User talk:Stephen B Streater

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Archives

Archive of talk sections which have been dormant for six months.

[edit] I would have never thought to do this but...

Wow, you really beaned me with your comment about canvassing for support being perceived as unpopular. Not being a politician nor having the inclination to "canvass" I have no intention of doing this, but can you explain why such an action would be considered "unpopular"? After all, since the standard is 75% of the votes in support, is it really that outrageous for an enterprising Wikipedian to drum up support? Just asking because I'm not aware of any statements that discourage such actions either in people's standards or in other places. Of course sockpuppetry and outside fora canvassing is discussed, but internal Wikipedia support requests are really that problematic? Should we include this proscription somewhere on the RfA pages? --ScienceApologist 20:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

Do you think you could help User:Dr1819? He is incensed that one of his articles has been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Male Unbifurcated Garment) and has similar problems at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men's fashion freedom. He appears convinced that these deletion votes are motivated by opposition ot the idea of men wearing anythign other than trousers - I'm guessing he's had a few heated arguments in the past and is a bit sensistive on the issue. He's clearly intelligent, but doesn't seem to realise that I'm not some snotty acne-infested kid (or maybe he just thinks that's how I think of him - it's not, of course). Anyway, he is so incensed at the deletions and subsequent reviews of Male Unbifurcated Garment that he will not understand what I'm trying to tell him about the problem with his articles; he comes up with long screeds which simply don't address the point. As you may know I have family problems right now and simply don't have time to give him the TLC he needs to calm him down - I hope you might be able to get him off the ceiling and starting to talk rationally. Right now he's headed for a block (and when he was warned about WP:CIVIL he accused the warning admin of incivility by "calling forblocks or bans" - he doesn't seem to know the difference between an incitement and a warning). You have impressed me before with your patience, I hope you can help. Thanks, Guy. Just zis Guy you know? 17:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I can help out with this. I noticed the DRV, but haven't taken part. Stephen B Streater 18:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. The man has a stubborn streak almost as wide as mine... Just zis Guy you know? 19:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll enjoy reading up on your discussions then ;-) I've read through the AfD already, and am linking together what I know of the subject - though family beckons right now. Stephen B Streater 19:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I helped. Or am at least part of the solution. Things have quietened down, and the gist of the two deleted articles condensed into clothing#Male alternatives. Stephen B Streater 14:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The fringe terms have been rejected, but the concept of men wearing these clothes still remains. [1] I think it's safe to leave it with them now. Stephen B Streater 08:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Good work. It's exhausting, dealing with the highly passionate. That and moving house, on top of my sister dying, I don't have half the patience I usually do. :-( Just zis Guy you know? 12:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've just bought a new house too (though we fortunately have plenty of time to fix it before we move in) - and I've got a big exhibition next week, so I can appreciate how patience must be preserved for important things. Various people have agreed to go away and find some actual evidence, which will either be possible or will not be. Even Unimodal seems to be mostly settling down now :-) Stephen B Streater 13:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Col legno

I was wrong; the description is actually in some other article (Playing the violin?). So maybe there could be an inter-article link to that section. There's a whole list of bowing techniques described there, or somewhere.

Yes, it's here. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 23:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

OK - I've added this link in. It's better than repeating all the material. Stephen B Streater 23:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video Hosting Sites

This discussion refers to this article. Stephen B Streater 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stephen, we appreciate that you like YouTube, but you can't keep reverting Video Hosting Sites external to a website that you like and deleting competitors as "spam". Thank you for ceasing and desisting your vandalization of that page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.165.145.236 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 13 June 2006.

YouTube, which was present in the article when I arrived, has an internal link. Your favourite site(s) don't have articles and are not mentioned in this article and do not appear any different from any other video hosting sites, so look like spam to me. Stephen B Streater 15:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:EL and WP:SPAM apply. Just zis Guy you know? 16:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added a list in. I wouldn't say FORscene qualified as a notable video hosting platform, except that it is notable and a video hosting platform so I've left it off that list. I included Wikipedia as it has local interest, and FORscene is relevant here, but I suspect that Wikipedia is not signficant in the scheme of things, so really that whole section on Wikipedia should go. Stephen B Streater 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
In mitigation, I'll just mention that other articles, such as The Register have particular sections on relevance to Wikipedia. I find these interesting in a rubbernecking sort of way. Stephen B Streater 22:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I've taken off the FORscene mention - surprisingly it was left by the last poster, who deleted YouTube for being non-notable. Perhaps he's been reading the AfD ;-) The section on need for video hosting is much more relevant. Stephen B Streater 09:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forth

I'm curious how you got interested in Forth? (You can reply here, I'll watchlist you.) Ideogram 22:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, deep down I'm a hacker. I'm old enough to have written in machine code (6502) so I like the simplicity of Forth. Stephen B Streater 22:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You might be interested in the discussion I'm having at User talk:Tobias Bergemann#forth and scheme. Ideogram 13:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Your patience and perspective would be a great help at programming language too. Ideogram 13:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added both to my watchlist. I'll look around for a while and then start contributing. Stephen B Streater 14:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. Ideogram 14:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
My earliest programming was on Z80 - in hex. We didn't even have an assembler at first :-) My first programming job was writing real-time control systems for roadstone coating plant (in 128k of RAM). Just zis Guy you know? 09:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Real men program in hex :-) Stephen B Streater 12:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Wusses. Binary or nothing... Just zis Guy you know? 12:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Before the wheel we only had 1's. Ideogram 23:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Wheel war! rouge admin abuse! Oh, wait... Just zis Guy you know? 14:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Getting users confused. No he isn't blocked. --Woohookitty(meow) 22:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whatever next?

An article on PRT on a related project... Just zis Guy you know? 20:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Great idea :-) I think every article should have its reality reflection. Only unpublished original research would be allowed. I wonder which articles would come out more believable ;-) Stephen B Streater 21:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] notability and verifiability

Of course I want to preserve verifiability in our proposal. Does it imply that one should disregard verifiability anywhere? The main purpose of the essay is to encourage people to use official policy or guidelines rather than use "notability" (which isn't either a guideline or policy) as an issue. Fresheneesz 19:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Notability is a long-standing guideline, and it exists as a portmanteau of formal policies: a subject which is notable will have gained sufficient external coverage in reliable secondary sources for us to verify that it is covered neutrally without straying into original research and ensuring that we don't include indiscriminate information, soapboxes or trivia. It's shorthand, nothing more. Just zis Guy you know? 22:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Not everyone uses it for shorthand - most don't that I've seen, as those who call an article non-notable aren't looking for sources or neutrality. Fresheneesz 07:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I only saw the report on your essay, not the essay itself. Please could you provide a link? Stephen B Streater 17:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video-related Stubs

Hi Stephen. To answer your question over on Talk:FORscene about whether you should be writing stubs for ALE and so on - broadly yes. With my brain all full of Broadcast Live knowledge right now, and looking at the Avid and FCP pages and just generally clicking around the relevant links, it looks as though there's a fair bit of information sitting at the very top of your brain that should be and isn't on Wikipedia. Clearly therefore it would be an excellent use of your time to put it here - both the video-stuff, as it were, and the new-technology-stuff. The Avid-related pages are astonishingly small considering their enormous power in the market, for example. --JennyRad 11:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll start with Avid Log Exchange and improve AAF. Stephen B Streater 11:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Noticeboard incident

JzG has posted a note about my recent personal attack (as he calls it). You have been recently involved in the debate so I thought I'd let you know in case you wish to respond. A Transportation Enthusiast 16:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll see how I can help out there and in the article. Stephen B Streater 17:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Typo

Sure, feel free to fix anything on my page or do whatever. I am not one of those admins that moan and groan when someone edits their user page. And my user page isn't locked, so... fell free! Iolakana|(talk) 19:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

Sorry for my bias about NYC...I'll fix the typo...I've not been to London, surely, it is equal at least to NYC...best wishes.--MONGO 09:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been to NYC, and it's pretty good too :-) Stephen B Streater 09:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PRT and Terrorism

Stephen, I just wanted elaborate on the PRT/terrorism point briefly. JzG is an admirer of Road Kill Bill and Ken Avidor. He suggested the cartoon would be good, we all objected, and he put it in anyway. It was only after we repeated our objections that he finally relented. I believe that JzG's affection for RKB and Avidor has severely affected his judgement in this case.

Now, for why we objected. The terrorism claim about PRT is nothing more than a vicious smear and blatant scare tactic. PRT designers long ago answered the "guided missle" claim (which basically claims that PRT cars could be sent across town with a cargo of explosives) -- proponents responded by suggesting a button inside the vehicle that must be pushed to move. No unattended cargo possibilities, therefore no guided missles.

And beyond that, it's just common sense that PRT would be less susceptible to terrorism than other transit modes. Why? Because it spreads people out! No huge station filled with people waiting, no packed trains in tunnels -- the very topology of a PRT system makes a less attractive terrorism target than light rail or buses!

The cartoon is a smear, plain and simple. But even beyond that... it's tasteless! In this era of terrorist paranoia, where real people are dying in real terrorist attacks on real transit systems, how sick is it to show terrorists attacking a transit system just to advance your political agenda? How about a political campaign against air travel employing a cartoon showing the planes hitting the towers? Would that be "light-hearted" too?

Now given all this, JzG still supports the cartoon. Is this a reasonable position? A Transportation Enthusiast 08:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Important things should be said even if they are tasteless. But you arguments here are valid reasons not to include this particular cartoon, which no one is fighting over now. JzG is much more concerned that the article doesn't blindly and uncritically repeat the assumptions which are implicit in the marketing material. I've concentrated on Unimodal and ULTra so far - perhaps I should have a look at the PRT article in detail. I'd be interested to know what you think has to happen before PRT can take off. Stephen B Streater 09:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Stephen, it doesn't matter what I think, I'm nobody. :-)
But seriously, I honestly don't know what has to happen for PRT to take off, I'm not a marketing type so those kinds of topics generally don't interest me. And I freely admit it may never happen for PRT. But regardless of whether it takes off or not, the engineering and science that has gone into it is real. That's indisputable. It's not just a bunch of marketing fluff from salesmen, as some would have you believe. A Transportation Enthusiast 14:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe ATE is still obsessed with this cartoon - that issue was done and dusted weeks (possibly months) ago. It's ancient history. As far as I was concerned it was a lighthearted way of saying something; the PRT-lovers were vehemently opposed to it so it was removed, and that's an end to it. Unfortunately there seems to be a belief that uncritical support for PRT is the only neutral point of view, and that anybody who opposes addition of marketing speculation is part of the Vast Corporate Conspiracy which has kept PRT form being implemented for 40 years. Not that I'm opposed on principle to being part of the Vast Corporate Conspiracy, but the buggers have not sent me the money yet. Seems to me that the forces lined up against it are the light rail engineers, the motor manufacturers, the libertarian right (who don't like spending money on any public project), realists who demand that there be a working one they can touch before spending money, the heritage mob and probably a few other assorted groups as well. Wuith that kind of opposition it's hard to see it getting off the ground any time soon. But that's just my personal opinion. What is absurd is the idea that I am in some way anti-PRT; as a cyclist and an electrical engineer I love the concept! I just don't see it as very likely. I do find it somewhat offensive that my liking for the RKB cartoons should be taken as acceptance of Ken Avidor's POV. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Badlydrawnjeff for a case where I show that I am pefectly capable of separating the quality of an editor's work from my perrsonal feelings about their politics. Just zis Guy you know? 09:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I saw that nomination. It's pleasing to see you supporting someone who comes from a different viewpoint. Stephen B Streater 10:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The reason I'm "obsessed" with this cartoon is because you give the impression that you made some grand concession to the "PRT lovers" when you allowed it to be removed, when in fact the reason it was removed was that it was wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I can't think of any reason why someone would want to include it except to push Avidor's POV. A Transportation Enthusiast 14:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Different people come from different angles. We are not here to judge other people. Life is easier when you accept this. The non-inclusion of the cartoon is agreed now - the Transport Enthusiast view has prevailed on that point. People are allowed to be convinced by arguments where they are strong. Just accept that you won the argument and got your way, and move on. There are still a few unresolved article issues to work on. Stephen B Streater 14:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where?

