but some subsequence. In the game view, your opponent proposes a p, then you pick a word (usually constructed using p), then you opponent gets to split it, and then you can repeat the y part as often as you like. If you can manage to create a word that is not in L, you win (the language is not regular). Usually, the hard part is coming up with a good word, most of the rest is easy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes of course I tried it.Hardly to say if there's any language that needs memory it can't be a regular language and to prove this we use pumping lemma isn't it?Is there any language that doesn't need memory but is not in the class of regular languages?If there isn't anyone then all the languages that don't need memory would be in the class of regular languages isn't it? JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Deepness in the Sky = Exploitation

If this is about overlong plot summaries or something, then sure, we can stop them from being overlong. But otherwise, A Deepness in the Sky meets all possible criteria for being exploitation fiction. It's a pedantic and unconventional thing to say, but it's true. It's good exploitation, though, I didn't mean to say the novel is bad exploitation. Bad exploitation doesn't win Hugo Awards. Maybe I should watch Sweet Sweetback's Badass... Song (Q1812665). If I fall in love with the genre, then I should read award-winning hard SF. Did you revert my edit under the false premise that it was unadmiring? 203.215.119.40 (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. I just don't see how "Deepness" meets the criteria for the exploitation genre. It does not "exploit sex, violence, drugs, or other elements meant to attract readers primarily by arousing prurient interest". Sex, drugs and violence to occur, but they don't dominate, and they don't "arouse prurient interest". Otherwise, you could label War and Peace as exploitation fiction, too, or even the Bible. If you want to insist on the point, bring a reliable source making the connection directly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll assume you meant "Sex, drugs and violence do occur". The only thing you've convinced me of is that my contribution is original research. And that's all you need to convince me of. I've actually read A Deepness in the Sky. We can discuss this, but I don't really see the point, because no amount of discussion would change the article. I'm sorry I forgot about the original research rule. 110.55.0.4 (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm always sorry to resist well-intend contributions, but in this case I think I'm right. I'm glad you accept the NOR rule. Reasonable people can disagree, and personal competence is hard to ascertain on Misplaced Pages - which is why we ask for reliable external sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

There's another problem with the article. Editorializing. There's glittering generalities everywhere, and we already know the Emergents are the bad guys, we don't have to be told that. Can we get rid of the word "totalitarianism", or is WP:EDITORIALIZING one of those rules we don't follow? 110.55.1.110 (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for Access in Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016

Hello! You recently did a full protection on the Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016 Misplaced Pages page. I came to the page to update one of the polls, but as it turns out, someone removed it for being "inaccurate". I would assume good faith, but as the only poll removed by this person was the most recent one showing Johnson trailing Petersen it seems to have been vandalism. I would request that the removed polls be restored to the page. However, since there were two polls removed (and I'm not sure who removed the other one), a copy of all the polling data can be found on Gary Johnson presidential campaign, 2016. Thanks, and have a good day. SirLagsalott (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi SirLagsalott, please discuss any change on talk: Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016. If there is consensus for the edit, use Template:Edit fully-protected to request the edit. Or wait till tomorrow - I only protected for 24 hours to take the momentum out of the edit war. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Collect essay; second bite at the cherry

You participated in an MfD discussion about an essay by Collect that was in mainspace. The result was userfy and it was moved to user space accordingly. The essay has been moved back to mainspace. There is a discussion as to whether it should be renamed and moved. The discussion is here. Writegeist (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

"I found the instant improvability of Misplaced Pages to be nearly irresistible"
... you were recipient no. 1125 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Very good! Thanks for the reminder! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Two years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I hope I'm still worthy! ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, three now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hooray! Also, I'm officially old now (as of Sunday ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Late: happy birthday! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

... up to four! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

...and still alive (though not currently kicking, for lack of suitable backsides ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

... let's outdent for five! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Outdented it is! Happy reverse anniversary! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

begin it with music and memories

Not too late, I hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It's always the thought that counts. I'm more of a Beethoven guy than a Bach Guy (and, to be honest, also more of a Judas Priest guy ;-). Happy New Year to you, too! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Buch

Thanks for that :-). HD is a rather regrettable case; I'd say more except there are some slight parallels to mine :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I had the impression that this was not purely motivated by what's best for the encyclopaedia. And I know that I've got more "patience with questionable characters" barn stars than you ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

There won't be more problems like that for a while. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, go on, fix the header. I would, but it wouldn't be welcome William M. Connolley (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused - which header? I'm also busy: http://www.cs.miami.edu/~tptp/CASC/J8/ (running the E theorem prover ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You mean the speedy? That was already taken care of. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I meant which I've now done; sorry if I was obscure William M. Connolley (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

HD has reacted with that good humour and common sense so characteristic of him William M. Connolley (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

At least he is terse... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Islam El Shehaby and Or Sasson

Hello, Stephan Schulz. I am contacting you to let you know that there are some problems cropping up on the Or Sasson and Islam El Shehaby articles. We have at least one user, User:Or Sasson, who claims to be at least related to one of the subjects of the articles and at least fifteen reverts between both articles, including one by myself. I know that you are at least active on the Islam El Shehaby article, but I am less certain if you are involved with the Or Sasson article. Additionally, it seems like the topic is becoming a larger issue that might need more eyes to look into and attempt to come up with resolutions. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I only stumbled over both articles by accident, and try to keep the situation from overboiling. It seems to have cooled down (maybe only because of time zones and nighttime, but we'll see). I've left a message at User talk: Or Sasson. 11:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it looks as if things are cooling down overall, but thank you for helping to keep things in order. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Animal Farm in German

Hi! Are you interested in Farm der Tiere? Somebody's upset about alleged bias. YoPienso (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm offline for the next week - cycling without electronics, and don't have time to become involved now. If it's still relevant in 10 days, and I don't turn up on my own, ping me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Stephan Schulz. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Request in October 2016

Without any real justification, User:Diannaa reverted all of my edits to Newburgh Raid. It appears they did so based on a mistaken and erroneous belief that the material was copyrighted by the Newburgh Museum . First, the material on that site is released to the public domain under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. See the website's footer for proof. I know this is the case because I am a director with the Newburgh Museum and authored the material on that website which was used in the Misplaced Pages article. I authored it and allowed it to be posted on the museum's website solely on the condition that it could be used anywhere else, like Misplaced Pages. Therefore, the removal of my revisions were in error and I would kindly ask that you restore all of the edits.--YHoshua (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I find the assumption that I have "a phone" (which really seems to mean an advanced smartphone) to be quite unreasonable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Stephan Schulz.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Stephan Schulz. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Stephan Schulz. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Dispute Notification

I have filed a dispute on the article of Fidel Castro. I do this because it is recommended "If you begin a discussion of another user on a common notice board, it is expected that you will notify the subject user by posting a message on their talk page". Do not report me as vandal. This is the only instance in which I will write something here. If this is not the way to do it, let me know how it is done. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Nice try

Sorry but WP:CENSORSHIP isn't going to work here bucko. Keep it up and this will eventually make its way all the way up to a request for arbitration. What are you so afraid of ol' Jimbo seeing?--206.255.40.218 (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead. Or preferably do something productive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Indelete

Hi, User JzG deleted my page due to a blocked or banned user that originally created it. My page was created three years ago and remains valid regardless of this users recent actions. Please restore it.

Emit - Misplaced Pages https://en.wikipedia.org/Emit

Emitdfatt (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the topic area and I have no time to become acquainted with it. By restoring a deleted user's contribution, I would be responsible for it - which, given the constraints above, I don't want to be. You yourself have a conflict of interest, so it's better if you don't take on this responsibility, either. But maybe @JzG: is willing to discuss the issue? Guy, at a first glance the page seems to be substantial and reasonably sourced. Emit, if there is no direct solution, your best chance is Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. The page in question is, BTW, Emit (artist), not Emit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The article was created by an undisclosed paid editor. All edits were by that editor or SPAs. This is blatant promotion. 17:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)

Ok, I see. Sorry, Emit, I don't restore undisclosed paid editors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Misplaced Pages, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Misplaced Pages seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI

apologies, but I think you've been sucked in to the hand waving .... for the first time since I started here in 2011, so I'd also like to express my esteem for essentially every contribution you make. But no one's perfect forever...... (respectfully happy grins) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Ive always found that explaining and explaining and explaining and explaining is the most effective approach - not for the benefit of the committed deniers (per "you cannot reason someone out of a position he has arrived at without reason"), but for the benefit of the bystanders. And it drives the deniers crazy. Me, too, unfortunately ;-). You probably know this portrait of me: https://xkcd.com/386/ --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