Where was that discussed? I have never seen this discussed anywhere. ackoz 15:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

In the Falklands talk page. This debate comes up very often. Stephen B Streater 15:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the general consensus is always the same. WP:SOAP means that Wikipedia reports significant views and does not aim to influence opinions. The view here is that the Argentine (Spanish) name for the islands should be included as a secondary definition. I haven't seen hundreds of foreign names for modern towns - I wouldn't have thought anyone actually used these so they would be non-notable. Stephen B Streater 15:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Please go back to the RfC page and check. I was not talking about the Falklands. ackoz 15:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
OK - I'll check again - your link went there. Stephen B Streater 15:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I was confused by your flag. I'm English so don't speak foreign. Stephen B Streater 16:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secularization of Christmas

Regarding your very recent comments there — please see Talk:Spring holiday and the bottom section for comment, thank you. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 18:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I've replied there. I think your merge ideas are worth a go. Ironically, England has an established Church but is largely a secular country - unlike the US which the article mostly applies to. Stephen B Streater 18:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PRT and ULTra/UniModal

Stephen, just to clarify: my concerns are not really with ULTra or UniModal, but with PRT in general. For a long time, the PRT article was much more skeptical than was warranted (many of the battles concerned indisputable facts about PRT, such as the fact that offline stops were inherent to the PRT concept -- JzG was adamant about saying they "may" be offline). Things have improved lately. JzG seems to be less dictatorial in his article edits, and the article has improved as a result. If it stays this way, then I anticipate the fighting will die down.

But, you know, it's quite improper to imply that our content is irrelevant just because he thinks we're "barrow pushers". Such statements are inexcusable, and the only reason he gets away with them is people are afraid or unwilling to cross him. Very infuriating. A Transportation Enthusiast 21:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

When I get time, I'll get more involved with PRT. This may improve things :-) I don't know what emails JzG gets, but the various places this debate have surfaced have helped give a better overall picture, which in turn is helping the article. You may find that JzG has relaxed on things where outsiders have suggested there is nothing to worry about, but strengthened his stance when the outside consensus was that he was right. He is under no obligation to reveal his sources, though he did hint that he had had feedback from various neutral observers. Stephen B Streater 21:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
If JzG has outside sources for content he is pushing in the article, then he needs to reveal them. What are their credentials? Do they have biases? Or, if he cannot reveal the source, then he should at least reveal the evidence and/or arguments. We should be able to examine this evidence in order to come to a consensus as to its validity.
Take Java as an example. In the late 1990s, many computer professionals scoffed at Java as a toy language. Back then, if you had asked a "respected neutral source" about Java, they'd have probably laughed at you, because C and C++ were everything in those days. A high level, bytecode-based, garbage collected language was considered a joke by many "experts" of the day, becuase Java was pretty far away from their idea of what a programming language should be. Indeed, many experts predicted that Java would never be able to handle the heavy demands of high-capacity server applications.
Yet today, Java is firmly entrenched as one of the top two or three programming languages in use, even for heavy-duty web server applications. Maybe JzG's "neutral" consultants are the equivalent of a computer programmer in 1995: very biased in favor of the established, and against the unfamiliar. Such is the case with Vuchic, who is by all accounts a brilliant engineer, but who has occasionally gotten some basic facts wrong about PRT.
So if JzG has behind-the-scenes sources on which he bases article decisions, he absolutely should reveal them, or at least reveal their evidence and arguments. Who knows... maybe that will help us to close the gap in our positions? But as it stands, he keeps saying the same thing ("there's no public system in existence") which gets us nowhere because that proves nothing about the underlying applicability or feasibility.
I do appreciate your assistance in this matter (and apparently the others do too). You seem to have a more accepting approach to our concerns. A Transportation Enthusiast 00:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your appreciation :-) I think JzG's feedback has been on interpretation of policy rather than PRT itself. Stephen B Streater 06:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
PS When I started Forbidden, very few people believed you could have a Java video player. Now we have FORscene. People still don't believe it, mind you, even though it is there and TV programmes are being made on it every day. PRT may also have to go through this stage after it is built. Stephen B Streater 06:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I have never been dictatorial except when people refuse to listen to what I am saying :-) They don't have to agree, they just have to listen. Repeating stale old arguments which do not address the issues does not look to me like evidence of listening... I have taken a lot of trouble to explain exactly what my view is, at every stage, and how this relates to policy and guidelines. I am rather tired of being portrayed as a POV-pusher simply because I keep returning to the fundamental and indisputable point that PRT as described in the PRT article does not exist and never has, and every single cited source is essentially promoting the technology, not reviewing dispassionately. My biggest concern for some time has been the consistent failure to cite any reputable secondary sources such as engineering journals; all the quotes and figures come from proponents, and few if any have had the benefit of any kind of peer-review. I finally found this [2] which comes from an international conference on people movers, an audience hardly likely to be biased against PRT, and it says exactly the same thing: that the bulk of the published material comes from proponents and is uncritical in its approach. Just zis Guy you know? 17:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
We've heard what you've said, JzG, and we disagree! And not only that, we have much evidence to support our position! Why is that so difficult for you to grasp? I've still yet to see verifiable evidence of real skepticism of PRT technology. Where is it? The fact that it doesn't exist commercially is the only piece of verifiable skeptical evidence you've provided, and it proves nothing. We don't judge science by the level of commercial success it achieves.
Against this lone piece of skeptical evidence, there are hundreds of academic papers and several books that describe, in detail, the technology and science. Furthermore, there are fully functioning prototypes that demonstrate the technology in action. These are all reliable sources, not promotional literature.
JzG, I've asked you repeatedly: rather than continuing to make vague statements like "every single cited source is essentially promoting the technology" (which is blatantly false), why don't you enumerate specifically the sources you feel to be lacking? Perhaps if you were more specific in your concerns, we could address them properly and this endless debate can cease.
As for the paper you mentioned, once again, it does not dispute the technology, only the literature! If PRT is so deserving of skepticism, why hasn't it been debunked by now? Why aren't the Vuchics of the world rolling up their sleeves and attacking the engineering flaws in PRT designs, rather than writing high level fluff pieces that rely on dubious assumptions? Why are all the attacks on PRT based on political and/or subjective concerns? Where is the real skepticism, JzG? If it's not out there, then maybe you shouldn't be manufacturing it based solely on the lack of skeptical evidence. A Transportation Enthusiast 20:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
What, you disagree that there is no PRT installation like that described anywhere in the world? Great! I'm sure you can tell me where to find one. Or is it that you disagree that teh sources appear to be uncritical? In which case the cited analysis stating otherwise is a bit inconvenient for you... You say there are "hundreds" of papers: why don't you cite some from the engineering journals, as I've asked in the past? Whene every link comes from Jerry Schneider's website that does weaken your position a bit.
You can be as uncritical as you like on Wikinfo, here we have to be a bit more balanced. Which means reflecting the real-world situation: there is no urban PRT, there are no plans for any, and there are massive barriers to overcome before any is built. Your agenda is clear, mine is that we should keep our feet on the ground rather than relying on information from "Doug" and "Jerry", to quote some names dropped in past Talk. Just zis Guy you know? 21:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
"Doug and Jerry"? I have no idea who "Doug" is. By "Jerry" I assume you mean Jerry Schneider, the respected researcher who has compiled previously published academic papers on his website, a fact repeatedly pointed out to you but which you choose to ignore. Once again I implore you, please identify the specific points and/or sources you believe to be unsupportable, and maybe this debate will get beyond the stage of baseless accusations. A Transportation Enthusiast 17:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Missing the point. Both are PRT proponents, both names have been dropped in Talk. Meanwhile the lack of any citations from engineering journals continues. Just zis Guy you know? 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course, JzG once again is conspicuously vague in his criticism of the article sources, even though I've asked him repeatedly to enumerate the sources he finds lacking. This feels so familiar. Any day now I'm guessing he will start calling PRT a fraud and a stalking horse. A Transportation Enthusiast 21:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no need to criticise JzG for something he might start doing, unless he is actually doing it. As far as I can see, there might be PRT discussions in engineering publications - or at least discussions of the components. If someone can find these good sources, it would improve the article. Stephen B Streater 08:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Stephen, I would say that almost every point in the article is supported by reputable sources, from Irving's text (which was based on 8 years of gov't-sponsored research) to several journal articles that describe the concepts. There seems to be a large concentration of articles in the Journal of Advanced Transportation, but some are by the "off-limits" Anderson and Schneider, so I'm not going to bother going through all the trouble adding sources everywhere, only to have JzG revert them all because we have "too much from Anderson and Schneider".
Furthermore, we've already been through the cycle of {add sources}==>{"too many sources listed"}==>{remove sources}==>{"where is the source for X?"}. The former editor (who will not be named) demanded sources, we inserted them, then JzG came and removed almost all of them, and now he's saying the article is unsourced. It's a vicious cycle that I no longer wish to participate in unless I get a firm committment that JzG will not go in and revert all my edits (based on some arbitrary justification like "too many Anderson citations").
Now, you seem to have a more open-minded view on these pages, so perhaps with your involvement we can get it right.
Also, Stephen, I happened to notice you discuss a hypothetical "request for de-adminship" below in a separate conversation. This is something I would very much like to see, because I believe that we have compelling evidence of an admin who has broken just about every rule, from assuming bad faith (repeatedly) to edit-warring to personal attacks to POV pushing. I've seriously considered taking formal action, but I'm not familiar enough with the process, and frankly I'm quite skeptical that my case would be considered objectively, since I'm an outsider and the admin in question is well known. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes iteration is needed to get things right. The Journal of Advanced Transportation claims it is a fully peer reviewed journal that publishes manuscripts in the field of transportation - do we have any external evidence for this. If so, it could be a useful source. If not, then it may be an unreliable source and we need to continue looking. It looks like no one has really had the time to dig up the definitive independent sources, and this is a cause of friction. Stephen B Streater 18:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you consider Irving's book, which documents the 8 years of US government research, to be reliable? Much of the uncited material is documented there. This, in addition to several journal and conference papers that document later developments. Unfortunately, Irving's book is difficult to obtain (it's out of print). A Transportation Enthusiast 19:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I haven't heard of Irving's book. The important questions for me are: Was it published by a reputable publisher? and Is Irving reporting on other people's work or his own? - or more specifically Is Irving independent?. Stephen B Streater 20:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The publisher is Lexington Books: D.C. Heath and Company. Irving reports on the work of The Aerospace Company, which was (I believe) a government sponsored non-profit that spent 8 years studying PRT. I believe they built a fully-functional 1/12th scale prototype of their design.
Is Irving independent? I don't know, is any researcher "independent"? He was one of the principal investigators working on a large scale research project for non-profit company sponsored by the government. His role was almost purely research; as a government sponsored project, I don't think he even owned any of intellectual property resulting from his work. It's as close as you can get to "independence" for a researcher. Furthermore, the work of later researchers (Anderson et al) has validated much of Irving's work.
I mean, really, how much more reliable can a source be? A Transportation Enthusiast 03:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone who was reporting on the merits of someone else's work will be more reliable than someone reporting on the merits of his own work. Stephen B Streater 16:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Which brings us to Anderson. :-) Anderson's work is largely based on Irving's, and as such qualifies as a third party validation of Irving's results. But Anderson has been vetoed as a source, so that's why I was pursuing Irving as a source. A Transportation Enthusiast 19:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
So if Irving is a primary source, Anderson is a secondary source, and Wikipedia is a tertiary source. I thought the problems with Anderson was that he was over-represented as a source and that his neutrality can't be relied on unquestioningly. PRT is much bigger than one man, with a history back to the mid 1960s. Stephen B Streater 19:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
So do you agree that we should not be artificially limiting Anderson as a source? A Transportation Enthusiast 20:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I said we should aim for a spread of sources and not rely too heavily on people who may not be neutral. Concentrating our sources unnecessarily detracts from the article as it may give a biased view of the subject. The sources I have found add more diversity. If you can find more sources, particularly sceptical ones, we can add more Anderson in without disturbing the balance. Stephen B Streater 16:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you really agree with the policy of looking for negative references just in the name of balance? It's ridiculous. The skeptical sources are just not there. JzG dug hard and found a single insignificant conference paper that seemed to question PRT literature, and it's automatically included in the article because of this supposed balance. We are artificially limiting Anderson and promoting people like Cotrell in the name of this supposed skepticism that has no verifiable basis. This is about science, not politics.
I've seen no reliable source that questions Anderson's "neutrality". He has published textbooks on his transportation research, as well as several papers in referreed journals (mainly JAT). On what basis can we question his neutrality? Just because he was involved with Taxi2000? His involvement with a commercial endeavor automatically calls into question the neutrality of his peer-reviewed research, some of which was published before his involvement with Taxi2000? JzG's assertion that Anderson et al are "non-neutral" is unsupported -- it is original research. A Transportation Enthusiast 17:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I have also seen no reliable source which questions Anderson's neutrality. However, the closer someone is to a project, the less neutral one can expect him to be. What sort of things do you want to quote from him? The peer review is good BTW. I think JzG was asking whether there were other independent people we could include as this would strengthen the article. Stephen B Streater 18:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
<=== reset indent <====
You can classify any prominent scientist as being "close" to his project. Einstein was close to relativity; Darwin was "close" to evolution. Do we throw away their contributions just because we assume they are "too close to their projects to be neutral"? Every time I've added something attributed to Anderson, JzG has objected vigorously. It's happened on at least 2 or 3 separate occasions.
I can't speak to JzG's motivations, but I've seen no evidence that he's trying to find other sources to "strengthen the article". In fact, some of the sources he's fought for (e.g. Light Rail Now and the Cotrell conference paper) are actually quite dubious in their reliability, especially when compared to the reliability of published textbooks and peer reviewed journal articles. In almost every case, JzG is perfectly willing to accept such less-than-reliable sources if they are skeptical in nature, even as he rejects content from Anderson.
But now that you're actively involved, perhaps (hopefully) these problems are behind us, since JzG seems to accept changes from you that he'd reject from us. A Transportation Enthusiast 22:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I look forward to helping resolve things here. Ultimately, everyone here has to be reasonable because the whole world can get involved. You have seen the recent much more negative view on Unimodal; JzG is relatively accommodating. Be careful not to mistake scepticism for belief in the negative. I will of course work to find a solution which everyone agrees is an improvement. Stephen B Streater 15:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
As for de-sysop, when you have a look at WP:RfDA, you'll see it's very rare and not generally related to detailed content disputes but to prevent significant damage to the encyclopaedia. The best way to get a good article is to bring in additional reputable editors. They will, of course, always agree with me ;-) Stephen B Streater 18:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll start working on the PRT article actively from tomorrow. I've been following the discussion on and off and think there is a possibility my contributions will help to forge a consensus. Stephen B Streater 21:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolate

Thank you for your edits to Chocolate - I'd made some changes, but missed a lot of the little details. I was amused by your change of "climate" to "weather" regarding drying of beans - I once read a definition which said "climate is what you expect, weather is what you get". Argyriou 21:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel possessive about any of the edits - I've done them one at a time in case anyone feels the need to revert any. I'm learning a lot as I go, too :-) Stephen B Streater 21:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Thank you

Thank you!

Thank you, Stephen, for your support in my RfA. I am happy to be able to say that it has acheived a consenus of wikipedians, and that I will be assuming my new responsibilities immediately. I appreciate your trust and support, especially in that you took the time to investigate my record, as opposed to making a snap decision, and I will do my best to further help this great encyclopædia and community of ours. If there is anything that you feel I can do to help, please let me know. -- Avi 01:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] May be worth a moment of your time....

KingsleyIdehen (talk • contribs) is CEO of a software company; he has created articles on his software. I think you know where this is headed... Perhaps you could have a word with him? Just zis Guy you know? 17:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK - I'll have a look... Stephen B Streater 17:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for helping me so much Image:Barnstar.png

I am deeply sorry for the sins I have commited here. I hope my reëntry here will be sincerely welcomed. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 19:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar :-) Someone nearby once advised me to be patient on Wikipedia. It's better to let things fall into place at the right time than to try and force them too soon. Stephen B Streater 20:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
This sounds like good advice to me. Which is why I'm waiting for the right moment before I visit WP:RFA... Just zis Guy you know? 16:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Stephen

Dear Stephen, it is always a pleasure to contact those users whose names are familiar to me, and even more if such names also belong to evidently good people like you are. I wished, however, that the circumstances were more favorable. Regarding you comment about Encyclopedist's request, I am familiar with his disruptive activities in the past. By the time I made that post at WP:ANI, I wholeheartedly hoped he would listen to me before making any controversial steps; I saw him as a great contributor once, and the perspective of regaining his positive side made me believe he was worth my offer. In the short time that followed tho, and in my absence, he has already made such a controversial move by submitting a RfA. While this is not comparable to vandalism in any way, it shows a worrying lack of good judgement, and I am rather saddened and disappointed in him. Next time, I'll have to remember this before being so trusting. I sincerely hope our dealings in the future catch me in a better mood, dear Stephen. Please take good care, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 20:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

When I first joined, I quickly noticed that you are are a beacon of goodness on Wikipedia. This is my chance to welcome you back, too :-) I learned long ago not to judge people by my own standards, but to appreciate them for their own beauty. His judgement may have been criticised, but it showed a lot of character for Encyclopaedist to submit to an RfA in such an open way so soon. Perhaps he needs support now more than ever. I'm actually a very unsympathetic person, but can see he's put a lot into Wikipedia, and respect him for that. Also WP:AGF is a wonder. Stephen B Streater 21:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
You are so right, dear Stephen - please forgive me for my weakness and my hasty words. Juan needs now, more than ever, all the strength and love we can possibly give, and despite he may have tripped over the first stone he has found upon his return, it is quite easy to make swift judgements; the hard, yet most productive way is to show him the way. I wholeheartedly hope he realizes that, right now, he needs to gain the community's trust by returning to his old ways. We are on the verge of losing him again, and this time, I'm afraid there will be no turning backs if we do. In whole truth, and after the first shock, I am completely sure that all he wanted to do by submitting that RfA was to show he does care for the best of WP, albeit it was definitely the wrong way to show it. Again, thanks for your wise words, dear Stephen. It always makes me very happy to find people like you. A big hug, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 21:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
You are completely forgiven :-) May you bring the gift of hope to our newly returned editor. Stephen B Streater 21:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hacek

The reason that the czech term is used is supposedly because the diacritic mark was created in Bohemia, i.e. what is now part of the Czech republic, and originally intended for use in the Czech language. That is why it is so Czech-centric :) Check the etymology of robot, maybe you could propose something less Czech-centric too. 85.70.5.66 08:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

English is happy to adopt foreign words and phrases, sometimes with accents eg rôle. Háček has some unusual accents, but I'm not too concerned about that, particularly as it refers to a foreign concept. I'll think about your Czech origin point. It's interesting that the other languages which use this mark don't use the Czeck term. Stephen B Streater 08:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Changed my mind from weak oppose to weak support. Stephen B Streater 09:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ScienceApologist's RfA

Believe me, the "angst" in question surprises and confuses me. I'm considering filing an RfC about myself to see what it is that inspires so much of it. I also plan to ask the people who voted against my RfA to offer explanations as many of the comments seem opaque to me. In any case, thanks for your support. We'll see what the future holds. --ScienceApologist 19:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing too, as I haven't seen many of your edits, but here are my thoughts. Some people may object to your scientific approach - POV was mentioned. Your name itself may exacerbate the problem. If you came across an active editor called AstrologerApologist or CreationistApologist who was standing for Admin, they might find they had something to prove to you - more than the average editor. Also, you seem to have an implicit assumption is that any worthy person would have a logical reason for their objections, whereas they may be basing their decision on a feeling or hunch. Some people may find this implied assumption offensive. I haven't seen many of your edits, but I'll probably end up on an article you frequent before long, so I'll be able to gauge your style first hand. Some very thoughtful and scientific minded editors have opposed - lethe for example. I'd listen to them in particular. Anyway, good luck until we meet again. Stephen B Streater 20:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Can I ask you, Stephen, what you think the flaws of the RfA process are? Not that I disagree with you, but I'd just like to hear your opinion on the matter. For the record, I don't think there was anything unusual about the vituperation at this RfA. Unsuccessful RfAs usually contain harsh criticisms, which is jarring against the normally cordial atmosphere in article space, but I think it's probably necessary.
As far as advice for ScienceApologist goes, I'd be happy to offer some comments here, in addition to whatever he might be able to glean from my vote on his nomination. The self-nom was poorly conceived. These days, you have to make a very good case for adminship, and you didn't. There is some evidence of thin-skinnedness. This was mentioned in the RfA discussion, and it has been born out by my own interactions with you; after being reverted and hearing critical words about your edits, you responded with accusations of condescension. Whether or not I had actually been condescending towards you (and in my opinion, I had not), I would very much like to see thicker skin from an admin. If people don't like your edits, this is different from people not liking you. Assume good faith and don't devolve the consensus-building process by slinging insults (condescension is indeed an insult). Furthermore, I would like to see much more experience with all Wikipedia process. If you were familiar with RfA, you would know what information is expected in a nomination. If you were familiar with editing Wikipedia policy pages, you would know what sorts of edits are appropriate. If you were familiar with Wikipedia policy, you would probably refrain from actions which could be seen as being a conflict of interest, such as editing RfA policy while your own RfA is underway. All of these things are learned in time, and I was encouraged by your subsequent interactions regarding your edits. I would consider you again at a future date. -lethe talk + 08:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few ideas on RfAs:

  • Admins engage in controversial and difficult situations, where playing safe may not be ideal. But prior disagreements often lead to RfA opposition, leading to a playing safe bias in appointments
  • Admins are largely unaccountable and permanent, making the community risk averse. A reverse admin RfA (with strong consensus required for de-sysop) would allow more movement - to and from admin
  • People's conflicting requirements make the process a lottery. Some candidates have false expectations and are upset by negative responses. Perhaps reading this should be encouraged
  • Often people don't know the candidates, are unfamiliar with their edits, and go along with unverified comments in the debate, leading to a pile-on mentality. The first few days could have secret votes/comments to ensure more independence, followed by consensus forming when those knowledgeable have expressed their views
  • Lack of consistency is my biggest issue with the current process. Considering several candidates together would help ensure consistency. This could be by putting up the whole week's candidates at the same time or, alternatively, asking people to look at five consecutive RfAs. This would also help ensure some poor admins don't slip in when attention is concentrated elsewhere
  • Allow people to change their opinion at any time, and new people to join in. With some hysteresis, admin would then be a dynamic vote rather than such a high stakes event, and people could add or amend their opinions as they got to know the editor. This automatically alows de-sysopping and reduces the criticality of the RfA. Stephen B Streater 09:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Admin status can help a good editor improve the encyclopaedia even if he doesn't ever use the tools because it gives extra weight to good opinions in debates

I'm sure I'll think of some more things too. Stephen B Streater 09:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your second point very strongly; I think it is a very bad flaw of the current system, and would very much like to see a resolution. Of course, this isn't a problem with RfA, strictly speaking, but rather with requests for de-adminship, which is mostly non-existent. For most of your other points, while I would agree that they are thorny problems, I have so far not seen evidence that the system is broken because of e.g. editors having made enemies in controversial edits or unfamiliarity with candidates. RfA seems to work well enough for those people. I like your idea about voting in blocks; it actually reflects how I use RfA myself. But I guess it's easy to point out the flaws in the RfA system. Much harder to come up with a feasible solution. Anyway, thanks for sharing. Your comment to ScienceApologist suggested that you had strong views on the process, and I appreciate hearing what those are. -lethe talk + 10:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. I agree that changing something this important has to be done with care. I haven't come across any abuse bad enough for me to put up someone to be de-sysopped, but some active admins would not be upgraded in the current environment if they had to stand again. Stephen B Streater 10:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Have you not? Wait a while, you surely will. -lethe talk + 10:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re

Yes, but I am beginning to think that the very purpose was to stop me from adminship. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HRE (talk • contribs) 11:40, 14 July 2006.

Perhaps it's part of Wikipedia's defence against controversial editors - like Gaia. Stephen B Streater 15:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nigelj

Thank you for your comments. However, Nigelj has recently engaged in serious violations of Wikipedia policies. In his comments on Talk:Vulva, the statement "about which he apparently knows so little" is clearly a personal attack. After I placed a legitimate npa-2 warning on his talk page, Nigelj removed the warning without comment, then proceeded to make a personal attack on Reisio in an edit summary. When Paul Cyr restored the initial npa-2 warning, Nigelj removed it without comment again. Nigelj's removals of legitimate warnings from his talk page constitute talk page vandalism. Given the fact that Nigelj has recently engaged in two personal attacks, and two acts of vandalism, I believe that it is of vital importance that he avoid such misconduct in the future. John254 20:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reply. I'll see if I can do anything helpful. Stephen B Streater 21:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Stephen - Thank you for your kind words on John254's talk page. I only just found out that all this row has been going on all over the place. I'm trying to make to contact with John254 to see what I can do to help. --Nigelj 07:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you both for making the effort. Stephen B Streater 19:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for the support!

Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA!
To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations!
To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well!
♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 02:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your confidence in me during my recent RfA, I am trying to take both my strong and weak points into consideration while both editing and performing any admin duties. If it's okay with you, would you mind if I cribbed notes from your talkpage? I notice many suggestions up there that I haven't seen yet and think they'd be of help. Thanks again! ~Kylu (u|t) 02:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Be my guest :-) Stephen B Streater 11:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Misza13's pile!

Image:One-hundred-WikiThanks.gif
 Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page.
Misza13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing!

NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated ROT-26 algorithm.
Ability to decipher it indicates a properly functioning optical sensor array.

[edit] my RfA

Thanks for your support in my RfA! Unfortunately, the request did not pass, with a vote of (43/16/7). But your support was appreciated and I'll just keep right on doing what I do. Maybe I'll see ya around -- I'll be here!
Cheers! - CheNuevara 17:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA and your vote

 Hi Stephen,
Thanks for participating in my RFA! Ultimately, no consensus was reached, but I still appreciate the fact that you showed up to add in your two cents. Hopefully I'll earn your unwaivering support next time! You can feel free to talk to me about it or add some advice on my improvement page.


Sincerely, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)

[edit] Light rail article

Stephen: I wonder if you've ever seen the light rail article. It's filled with the kind of promotional language that's been removed from the PRT articles (rightly so), yet it's been that way for quite some time with no correction. I think it requires the same level of overhaul that PRT got. What do you think? I can participate, but I'm afraid it's too big a task for me to take head on, and for me to take the lead would give the appearance that I'm just another PRT fanatic bashing light rail (I'm not - I actually like light rail and PRT, though certain fanatical elements of the debate seem to think that it's not possible to like both). So if you took the lead I could maybe contribute where I see fit.

Note specifically the "Disadvantages" and "criticism" sections, in which almost every single critical point is debunked, often with arguments that seem to be taken right out of a promotional brochure. Light rail, it seems, suffers from the same sort of problem that PRT does: many of its most vocal proponents push it as the be-all-end-all solution for all urban problems, and bristle at any sort of critical analysis (even if it's valid criticism). The article seems to reflect that mentality. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Stephen B Streater 15:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I've had a first pass and cut it from 44kB to 39kB by making it more concise, and removing some future predictions and a few implausible uncited claims. Stephen B Streater 23:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You've got a Thank you card!

Open your card!

[edit] GHe's RfA

Hi Stephen B Streater!

Thank you for taking part in my RfA! Unfortunately, it ended with a final result of (62/23/7), and with only 73% support, no consensus was achieved. Nevertheless, I'd like to thank you again for your trust and support and better luck to me next time! :)

 G.He 03:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Light rail

Thanks Stephen. I'll take a look at your changes in the next few days. BTW, what's the status of your RfA? Let me know when it is and I will be sure to vote my support. You are a spectacular example of everything Wikipedia aspires to be. A Transportation Enthusiast 20:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephen: I browsed the changes, and they are definitely an improvement. Nice work. I'll try to read the article more thoroughly in the next week or so, to see if I notice anything else. I think I may mainly add a bunch of {fact} markers to try to elicit citations for many of the points. You already caught a bunch of these in your edits, but there may be a few more. In most of the cases, I think reliable references are probably out there, it's just a matter of getting them into the article. A Transportation Enthusiast 05:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your encouraging comments :-) I'm looking forward to an RfA in October, when I'll have time to hit the ground running. In the mean time, I look forward to working with you. Stephen B Streater 10:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Hello!

Thank you for participating in my RfA! Unfortunately, it ended with a final result of (32/31/5) which no consensus was achieved. Nevertheless, I'd like to thank you again for your comments and to keep an eye out for me within the next 3 months. If you would like to give any helpful advice, please contact me via my suggestions page for my next RfA. :) SynergeticMaggot 23:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A barnstar for your work on light rail

The Barnstar of Diligence
I, CComMack, award you this Barnstar of Diligence for your excellent work on cleaning up light rail. It has been said that an article achieves NPOV when you can no longer tell what the opinion is of the person who wrote it, and that is now true for light rail for the first time I can remember. Many thanks. CComMack (t•c) 17:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] adminship

Hi Stephen. I haven't been able to be around Wikipedia much lately, but I do want to log on to give you a message. It's recently been six months since your arrival at Wikipedia. I wanted you to wait until you'd been here longer before you went up for adminship, and I think this is long enough. Therefore, I suggest that if you feel up to it, you should now go through it. I'm not sure if JzG has written a nom for you or not. I would be happy to write one if not. -lethe talk + 17:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your offer here. For comparison with my previous edit count above, here is my current edit count (Interiot/Tool2):
Username Stephen B Streater
Total edits 3399
Distinct pages edited 618
Average edits/page 5.500
First edit 11:14, 12 February 2006
(main) 1566
Talk 752
User 98
User talk 352
Image 2
Template 1
Template talk 1
Help talk 1
Category 1
Category talk 1
Wikipedia 383
Wikipedia talk 241
I'll have lots of time in October, so was planning to stand then (see three sections up), but as you say I have been around six months and have had good experiences with other editors here, so perhaps now is a good time. I don't know whether JzG had written anything, but he is very busy so I expect he was planning to wait until I was ready. He's around, so you could always ask him.
Either way, if either you or JzG were to nominate me, I am likely to accept this time. Stephen B Streater 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Is at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stephen B Streater. Please sign acceptance and then when Lethe has added the co-nom one of the three of us can add to WP:RFA. Good luck! Just zis Guy you know? 18:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Great! I'll add some answers in tomorrow ready for the weekend. Stephen B Streater 18:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Stephen, going by the guidelines you're the one who should add the page to WP:RFA, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate#What to do if you are nominated by someone else:. All the best/wangi 22:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, though in this case the section: Finally, once the nomination has been accepted and the questions answered, any editor (including the nominator or the nominee) can link it to the RfA page could apply here. Lethe may want to add something to the nomination, but his User page hints that he might not be around right now. He suggested above he would be happy with the JzG text, but I'd like to give him a chance to add something himself before it goes live. Either way, I expect it will go up within tweve hours, either because Lethe adds something and puts it up, or because Lethe is away and JzG or I put it up. Stephen B Streater 22:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
No worries, enjoy the rollercoaster ride when you join it! ;) /wangi 23:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your tips. I've put my RfA up as people are starting to voice opinions on it. Stephen B Streater 08:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the "beat the nominator support" nonsense, I prefer to get the thing ready and accepted before presenting it to the community. It seems somehow tidier that way. I guess it's my workflow design background coming out :-) Just zis Guy you know? 13:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Luckily, everything was ready before the deadline ;-) Stephen B Streater 13:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help to become an administrator