That's my idea too, for the first two go-rounds. After that, my experience has been that further revolutions just seem to drill a hole deepeer and deeper, and the third parties aren't listenting anyway. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Revert on ref desk

I'm not reverting your revert because I don't want to get involved in a revert war with an admin, so instead I'll discuss why I removed that item from the ref-desk:

"How does the disability benefits agency prove when people are faking mental illness?" - No one on the reference desk is in a position to answer that question. Disability agencies function differently all over the developed world.--WaltCip (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Walt! No need to shy away from actions due to admin status -(at least for me - I do about 5-25 admin actions a year, and that should not have any influence on the discussion). But by your argument, any question about any government or societal field would be speculative. But a) there are common themes, b) we can provide context with the answers and c), in this case, we can assume the context of a modern, highly developed Western society, both from the question and from the link to the UK page the user provided. If we only answer perfectly candid, unambiguous questions, the RefDesk will be both boring and useless. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

thanks

...for reviewing sources at List of Scientists blah blah. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. I was only satisfying my personal curiosity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Should an article in the journal Energy and Environment be considered a "peer-reviewed article"". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 April 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Should an article in the journal Energy and Environment be considered a "peer-reviewed article", to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

ANI note

Hi, I've quoted a discussion between you and another editor at a current ANI: ("Another contributor pointed out the personal attacks (Talk page....)

I've been told it's polite to notify an editor being commented about, so I'm letting you know about the thread in question: Topic ban for User:Dapi89. Alternatively, here's the permalink. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Christian parties

I agree with your edit of the "same-sex marriage in Germany" article. I also think that the CDU isn't any more Christian than let's say the SPD. But when you compare the CDU to the Tories in the UK you nevertheless miss an important point. The CDU still emphazises a lot on its Christian background - something the Tories don't do. I want to give you a couple of examples: Peter Tauber's explanation why he voted in favor of same-sex marriages http://blog.petertauber.de/?p=3100, Volker Kauder on guiding principles of CDU politics http://volker-kauder.de/zur-person/politische-grundsaetze/index.html or Volker Kauder's explanation for the CDU's stance on social market economy http://volker-kauder.de/cms/upload/zur-person/C2.pdf I could go on and on with examples like that. I just take Peter Tauber, the CDU's general secretary, and Volker Kauder, leader of the CDU in the Bundestag, as an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:13B1:B8C0:1CC9:8827:1B93:D4F3 (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed it, but that edit was from 2013 ;-). Anyways, there are certainly some CDU members with a strong Christian belief, but that is shared by other parties. Yes, the UK conservatives may be even further down the line, as they never had "Christian" in their name, but the difference is marginal.As as you can see, CDU members can find reasons for and against the same position in Christian principles. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

John Christy article edit

Hi Stephan Schulz. I noticed that you changed the wording of my edit from:

Christy and his UAH colleague Richard McNider wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal in which they demonstrated that climate models projected temperatures consistently higher than real-world satellite and balloon data.

to

Christy and his UAH colleague Richard McNider wrote a commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal claiming that climate models projected temperatures

I see your point of not putting too much weight on an opinion piece, and that my original wording did just that - but the new wording seems to suggest that all they do is claim the models are running hotter than satellite/balloon data. I notice in the article they do more than make a claim, they try to make their case and use satellite/balloon data and compare it to average model projections. I'm wondering if maybe the wording can be changed to something like

Christy and his UAH colleague Richard McNider wrote a commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal arguing that climate models projected temperatures...