I already have a page: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Patchouli. What do I need to do to complete my request?--Patchouli 08:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen how you got your page yet. Did you find the this page first? It has a button about half way down where you replace USERNAME with Patchouli and push the "Nominate youself" button. Did you use this to create your page? Stephen B Streater 08:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd love to. If we're lucky, you'll only have to wait seven days ;-) In the mean time, I'll see if a friendly Admin can delete the page so you can try again. It's worth mentioning that if you have difficulty with your nomination, some editors might suggest that more experience would be beneficial before you are given the powerful Admin tools. Stephen B Streater 09:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I figure it out. At Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate, I have to enter my username in CAPITALS. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PATCHOULI.--Patchouli 09:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
You're supposed to type your username as it is, as names are case sensitive. You see that none of the other nominees are in capitals. The problem is that the correct named article already exists, and this is confusing the generator. So what we should do now is delete both. I've had a look round, but I can't see an admin I know editing this morning yet. I suggest you tag both articles for speedy deletion, and they'll be picked up soon enough by a passing Admin. Stephen B Streater 09:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be a redirect rather than a move - the old page is still there. This was almost the right thing to do, as an actual move to the correct address would have worked while the correct address was empty. As it is, the capitals page should still be deleted. Stephen B Streater 09:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You are right. I will case to remove PATCHOULI.--Patchouli 09:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. That will fix it. Stephen B Streater 09:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google rank

Doh! You are absolutely right, extlinks on user pages are served with rel=nofollow, which takes care of this problem, and I should have remembered that. I confused myself by getting several unrelated recent incidents mixed up with each other in my thoughts. One of these is that user and talk pages are indexed even though the links on them aren't followed; that's making some people complain about various unflattering content in user and talk pages getting high-ranked Google hits, with the consequent raising of BLP alarms. So I've been wanting to propose that all user and talk pages be served with a meta robots=noindex tag, to prevent those pages from being indexed at all. Those pages are meant for internal use and I don't see any important reason they should be indexed off-wiki. If you have an opinion about this idea, let me know. Thanks for catching my error about the extlinks. Phr (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer your idea. Often people use user pages to develop articles, and these could be confused with the real thing out of context. Also, when I edit people's user pages, they sometimes object (though quite rarely, surprisingly!) - but they certainly don't come under the normal level of scrutiny. PS I halved the number of links in my external links section to two. I think people get the idea now ;-) Stephen B Streater 00:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: video formats

I thought DV was a free format and it just used too much space. I'm not that much of a video user though (I still use a hi-8 analog camera) so I could be wrong. I'd hoped DV could be converted to Theora without intermediate conversions.

I'll have to look at the FORscene web site some more to make sense of your question, which I may not have a chance to do real soon. I also may be away for a few days, so if I don't seem to be around, I'm not ignoring you. Phr (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Your engagement has been very welcome. It would be even more welcome if you could see how my approach will lead to a big step forward, and support me ;-) Any such big step forward will always get a reaction while it is being worked through, as it won't fit well into the old system. But all this can be fixed :-) When you get back, you might like to join the debate on wikimedia. It would be good to have a reasoned consensus before I take it to Jimbo. Stephen B Streater 08:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Show preview

Please, for the love of God, use "Show preview" rather than hitting "Save page" everytime. Look at the history on Breastfeeding ... you made over fifty consecutive edits. I don't want to assume poorly of you, but the only reason I can think of why someone would do that is if they were trying to boost their edit count. --Cyde Weys 20:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If I wanted a high edit counted I would write a bot. The edits are distinct: there were a lot of things to fix. Perhaps you can explain how "show preview" would reduce the number of edits. Stephen B Streater 21:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
There's no excuse for only fixing one thing at a time when you're fixing fifty different things. Fix a lot of stuff and then hit "Save page". --Cyde Weys 21:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
So I edit 70 things, hit the save button, and then it says "edit conflict". Been there before. I also use the comment field to describe the edit. The last half dozen times I tidied up articles in this way, I got huge compliments and a Barnstar. So you see your view is not universal, though I have decided to merge more of the edits at a time - see the talk page on the article for details. Stephen B Streater 21:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Check out {{inuse}}. It's better than making dozens of individual consecutive edits to an article. --Cyde Weys 23:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
This could be what I've been looking for. The default does say a short while, which I'm not sure six solid hours of editing counts as, but I think this is the best solution yet - I'll use it next time. Stephen B Streater 23:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your RFA

With regret, I would propose to withdraw your nomination. I strongly hope you keep contributing to the project, though. Cheers, --Ligulem 23:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciate your helpful comments. RfAs certainly have a unique character. Let's look at the actual position (ignoring all the RfA fear, anger and personal attacks for the moment):
  • People have made many more videos for Wikipedia articles than for a long time (using FORscene)
  • The Wikipedia codecs are free and available
  • There will apparently soon be a Java player so people can actually watch Wikipedia videos in practice
  • FORscene is designed to allow new codecs to be added easily
  • Any video published in FORscene can be re-published in any supported format at any time
  • Wikipedia will pay to host all this content, which means I won't have to
So, in conclusion, every FORscene video could soon be converted to a Wikipedia supported format and played back within Wikipedia without me having to pay for it. This doesn't look so bad to me. Stephen B Streater 23:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Stephen, what I'm seeing here is what I've experienced myself here at Wikipedia: you've been labelled by a respected authority, and everyone else is now falling in line without doing their own research. Phr, IMO, overreacted with his original message, in comparing your additions to linkspam, which to me is an astounding stretch. But you have now been labelled "evil commercial product pusher trying to infiltrate Wikipedia" and everyone is now lining up against you. No amount of explanation, it seems, will suffice. I tend to agree with Ligulem that withdrawal might be the best solution right now.
I was in your position a few months ago, being labelled a POV pusher by a respected authority, and having no recourse in a community that perhaps trusts elder members more than it should. Everywhere I turned, I was treated like a used car salesman, just because a single admin had labelled me. For the longest time, I reacted in the exactly wrong way: I pushed harder in response to the accusations... which (of course) had no effect other than to cement my supposed guilt as a POV pusher. I had to back off, calm down, wait patiently for the furor to settle, and slowly build my case. That's what I did, and eventually you got more involved and improved things. In the end, the vast majority of the issues I had with the article (issues that JzG had rejected outright a month earlier) were now being fixed.
And I see some parallels here. I think the harder you push, the worse it will be, and so maybe a withdrawal to address the concerns is the appropriate move here. Take a step back, regroup, resolve the video issues, and try again in October, which also gives you a few more months to get the edit counts up. I also believe it will be viewed as a magnanimous gesture, that you would be willing to postpone your RfA to address their concerns.
In any event, I'm really sorry to see it turn out this way. A Transportation Enthusiast 08:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you have shed your unwarranted reputation here. You may be sorry for this hostility, but it is what I expected from the RfA process. We've had a lot of Wikilove recently, and some people can't handle this ;-) As it's getting on for lunch time, a couple of appropriate mottos might be: You can't make an omelete without breaking eggs and If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. See my answers to question 4. Some Wikipedians may be cynical, but the main people here have been happily engaging in the debate and offering constructive information - which is crucial as the problem up until now has been apathy. New people are still expressing support too - there is hope for Wikipedia yet :-) Stephen B Streater 10:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you do stick it out, keep cool. IMO a few of your responses have been a little too aggressively defensive (if that makes any sense). I've even sensed a bit of sarcasm, which is unusual coming from you. Remember your advice to me and Fresheneesz, to not take it too personally. I know it's tough not to respond strongly to these allegations, but maybe you should step back a little and let others defend you, especially now that you've made your points clear. BTW, all of this advice is free, but free only in the "free beer" sense, so take it for what it's worth. :-D A Transportation Enthusiast 15:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I always listen to advice. Stephen B Streater 16:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

I have added a straw poll to my RfA on access to video within Wikipedia. Any passers by may like to contribute. Stephen B Streater 18:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "I cannot play back Wikipedia Ogg videos on my computer"

Why ever not? The media help page connected to each of our videos gives detailed instructions. True, it's not quite as quick as a shockwave player, and it doesn't help your video ipod... But I am aware of no reason your Windows and Mac systems should have any problems with our videos. --Gmaxwell 20:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Different reasons for different computers. My PC is at work, and I have a policy not not installing external software on this machine, as I use it for demos and it's bound to end up full of viruses and spyware if I keep putting stuff on it. My Mac is at home and it's mostly that it hasn't ever reached the top of my list of things to do: I would have to find the instructions, read them, fiddle when it didn't work, and then repeat this every time an upgrade came out - and (by symmetry) for every possible plug-in out there. There just aren't enough videos available to make it worth while, and I'd rather be with my wife and baby. Of course, now FORscene has been turned into the perfect Wikipedians' video tool, there'll be a reason to make the effort ;-) Stephen B Streater 21:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
OK - I admit it. It was easy on my Mac (though I also have to admit that I didn't look for your instructions as someone on the FORscene chat system had given a good link). Stephen B Streater 22:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think my experience is atypical. We write Java players because so many companies have locked down systems, and so many consumers are technically incapable (or at least think they are) of installing a piece of software, that there was no point in any other solution. I have never come across anyone in real life who can play back Wikipedia videos. It's a pity people have taken objection to my very public and open experiment, as it has been very valuable for Wikipedia. I would appreciate a little goodwill in my RfA towards this huge and important work I have undertaken. Pragmatism is not such a bad thing, as the PDF guys have pointed out, and even WP trademark their logo. Stephen B Streater 21:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
A good streaming Java player which works on any/variable internet connection speed is harder to write than it looks. But as you're fixing that, I'm tempted to move straight on to finding a way to make the collaborative editing tools available. I hope you can see that the negativity from the RfA is quite unecessary. Stephen B Streater 21:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Your removal of my highly popular and useful videos, if it wasn't technically correct, would almost certainly be seen as vandalism. I'll add a couple of back in Theora format. I don't see much point frankly in putting them all back until people can actually watch them. Stephen B Streater 21:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Edit: I'd like to make it clear that I do not see it as vandalism, and have no disagreement with anyone enforcing policy in a controversial situation. I think we should aim to provide a solution which is technically correct which gives people the best experience, and this is what I am working towards. Stephen B Streater 12:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The removal of the links does not qualify as vandalism. Please don't use that word when an editor simply disagrees with your edits and reverts them. On a second note, I am thinking about what you could do. I for one am not enough knowledgeable to comment on this whole video thing and I would love if Gregory and you could work with each other and see what could be done for the best of Wikipeda. The RFA wasn't helpful at all because that just cooked up a lot of emotions. Adminship is a very sensitive thing here, that hoists a lot of paranoia which is completely disproportional to the power that an admin here has. Adminship is misinterpreted as an acknowledgement for the opinions of the candidate.
Stephen, could you write up a page for example under your user space (example location: Stephen B Streater/video where you describe the situation such that non-experts like me do have a chance to understand what you are proposing and how that can be achieved on Wikipedia? Adding the links to articles as a first "be bold" action was ok, but now we have learned that there is no consensus for doing this on Wikipedia.
As a second step there must happen some more discussion about this video stuff. I would try to start discussion on the Mailing list WikiEN-l, which is also accessible via NNTP. Jimbo posts there regularly. But I propose to first prepare that page where the information bits can be collected/referenced. --Ligulem 12:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. Perhaps I will write an essay. I think the real issues are very poorly understood here, and the RfA contains a lot of useful information which is helping progress. I'll wait until after the RfA before I start a discussion because there are still a few things to fix up to be more WIkipedia friendly. Stephen B Streater 12:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "A rare point of U.S. Constitutional Law"