I wanted to get your thoughts because it looks like you put some thought into your edit. Actuarialninja (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that Christy and McNider were plain wrong, because Christy's (and Spencer's) interpretation of the satellite data was wrong over and over again. See UAH satellite temperature dataset#Corrections_made. I would suggest that "claim" is strong enough. But I'm not strongly opposed to "argue". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. Change made to "arguing". I also see that you put "claiming" instead of "using" for the scurvy example. I really don't see how this is an improvement, but what can one do? I don't want to start edit warring on this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actuarialninja (talk • contribs) 20:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, after some reading, I think Christy's claim of a (wrong) scientific consensus on scurvy opposed by a few brave (correct) sceptics in the mid 18th century is bizarre. In general, we should not implicitly endorse unreliable opinion pieces by restating their claims in Misplaced Pages's voice. If you can find another phrasing that does not endorse the wrong claim, feel free to discuss it. Or go by WP:BRD. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Dow Jones & Company is publisher of WSJ

Regardless, Dow Jones & Company is the publisher of the WSJ ... ? X1\ (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

It apparently wasn't in November 2007, when the article was published. The reference describes the provenience of the given article, not the current status of the WSJ. Moreover, ownership of a publishing house does not generally make the owner the publisher - the publishing house remains the publisher. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Oy...I misunderstood you. You are more right than I thought ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Donek Snowboards

The article Donek Snowboards has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

insufficient evidence for notability

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I might have looked for more sources, but I was offline, cycling through Indochina for the last weeks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Stephan Schulz. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

oscillatory motion

Re-re-re-reading that edit about "oscillatory motion", what is the right way to remove nonsense from a sincere question? Joepnl (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

In general, per WP:TPG, you should not edit or remove others comments from public talk pages, unless they are clear vandalism. Since the ref desks operate very similarly to talk pages, I think it's a good idea to follow the talk page guidelines. On the content question, the statement is actually quite correct. A ship rolls essentially like a pendulum. Wave motion may start it going, but the period of the rolling motion is not the frequency of the waves, but the natural oscillatory rate of the ship. You can observe this with a small model if you tilt it to one side in calm water - the righting moment will make it roll back, but in doing so, it will pick up rotational inertia that keeps it going beyond the even keel and make it list to the other side, unto the righting moment stops that motion and reverses it - and the cycle repeats. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Compare "would a big sheet that captures air make it possible to jump out of an airplane and stay alive?" answered with "You have to realize that Earth attracts any other object" The article on stabilizers doesn't explain what happens once a ship starts rolling either. My question was if bubbles could prevent or counteract the whole movement, I obviously wasn't asking for a rehearsal of basic physics I learned 30 years ago. Joepnl (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

LOL

Nice response on the Mathematics RD ! Yes, I did feel just a little bit embarrassed about proposing an engineering solution :) Gandalf61 (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm ready for the break! Best wishes for the new year! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey Invite

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_6R0IacIaXfno1RX&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Misplaced Pages that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of CADE ATP System Competition

The article CADE ATP System Competition has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Every reference that exists has the competition organizer listed as one of its authors.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. wumbolo ^^^ 13:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer - I've added a few more references. There are plenty more at Google Scholar, but I'm off to the plane to (no joke) go to participate in this years IJCAR and CASC. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of CADE ATP System Competition for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CADE ATP System Competition is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/CADE ATP System Competition until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. wumbolo ^^^ 13:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Change the name of: Ixquick by StartPage

Good morning. I think that you should change the name of: Ixquick by StartPage. Since the name of: Ixquick is out of date. The updated name is: StartPage. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notewiki2000 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Notewiki2000. I see that there is a RfC already underway. If it terminates successfully, and I'm not too late, I can do the move. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Automated theorem provers

You probably have noticed I am undertaking some improvement attempts on articles relating to automated theorem proving .... please be aware I struggle with the topic and am to a degree mainly concerned with getting citations attached to existing articles and am most happy for any contributions I make to be improved. Thankyou. 04:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I have a bit of expertise, but my time is rather limited (I need to maintain one ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Stephan Schulz. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

sorry, but...

I'm not remembering where I know you from! —Steve Summit (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you don't. I know you as the C-FAQ maintainer from the glory days of Usenet, when I was just a young student in university. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Misplaced Pages account and associated email Change your password now if your Misplaced Pages account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Misplaced Pages admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Task force climate change

Hello Stephan Schulz,

You are currently noted as a participant of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force. With much of the activity in this task force about ten years ago, I think it's time for a revival. Global warming is getting a lot of attention in the media now and it's therefore important our articles are up-to-date, accurate and neutral.