Per your RfA, I'm curious what was the "rare point of U.S. constitutional law" that you mention. There aren't that many constitutional issues that have to be settled via use of "rare historical facsimiles"! Just curious. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked me that :-) As you will know from Stephen B. Streater, I was born in the U.S.A. and this has various implications, particularly when I visit. I studied a little US history at school, and of course we learned about the constituion first.
Then skip forward 15 years to a crucial contract discussion at Oracle. They were just bringing out their Network computer which was to wipe out Microsoft by allowing all applications to run via the web. Eidos (which was tiny at that point) was chosen through an incredible serious of meetings climaxing with one with Larry Ellison himself (briefly the World's richest man, and the richest man in California at the time) - to provide the video solution for this new machine (and hence the Whole World™).
So we went into a vast meeting room with a huge lozenge shaped desk. Ranged along one side were a dozen Oracle lawyers with loads of papers on US Federal and Californian law. In the middle was there most hot shot lawyer - confident, intelligent, aggressive. Opposite him was me. And my trusty supporter by my side. They were a bit surprised I didn't bring a lawyer, and I think this made them slightly cocky. In the small talk before the discussion, I happened to mention that I was born in the US and according to the fourteenth amendment I was a US citizen. Their guy pounced at once. Everyone knew that the fourteenth was about slave emancipation. Did they laugh. Who was this guy from England? I remained unconvinced. Their legal expert advised us to get a lawyer (there are legal reasons for this in California), but was happy to continue the negotiations.
Next day, I got a phone call. As we had a day off, their top guy could show me round his stunning Palo Alto offices. And, it turned out, their priceless archive of legal documents. This would surely demonstrate who knew what. After moving his hand over the huge collection, his hand alighted on their priceless copy of the US constitution. And the fourteenth amendment said - just what I said it said. He was stunned.
A couple of days later, we returned to the huge table - twelve of them on one side, and me and my friend on the other. Debate resumed. I corrected a legal point (California law has many similarities with English law). This was answered by laughs of derision from the eleven, and a comment about my supposed knowledge of the US constitution, with more laughter. But to his eternal credit, the top guy corrected them. He recounted the story of the trip to the Library exactly as it had happened. And how I had been right all along. The eleven didn't say very much after that. Our mutual respect led to rapid agreement on the contract. The day we signed it, the announcement allowed us to buy CentreGold, including the Tomb Raider franchise. Eidos continued to expand, becoming the fastest growing company in the world in the 1990s (I've got the World Top 500 article somewhere from back in 2000).
It turns out that for a long time, there was no clear definition of a US citizen, and this became a problem when slaves were emancipated after the US Civil War. So the emancipation amendment to the US constitution defined a US citizen. For some reason, this point doesn't arise very often in California commercial law negotiations. Stephen B Streater 20:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Very good, and you are right about the first sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment defining citizenship of the United States and of individual states (this issue came up in a federal case I handled myself). For the record, however, the Thirteenth Amendment was the "emancipation" amendment, while the Fourteenth Amendment dealt with the new citizens' equal civil rights and related matters. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I knew it was something to do with the end of slavery - my expertise is rather narrow in this area ;-) Stephen B Streater 20:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I remember a bit more now. He knew it was related to the end of slavery and assumed it was the emancipation amendment. That's probably where I got the name from, since with my more focused knowledge, I didn't know about this name and only knew of the content of the fourteenth. At school we only got up to 10, but I read on until I got the bit about me, and forgot the rest. Stephen B Streater 22:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propriertary vs open

Wikipedias mission is to create a free (as in speech) encyclopedia. This means there's particular restrictions (but also permissions!) as to the kinds of content you can submit, as you found out the hard way at your request for adminship :-/ I'm so sorry you had to find out then.

It might be wise to contact one of the foundation lawyers to help you out wrt file formats.

I hope things can be sorted out!

-- Kim Bruning 19:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I already knew the mission. The question is more does the means justify the ends. I have other (unrelated) things to talk to the Wikipedia lawyers about, as it happens, but I always bring the lawyers in at the end because they cost so much.
The RfA is a good place to discover new things, as people are more incisive than would normally be polite. For some reason, WP:AGF doesn't always seem to apply there. I find it funny that some are so critical of my liberal interpretation of the style guide, WP:EL, while completely ignoring a much more fundamental official policy, WP:AGF. Some people shoot first, ask questions later. Still, if you can't handle an RfA, perhaps you shouldn't be an Admin. Stephen B Streater 20:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Heya, just wanted to say that we may or may not come to agreement, but I've enjoyed talking with you, and would like to thank you for your patience and good humor.
Perhaps we could play a game of Go sometime? :-) Kim Bruning 15:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm just putting ideas down at the moment. If we get enough different ideas, a solution will emerge. I always like to start with the answer we are aiming for though, before adding constraints to getting there. The answer here as I see it is: to build the best possible free encyclopaedia, not to build the best possible free encyclopaedia without using the letter f on Thursdays. Stephen B Streater 15:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd love to play Go with you :-) I'm a bit eratic though. What's your rating? Stephen B Streater 15:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] java player update

I am working on the code to do a clean integration into the mediaWiki code base like adding in language pointers, looking for dependent applications during installation, and doing more testing... we should have it integrated in the near future.

My company makes Java video players. Let me know if you need any help. Stephen B Streater 19:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki IPR

I suggest you be more specific. You could be asking about a Wikipedia trademark, GFDLed encyc content, the freely downloadable GNU General Public Licenseed Wikipedia engine software called MediaWiki, or other Wiki related IP. We have one lawyer, and I doubt he has time to play 20 questions with you. WAS 4.250 21:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added some more details. I hope this doesn't get me banned ;-) Stephen B Streater 22:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
If it does, blame me; I'll take the heat for it. WAS 4.250 01:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Analysis

Hi Stephen, sorry, I don't really understand what you mean - do you mean you would like your co-nom to be noted on the report page? - Tangotango 09:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that makes more sense. Just imagine that someone had 100 co-nominators. The report page would then not reflect the actual feeling of the RfA. Stephen B Streater 09:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't think that's within the scope of the report - the purpose of the page is to weed out duplicate votes and for bureaucrats to see if there is an RfA they need to close, and it's not intended to represent the RfA in any other way. By the way, late congratulations on your promotion! :D - Tangotango 16:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. And I think your congratulations are early rather than late ;-) Stephen B Streater 17:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA stats

RfA debate
Final (30/27/7)

  • Stats at end of debate (using Interiot 2 tool)
  • Username Stephen B Streater
  • Total edits 3760
  • Distinct pages edited 656
  • Average edits/page 5.732
  • First edit 11:14, 12 February 2006
  • (main) 1692
  • Talk 770
  • User 111
  • User talk 439
  • Image 2
  • Template 2
  • Template talk 1
  • Help talk 1
  • Category 1
  • Category talk 1
  • Wikipedia 481
  • Wikipedia talk 259

Stephen B Streater 11:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop spamming us with links to your company and website. Danny 00:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, shame on you Stephen, for trying to make Wikipedia better! A Transportation Enthusiast 02:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
We're all trying to make WIkipedia better. But being a visionary was never easy, and it's not easy here either. Stephen B Streater 08:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA message

My RfA video message
Image:RfA message.ogg
Stephen B Streater 08:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


Could you provide a transcript, please? I can't play .ogg files!  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  08:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You could always install the plug-in! I could email you a link to the Java version too. Which would you prefer? Stephen B Streater 09:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Found it, installed it, played the video. Bit of a party political broadcast but a nice garden and phone!  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
As it's not my phone, I thought it would be OK. You're the first person who has been able to watch it... Perhaps you deserve a prize ;-) Stephen B Streater 17:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Can't play ogg files? Whatever next! Looking forward to a Wikipedia Java player and anything that would ease the process of getting footage into same. mk 13:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
No idea how to play this file; my ogg player does audio, but not video. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Can't help you I'm afraid - it was easier to write our own Java player than to fix the plug-in issues! Stephen B Streater 14:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I've added a summary of my experiences of adding ogg playback capability to my computer on my user page (hope that's not an inappropriate use of resources). I've saved you the details of all the trouble I had finding the right player! mk 15:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a 6.5MB message is a bit much, even in this modern age. There are still dialup users out there. But, for windows users, this codec will, when installed, enable Windows Media Player (assuming you bind it to ogg files) to play this vid: http://www.illiminable.com/ogg/ Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The Java version adapts to your bandwidth. It plays in real time, so you don't need to know about file size. We could add an Ogg output option for image size to FORscene - that would allow smaller videos to be watched, while still keeping a bigger version for re-use under the free licence. Stephen B Streater 14:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't play ogg files either *hangs head in shame* It is a very cool way to give RfA thanks, though! -- Natalya 14:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. There's no long term reason why this should be hard, though. Stephen B Streater 14:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Enjoyed watching your original RfA video, I used VLC media player to view it. A very good app I must say.--Andeh 17:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for watching :-) I also use VLC. It works very well on my Mac. Stephen B Streater 17:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Streater, if you do not stop promoting your software at once I will not hesitate to block you and all of your business colleagues and investors permanently. We are bukding an encyclopedia here. Your attempts to expropriate the project for your own commercial ends will not be tolerated here. Danny 19:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The all-in-one judge, jury and executioner - is that the way WP operate? mk 20:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely don't think the message to have been designed to expropriate the project for...commerical ends, and I rather think Danny's pronouncement, at least as regards the RfA message, to be overwrought. Where one, in good faith, offers a suggestion as to a means by which to improve the encyclopedia (however tangential to the overarching goals of the project such means might be or seem to be), especially where he makes such suggestion only to those with whom he has been previously engaged (here, in an RfA discussion, at which, it should be observed, I offered only weak support) and in a non-disruptive fashion (here, essentially concomitant to the RfA participation templates the presence of which after an RfA is ineluctable), he ought not to be chastised, if only because we ought to have many larger issues about which to worry. Joe 04:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Well that seems to be the end of the discussion, eh? Since Danny works for the Wikipedia foundation, it seems there will be no more discussion on this issue, even if that means blocking a good-faith user who (it seems) can no longer even mention the word "video" here. What a shame that Wikipedia has become so bureaucratic that even the discussion of change gets the threat of a permanent ban. A Transportation Enthusiast 05:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Things are never as bad as they seem. Danny has been helpful in fact. I'm happy to assist, so it's just been a question of me learning more about how things work here. Stephen B Streater 08:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
From the tone - "you and all of your business colleagues and investors" - I diagnose irony. Just zis Guy you know? 12:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully something said in the heat of the moment. Setting aside any debate about whether something nefarious is going on, the logic implies Stephen's actions indirectly result in other people being penalised. This doesn't sound at all fair on them, or fair on him to levy such pressure. And exactly who are these other people? Is it anyone that happens to agree with Stephen's thoughts that is automatically implicated! If so then that particular net could spread far and wide because he happens to speak a lot of sense reading his contributions here!! mk 12:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been looking for clarity here for some time, and Danny has given this here. There's no shortage of ways for me to contribute which everyone is happy with. Stephen B Streater 13:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No trouble at all watching on Linux. (Actually, OGG formats are about the only ones that can be played on Fedora Core by default, but that's another matter...) Watching any open format on Windows is a real pain. I once had to give up trying to find an ogg player for someone I'd sent music files to, and converted them to mp3 instead!

I like the idea of embedded video, as is found on sites such as Youtube. However, the entire platform must be open source (not just available for no charge) for it to be consistant with the ideals of the Wikipedia project. JRawle (Talk) 20:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

For future reference you can send your friends to our media help page. I'm told the instructions there are pretty good, but if you find them lacking in some way... {{sofixit}}. :) We have a browser based audio player. Inline video will be Real Soon Now (tm). --Gmaxwell 20:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Java audio player

Thanks for your trouble report. I'm fairly confident that the problem was caused by the SUN Java compiler defaulting to building code for 1.5 VMs that 1.4 VMs can't read. I've rebuilt the code for 1.4 VMs (I think). Can you retry it? Thank you. --Gmaxwell 15:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi! That PC is temporarily out of action. I'll have a look at a couple of others... Stephen B Streater 16:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The Ruts:
  • I haven't got a working 1.4 Windows machine around at the moment
  • Java 1.4.2_09 on Mac OS X 10.4.7 works
  • On Windows, MS Java 1.1 doesn't work, giving "Class not found". (This needs 8kHz audio.)
  • 1.5.0_06 on Mac OS X 10.4.7 works
  • 1.5.0_06 on Windows XP works
  • Stephen B Streater 17:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Hm. Okay, I've built again with a more compatible toolchain. I'm not sure about MS Java, if it doesn't have the Java Sound API then I'm not sure if I can help it without it I think the available audio is very limited and won't sound good no matter what, and if we can't produce good quality I'd rather try to get the user to download a codec (or an updated version of Java). Are the java enabled phones able to use java applets in webpages? --Gmaxwell 19:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Java 1.1 sound is a bit duff: 8kHz 8 bit μ-law. Still, Java 1.0 didn't have sound at all. I'm waiting for Java 1.1 to die - it mostly remains in some corporate desktops; I hope they all upgrade at some point as 8kHz can attract criticism. Most of these people won't be able to download a plug-in, but they are a diminishing band. If I was starting from scratch, I'd put this down the list and hope the problem goes away on its own. Stephen B Streater 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven't come across a phone which can in practice interpret Java applets. There are a few in Japan which pretend to, but not very convincingly. Most Java on phones is run as downloaded applications. MIDP 1 has no sound, but MIDP 2 has sound and 64kB to play with - this generally includes the program and all the data. Some phones have a bigger memory limit. Stephen B Streater 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
A practical solution on a phone really needs a smartphone. Symbian is the most popular by a long way. Most phones run on the ARM family, and you can't rely on floating point. Whereas PCs got faster, phones got longer battery life, so they are generally slow unless you have a special codec designed to run on a slow chip. A free Symbian app sounds like a great idea, but typical Ogg formats may be a bit slow. Personally, I'd leave this project until after the web video is up and running. By then, phones may be faster. The phones are still great as video cameras for web video. Stephen B Streater 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
My favourite phone web browser is Opera - they seem cooperative and may implement media options if writing an app from scratch is too much work here. Stephen B Streater 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] Michele Bachmann

Stephen, I'm involved in a little edit war at Michele Bachmann. It involves my old "friend" (who shall remain nameless) from the PRT pages. Anyway, the article quotes an op-ed piece from a newspaper in Minneapolis (TC Daily Planet, which describes itself as "an experiment in participatory journalism") authored by Mr. Nameless. The problem is, Mr. Nameless is also an active member of the dumpbachmann anti-Bachmann blog. This IMO makes it not-reliable as a source. I've removed it but one editor has reverted twice, saying it's only me that has a problem with this author.

What do you think? I also believe the word "successful" is POV when describing Minneapolis LRT -- successful by what measure, or in whose opinion? -- and would require qualification.

Any help would be appreciated. A Transportation Enthusiast 00:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look when Vicky takes Sophie. Stephen B Streater 06:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again, Stephen. A Transportation Enthusiast 17:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome, as always. Stephen B Streater 17:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I'm thinking of a name change -- "A Transportation Enthusiast" doesn't fit at all around here (I created that name before I thought I would stick around as long as I did). I'd like a simpler variation on the theme, like "ATE" or "ATrEn" or "MaTE" - my first name begins with an "M". It's not like I'm trying to change my identity or anything; I just want to simplify the name. What's your opinion? A Transportation Enthusiast 17:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I think a more neutral name will make your life here easier. A shorter name is also better - your name (like mine) is unusually long. I'd prefer a short, neutral and pronouncable name. Any Bureaucrat can change it for you. I'd be tempted to wait a week after you've chosen your new name in case you change your mind though. Stephen B Streater 17:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Done! That was relatively painless, I must say. I already feel liberated from my old transportation-constrained username. :-) ATren 23:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back :-) Stephen B Streater 07:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long-Overdue RfA Thanks from Alphachimp

 Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which was successful with a an overwhelmingly flattering and deeply humbling total of 138/2/2 (putting me #10 on the RfA WP:100). I guess infinite monkey theorem has been officially proven. Chimps really can get somewhere on Wikipedia.

With new buttons come great responsibility, and I'll try my best to live up to your expectations. If you need assistance with something, don't hesitate to swing by my talk page or email me (trust me, I do respond :)). The same goes for any complaints or comments in regard to my administrative actions. Remember, I'm here for you.

(Thanks go to Blnguyen for the incredible photo to the right.) alphaChimp laudare 01:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I missed the boat

Hi Stephen. I feel like a right cad, pushing you to go to RfA and then disappearing for the duration. I've been tragically unable to log the Wikipedia presence I once did, though hopefully this situation is only temporary. I see that your RfA was not successful. I have not read through it at leisure to understand the reasons why not, something which I will do soon. I gather it's something about posting videos with non-free licenses? In any case, I remain firmly convinced that you ought to be an administrator. I've admired your participation in policy discussions, in interpersonal disputes, and in content disputes, and I've seen you in lots of different places. I would like to finish the nomination that I began a few weeks ago. With your consent, I will save it to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stephen B Streater 2, and I will entreat you to consider trying the ordeal after some time. I suppose it might be a while before I could get to it, and I think probably the machine wants you to give it some time as well, but I do hope you'll consider it.

And again, I do apologize for failing to follow through with the RfA. It was a sloppy way to do an RfA.

-lethe talk + 02:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your nomination(s) :-) Some opposers had lost track of the need to test new ideas through experiment. The advantage of a wiki is that anything can be undone or adopted depending on the result. I also found some important people who I hadn't managed to find on any of the appropriate discussion boards - RfA is quite high profile, it turns out. PS Luckily I was prepared for the RfA "process" ;-) Stephen B Streater 08:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought the whole thing was farcical. Whether or not you are working on innovative ways of managing active content (ogg being, for my money, functionally sub-optimal - or "useless" to use the vernacular) has no bearing whatsoever on whether you'd make a good admin. That's about maturity, sound judgment, patience, civility and a willingness to keep an open mind, all of which you consistently demonstrate. Guy 12:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your support. It's funny how the people who are most interested in freedom have the most strict rules. And the most vehement may have done Wikipedia a long term disservice by starting off with such closed minds. Still, there will be other possibilities, perhaps after I get back to England from my trade show. Stephen B Streater 23:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Lots of lauding about free speech intermingled with veiled and actual threats to silence other peoples right to the same - reading the whole thing was an eye opener. mk 21:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Free Speech. Please don't confuse free content with free speech. You have no right to use Wikipedia to promote your monetary interests. I'm disappointed, but perhaps not surprised, to see that we hadn't gotten past this matter and that both Mark and Stephen are still more interested in whining about our refusal to use their proprietary software than in actually increasing the usability and amount of useful content on Wikipedia.
My mind is open to many solutions, and in fact I added a java based audio player to our site and will extend it to video once I get a chance to work the kinks out. I don't think the Java player is a great solution, but so long as is it is free software and uses a non-patent encumbered codec (unlike for Forscene player) then there is no reason for us not to offer it. .. So as I said, I'm open to many things, but compromising our long term goals simply because a commercial interest whines at us... I'm not so interested in that. So Guy, before you next comment about innovation, perhaps should should think carefully about who is adding increasing the functionality of the site, and who is merely increasing traffic to their service with external links. --Gmaxwell 22:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the free software movement is, in its purest form, as restricting as proprietary software. I followed one of Stephen's Forscene video links (before they were deleted) and I was able to play it immediately without a clue as to where it came from or who was hosting it. It played right in Java and I did not have to do a thing.
For ogg files, I had to download and install a codec for it to work. If I didn't have a media player, I'd have had to install that too. Then, I had to manually associate .ogg files with the media player. When playing a video, I had to download the entire video (apparently, no streaming), then click on two separate security warnings, and finally the video played.
And I'm an experienced user. What about a newbie? Do we expect them to go through all that just to play a video when there is a perfectly usable Java streaming solution?
Here's what really baffles me: after the RfA battles, Stephen posted some videos in both formats: an uploaded ogg version and a link to the identical video in Forscene format -- and it was still deleted as unacceptable! How can an alternate link be considered unacceptable? I mean, anyone who wanted a "free as in speech" version had the ogg format at his/her disposal, so what is the harm in linking to a Forscene version that is easier to play for 95% of readers?
So, in effect, the "freedom" we've achieved here is "freedom to watch this video, as long as you have this one specific codec", and if you happen to be on a system which doesn't have that codec, you're out of luck even if you have a full Java implementation that would play Forscene videos without a hitch. Doesn't sound very liberating to me at all, especially consdering that the CEO of the company that makes the "free as in beer" (and much more usable) Java player was willing to work with Wikipedia to address the freedom concerns. ATren (formerly "A Transportation Enthusiast") 22:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi ATren, WP are on the verge of releasing a Java player to ease your playback problems - so IMO it is reasonable to question using anything else. As regards video editing, WP have something on the drawing board but it I perceive it will not be here soon and not be all singing and dancing. I can still prepare video footage in FORscene, output in ogg format, and upload it to WP just like I can use commercial word processors to spell check text before posting it to WP. It would make things easier if the integration between WP could be automated - both the pulling and the pushing! As far as I understand, it is content and format are important to be free as in speech but tools are nice to be free as in speech and could be commercial. mk 23:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Greg. My comments are about the reaction. It was the threat to ban a person because of the ideas they aired. WP has a page that criticises itself, yet it can feel so threatened by a discussion.
People are prepared though to do their bit for free content in the form of software developed for WP and have been able to demonstrate it. It sounded very much like Stephen was trying to get around to doing his bit in the most efficient way possible (i.e. to work out a way to make available work that is already commercialised), but this proved very hard, even get going as an idea. The message seems to be not to have your commercial success before you've made your contribution to WP.
I hope to continue contributing free video content to WP. I have lots of it - just time is what I need. And I disagree about a Java video player - I think it will deliver a great leap for WP. Your audio player worked flawlessly for me at home and in the office. mk 23:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't buy this whole "promoting his business" thing. I really don't think Stephen is that kind of guy. I accept at face value what he said: that he finds ogg problematic (hell yes!) and wanted to offer something which he has already made to work. It's an issue for discussion, not some kind of blot on his copybook. Guy 23:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Gmaxwell is not one of the people I see as closed minded in my RfA debate, which is why I have been happy to help him with his Java audio and video solutions. He is uninformed he he thinks Wikipedia video hits have any impact on us.
We have already started discussions with the Dirac people, who have a stand at our trade show. We are discussing how to implement a free Java streaming player which will be useful to Wikipedians in practice ie will just work automatically. Stephen B Streater 05:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media link policy