I've updated the task force page and the to do list and invite you to have a look at the page again, add something to the TO DO list or start collaborating by improving one of our many articles.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"Don't see why ANY IPs or new users need to edit this page"

That undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used for discussions internal to the project reference is not a ground for excluding IPs, which are not accounts. Checking the history, the protection came at 23:26, 12 June. The only undisclosed alternative account that had posted prior was "A poet not named Sam". To exclude all IPs when the matter could have been dealt with by blocking the account was wrong. I hope you will unprotect. 95.151.237.11 (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Editorial Independence to Force Communication

Hi Stephan, would you agree to modify your WP:FRAMBAN#Alternative proposal 5: Use Editorial Independence to Force Communication to my suggestion, to use MediaWiki:Editpage-head-copy-warn instead, to warn all editors that they are subject to secret behavioral rules by secret judges based on secret accusations, with no right of representation, defense, or appeal, and provide instructions for contacting the Board, CEO, and Chief of Community Engagement to ask for a revision to the T&S policy? EllenCT (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ellen! Sure. Given the initial reaction, this is probably a better idea. How do we do this technically after people have already commented? The easiest might be "Proposal 6"... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do, and copy my " Support EllenCT (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC) " into it, please, as I have to travel now. You might also want to {{hat}} Proposal 5, up to you. EllenCT (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Burke

Don't feel bad about Burke - just because he's been rather hijacked by loony-tunes on the right of late doesn't negate all the good in him. See, for example, Isaac Foot's Liberty and the Liberal Heritage for a rather different perspective than we are used to seeing today. DuncanHill (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know. It just struck me that "be very careful when changing an existing working system, even with the best intentions", is a very Burkesian conservative position. And maybe also an engineering perspective ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

climate change task force

Hi Stephan, I'm just guessing here... do you want to remain listed as "active" at the climate change task force? There has been nothing doing there forever, but it seems there might be some interest reviving it or converting it to a project. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi NAEG! I still check the Watchlist somewhat frequently to spot problems, but I'm busy with other research, so I'm not that active. But sure, keep me listed! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Please support the Sustainability Initiative!

Hi Stephan Schulz, as a member of WikiProject Climate Change, I would like to invite you to support the Wikimedia Sustainability Initiative by adding your name to the list of supporters. Thank you, --Gnom (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. But while I think sustainability is an important topic, I'd rather stay focussed on more narrow scientific topics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Mainstream view source issue

Hi Stephan, don't want to distract your focus, but I'd very much appreciate your assistance with assessing a potential source. This discussion is stuck due to lack of a good reliable secondary source for the current outcome; the best so far is a newspaper opinion piece which asserts the anti-science view uncritically. This source from Mainz presents a mainstream position, and in google translation looks pretty good to me. The magazine claims it's "written by independent journalists from all over the world." Can you give a quick assessment of how good this is as a reliable source, and perhaps how it compares to the newspaper piece? . . . dave souza, talk 19:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dave. I read the article - I think it's a good article, everything that maps onto my mental model checks out. It does not, however, clearly state the actual outcome - it mostly refutes claims by (some) interested parties. I've not heard of the magazine previously - it's certainly not a classical mainstream journalistic outlet. From looking at the authors and some publications, it's a (US-)liberal leaning outlet, it tries to provide quality journalism, but with a lot of opinion pieces. It's about 2.5 years old, and certainly has some intellectual heavyweights (e.g. Noam Chomsky) among its authors. But I doubt if it is convincing as a principal source on a politically disputed topic. I've personally had some discussion with friends about the Ball/Mann lawsuit, and about all we could agree on is that so far, there is a lack of reliable sources on the outcome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Stephan, that's very helpful. Will think it over, sounds better than other current options but hope good quality clarification appears fairly soon. . . . dave souza, talk 20:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Aye

October

... with thanks from QAI

Thank you for having supported the right candidacy for arbitration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I still miss his with and insight... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

So do I. I kept it in my edit notice (to stay for my wikilife), on my talk throughout 2019, and on top on my talk today, - simply the best Precious conversation ever (if you click on precious), and many have been wonderful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Today, I am proud of a great woman on the Main page, Márta Kurtág, finally! - I moved both threads back to his talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Book project, request for interview - How to Build a Fact: The Misplaced Pages Paradox and the Perilous Future of Knowledge

Greetings!

I hope this finds you well, considering everything that is happening. My name is Nathaniel James. I am writing a book that will very much hinge on telling the story of the creation and maintenance of the Global Warming article, and I hope you’d be willing to talk with me about it. The working title for my book is How to Build a Fact: The Misplaced Pages Paradox and the Perilous Future of Knowledge. I published a longer overview about the project at the Village Pump and on my , including more background information about me, and I encourage you to take a look for the broader context.

Samantha Lien of the Foundation did some asking around for key editors on the Global Warming article. Just to be transparent, she also recommended Raul654 and William Connelly, and I am reaching out to them as well. I would love more referrals for people to talk with. I also want to check with the three of you to see if it would be ok and not disruptive to occasionally reach out to Global Warming editors on the article’s Talk page.

Would you be open to an interview?

At this stage, I’ll be doing what I’m calling “framing interviews” with the goal of getting input on what core editors think are/were the most important moments or elements in the history of the article that I can research more deeply. I think 30-40 minutes will suffice. In the future, I hope you will be open to at least one longer interview in which my questions will be more specific and shaped by my research. To give you a sense of timeline, I am focused on writing a proposal, including a sample chapter that is not directly linked to the Global Warming article. Then I will focus on the first section of the book, which is actually about the French Encyclopédie of the period leading up to their Revolution, so it will probably be quite a while before I come back for a longer interview. But I think being in dialogue with key Global Warming editors early will help me shape the narrative overall.

Thanks for taking a look. Feel free to ask me anything. If you’re open to an interview in the next couple of weeks, I can send you a scheduling link to save on the back and forth.

Cheers,

NJ HowtoBuildaFact (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nathaniel! Sure, I'm willing to help, although I'm fairly busy. And you kinda stole my idea, if from the opposite angle (I've had the title Promoting the big lie - Misinformation in the age of information transparency in my todo file since long before Merchants of doubt came out, with chapters planned on Revisionism, Creationism, and Global Warming denial (entries not related to automated theorem proving in that file tend to not be done (yet!))). If you send me an email (the link on Misplaced Pages should work, or find my home page via the user page - it also has the address), I can send you some more suggestions in a more private environment - I'm fine with discussing this in public, but I don't know if everybody else is. Also, if you plan an interview, it's probably a good idea if you can send me a few of the core questions up-front, so I can refresh my memory with respect to particular dates via the Misplaced Pages history). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Snow close of RfC re WP:RD/G/M?

Could you as – if I'm not mistaken – an uninvolved admin have a look at the following?

Just a few days ago an RfC was opened on the following question: "Should the page Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice be categorized as a guideline or a (type of) essay"? Although the discussion – which was somewhat acrimonious at times – has lasted only three days, the editor who opened this RfC wrote: "At this point perhaps a speedy close is in order...dont see what more could be said."

If I have counted correctly, one contributor opined this was not the right question, writing Neither. One came out clearly for A Type of Essay. 12 others !voted Guideline, and two more contributors even wrote that it should be Policy. It would thus appear there is no community support for deprecation of the guideline status, and that the chance that this may change by a protracted discussion is negligible.  --Lambiam 21:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I may be formally uninvolved, but I do have a strong opinion on which sides arguments are better. In my RfA I said that I would rather not close an RfC against a strong numerical majority. ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Featured article review

I have nominated Climate change for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

I know you haven't been involved recently with this article, but I hope to get knowledgeable input from people who haven't. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you (both singular and plural) have done such a good job with the climate articles that I could go back to that other world and do computer science. Thanks! I'll see if I can take a look... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Help on Wikiproject Climate change project

Hi,

any chance you want to help out on increasing coverage and info on this ? Carbon sink upscaling additional info on carbon sink upscaling (missing info) --Genetics4good (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Want to, maybe. But while I know some of the techniques (biochar, (re)forestation, direct carbon capture...), it is not an area I'm particularly familiar with - and worse, I have no time to become familiar at the moment. So I'll stay out of it for now... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

And so we meet again! ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Reading the talk page archives of Climate change, I cannot help but applaud you and your valiant defense of the article against the vast hordes of misinformed people, partisan hacks, reality deniers, and trolls. If I was in your shoes, I almost certainly would have gone postal after a month at best; how you managed to do this for years is beyond me. Kleinpecan (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, it's appreciated. I am a fairly patient person (some would say lethargic ;-), which helps. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

pluto dwarf planet

I was just taking a trip down memory lane and saw that you were the first person to explicity declare Pluto as a dwarf planet in this revision.

Anyway, thanks for the contribution that you would've forgotten about. 116.251.151.195 (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not remember that, so thanks for reminding me! But it's also not quite correct. See e.g. this earlier revision. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

i am very incorrect 116.251.151.195 (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Check the next edit ;-)! We have a weird hobby! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Luke 2:1-21

1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

15 And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.

16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.

17 And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.

18 And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.

19 But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.

20 And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

Merry Christmas and God bless — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.36.207.111 (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Lucky Luke? Should really just delete the spam, but couldn't resist the cultural reference. A Merry Winter Solstice to all, and hope you and yours stay safe in these troubled times. . .dave souza, talk 22:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I get to read the Luther version every Christmas to great hilarity. And then my niece and I go hunting for the three magi (they are in Matthew 2, not in Luke). So I get to sow the seeds of scepticism while pretending to follow Christian tradition. ;-). Of course, few things are better to create atheism than actually reading the bible... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

There's a lovely parable there! Best wishes for the New Year, . dave souza, talk 22:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

And to all... William M. Connolley (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed! Best wishes, nights, and all. I hope you are all doing well. I planned to visit ye olde island (I have an open invitation to Edinburgh, and may finagle one to Cambridge), but with the plague, all things are on hold. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

If you're ever in the Fens, let me know and we can have a beer or two William M. Connolley (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure! Looking forward to it! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A token of thanks Hi Stephan Schulz! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}  ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I like topical shirts (I usually wear my EFF shirts), so it's appreciated. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi Stephan, I am currently writing my master thesis regarding Misplaced Pages and Climate Change WikiProject. I was wondering if you would have time to have a chat/interview regarding this? Best regards, Anda Bordieanu

Hi Anda! Sure, I can probably find a bit of time. I'm currently travelling, but will be back next week. How and when do you want to do this? Text or Zoom or something else? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Stephan, thank you so much for getting back to me! Next week would be perfect! What time zone are you currently on? And do you have any preferences regarding a day and a time? I think ZOOM would be better than text! -Anda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anda Bordieanu (talk • contribs) 19:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Anda. I'm in Europe/Berlin (actually Stuttgart, but the time zone is the same ;-). Zoom is ok. I'm fairly flexible, but I have a couple of floating appointments (where the Doodle-dust has not yet settled). What would be a good time for you? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I am flexible myself as I am working part time and you are in the same time zone as me, I am in Copenhagen. How about Thursday next week would that suit you? I am available the whole day. Otherwise, let me know and I can find another day. Anda Bordieanu (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Anda, Thursday is possible. Can you send me your email via Misplaced Pages Email ("Email this user" should work), so I can send you a Zoom invitation? 10:00 am would be good for me, if it takes no more than one hour. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Precious

Seven years!

Precious anniversary (2022)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Another year - wow, that went quickly! Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

On Scientism

Thought I'd share this with you: https://kirkmillerblog.com/2022/09/28/c-s-lewis-critique-of-scientism/

God bless 128.187.116.31 (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I like a good discussion. But I think Lewis misses the point. A lot. Basically, because while he might understand theology and philosophy (probably much better than I), he does not understand science and the philosophy of science. The most basic justification for science is that it works. Reliably, over and over again it uncovers new laws and refines them unless they predict the behaviour of the universe in better and better agreement. I would have loved to see a discussion between Lewis and Karl Popper indeed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It's motivated reasoning. Science conflicts with cherished belief, so science must be discounted. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Science does not give ultimate answers. Religious/superstitious people seem to mistake this strength for a weakness. Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Right. Science is a way of telling fact from falsehood. The modern usage of the word fact is almost always the scientific one, so much so that the legal term from which it was taken is now seen as an oddity. Fact, from facta, that which was done. Empirical verifiability, not rhetorical superiority. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Wow, what a short year! Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Deafblindness, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Persistence of Vision and John Varley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Bot. Fixed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Again! Thanks! And I'm still here, too! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)