Hello! I have brought this issue up at Wikipedia talk:External links#Media linking policy, and remembering your comments at User talk:Gmaxwell#Musical examples in tuning articles, I thought you might have something to add to the discussion. - Rainwarrior 03:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Stephen B Streater 07:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mailing list

Mailing list? For what? Which suggestion did you mention? hah, I'm outta the loop. Fresheneesz 20:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This one. Stephen B Streater 21:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I think i'll do that. Thanks. Fresheneesz 20:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Filmmaking changes

New discussion has started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Filmmaking#Future project development and Ideas for your consideration regarding expansion of the project. As a member, your comments are welcome and wanted! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 21:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a look. Stephen B Streater 08:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gold as an investment

Hi!

I just noticed your comment on that talk page; I've been leaving that article alone for a while, but I'm still hoping it will improve.

I do think the article title is a problem. As you've probably experienced, there is a fairly small crowd of editors with an active interest in the article — as far as I can tell, they're all convinced that gold should either be bought as an investment, used as a currency, or both.

I think one of the main problems right now is that "gold as an investment" as an article title makes new editors feel they should not be editing the article because they're not interested in buying gold themselves (I have been told a number of times that I shouldn't be editing any gold-related articles because I do not own any gold), even though, for example, gold price (which is obviously of general interest) redirects there.

So, to be brief, I think the article's stuck right now: there are few editors, with a clear POV that they have trouble keeping out of the article (and its title); the title, in turn, deters new editors that might otherwise have helped NPOV-isation efforts.

Of course, there's a couple of things I feel could still be done at this point, but I haven't really considered it a high enough priority until now — the article, while still a bit weird, is no longer just a sales brochure for gold.

May I ask your opinion on this?

RandomP 21:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the Gold as an Asset idea. The article could be broadened to reduce the slant on a speculative investment further. The current feeling is that any use of holding gold is an investment, so I'll add in various such uses and see if people are still happy. Stephen B Streater 21:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, ignore RandomP on this. I refuted his claims before. See the talk page and my talk page. He's now upset and bitter. I clearly have no pro-gold POV. Have you see the stuff Random tries to claim "Hyper inflation isn't that big a deal." "One person disagrees, so that's POV!" Random, grow some balls and take it to the relevant talk page so I can spank you back to your parents' basement again. MrVoluntarist 21:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Either way, following our discussion, Gold as a Store of Value seems to be an acceptable use within this article. Stephen B Streater 07:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your kind reference to me at WP:AN. I haven't contributed much to the discussion lately, mostly because I can't think of anything I could add that would be heard above the din, but I did want you to know that I appreciated it. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I am happy to recognise exceptional contributors. Stephen B Streater 07:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sphere vs ball

Hello Stephen, Chambers: "sphere - 1.a solid figure bounded by a surface etc : 2.its bounding surface" When I studied geometry we differentiated between the solid and the surface by using "sphere" and "spherical surface" which I suppose was technical. "Ball" comes in for the same degree of ambiguity - think of cricket ball (solid) and tennis ball (hollow shell). Language can be a devil, and when you consider that it's all we have, it's all the more amazing that we don't have dozens of disasters like the Mars Lander which cost the taxpayer billions, because one team was working in miles and the other in kilometres - very distressing! The real question of course, is whether to apply ball or sphere, ambiguous as both are, to a globular cluster which is neither solid nor a hollow shell; which makes one wonder whether the person who originally used the term in this context (of globular cluster), was simply casting around for a phrase which would denote a spherical shape, without deep philosophical implications about its internal solidity. I just think on balance that 'sphere' sounds so much more rounded and technical, don't you? Paul venter 22:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I come from a mathematical background that agrees with the sphere article definition. I agree that to many people, a sphere is not S2, but a solid shape, and a ball is something you play games with. The article is supposed to be aimed at the general reader, so perhaps sphere is more clear and scientific to them. Stephen B Streater 22:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MacGyverMagic - Mgm|(talk) 22:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IAR, properly understood (at Pengo's RfA)

Hi,

No joke. Pursuant to itself, I always ignore "ignore all rules" -- that formulation is too easily abused or misunderstood by newbies/egomaniacs. I support Wikipedia:Interpret All Rules, which codifies the admirable flexibility that the wise supporters of "ignore all rules" want, without allowing for the foolishness. The great one thing about "ignore all rules" is that it permits me to ignore itself, bless the self-contradictory thing. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought you might have a well-formulated position on this ;-) Stephen B Streater 17:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One week GA thing

Hi, I was going through the bulk of the 1400+ current GAs and I put the one week thing as the absolute minimum amount of time that an article would have. In all honestly, with 3-5 reviewers going through all those articles (as well as the new GA requests) you will probably have a lot more. And even if you needed more time, I'm sure any GA reviewer will gladly give it you. Our goal is to keep articles as GA, not de-list them. We will always be willing to help in that regard. Agne 19:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that Mathematics is one of the mathematical articles which will benefit most from inline citations, as a lot of it is about history and general ideas. The more technical articles might just say: these books all contain what you need to know. Stephen B Streater 19:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
True and I do apologize. I had no desire to stir such ire. Just with the re-review on the way, I figure it was best (and most fair) not to catch editors off guard with a possible de-listing. Being far from a "math expert", I do see value in having some in-line citations for the technical articles. Not one to every forumla but maybe to the general claim of what the forumula establishes and a cite to where it is generally well accepted in the field. There is no "magical number" as to how many cites any given article needs. I think it just enough to pass WP:V and alleviate any potential WP:OR concerns. For a lay person and reader, this aids in our own personal verifiability of what we are reading and enhances Wikipedia's overall credibility. I would say that I don't know even 1/16th of the stuff that you know in this field and things that a mathematician may take for granted, a lay person could be just discovering. Agne 19:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be left to knowledgeable editors of the subject to decide which requests for in-line citations can be met and which are nearly impossible to come by. Putting articles on notice that they might be delisted is noble, but surely you aren't suggesting that articles will be delisted without discussing them, are you? --ScienceApologist 20:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
While ultimately the editors of an article decide what goes in it, I think the articles themselves address a wider audience than the editors. When I'm reading about a subject I am less familiar with, I often like to dip into the in-line citations, so I don't think we should rule these out in advance. Perhaps we need two types of good: good for experts and good for laymen. I think Mathematics should be accessible to all, whereas some article like Gröbner basis could be aimed at more experienced Wikipedian. Stephen B Streater 20:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input please

There is a discussion on an old friend here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious editor on policy pages; for some unaccountable reason I failed to spot who the problme was for several minutes... Guy 09:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look now... Stephen B Streater 11:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] arbitration

Hi again, I put together an arbitration case at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Harrassment.2C_talk_page_vandalism.2C_and_non-consensus_changes_to_guideline, and I would really appreciate your input. Thanks. Fresheneesz 05:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm off to a rehearsal now, but I'll contribute later on... Stephen B Streater 08:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] straw poll

Hey, you asked about what I think about "my" straw poll. User talk:GTBacchus#straw_poll GTBacchus(talk) actually put up the poll that wasn't deleted. As I told him, it turned out exactly as I expected - many people contending that notability is a bad idea, and of course many people saying that it is a good idea. I expected no consensus, and thats what I see in the polls. One thing I would have liked to see is neutral votes - people were forced to choose "oppose" or "support" when many people's comments showed that they were more neutral than anything else. One thing I was a little surprised about is that it seems that while many people don't think notability is not good criteria, an overwhelming majority see "non-notable articles" as basically a bad thing. Or at least not a good thing, which was what the prompt. Obviously, Radiant and his supporters instead see the poll as evidence that my proposal is rejected. I really just don't understand the way they think.

What do you think of the poll? Fresheneesz 23:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of differing opinions. This suggests more discussion is a good thing as it will help to create a consensus. You can see my views in the poll, and in our previous discussions. I think that as the encyclopaedia continues to grow, more articles will reach my criterion of having enough interested editors, making NPOV easier to maintain, and verifiability will be more important. In the mean time, I think the variability of articles should be acknowledged somehow. Stephen B Streater 07:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] non-notability

Yes, your idea of what non-notability is, is partly right. : ) . It explains how to fix problems with "non-notable" articles, and discourages the use of notability in argument for or against the deletion of content - pointing to other guidelines and especially policy to take its place in discussions.

Many people don't like the proposal because they think it advocates including *all* non-notable articles. That simply isn't true, but people keep thinking that despite much effort to correct the misconceptions.

Also, your idea of "critical mass" needed for the stability of an article has been argued against. You might want to read the essay linked to in the introduction to WP:NNOT. The argument states that the number of errors and vandalisms per number of readers will not be any different in non-notable articles vs notable or high traffic articles. Same goes for the number of editors per number of readers. Therefore, the argument says, the article takes more time to fix problems, but also that less readers view the page in that time - so it all balances out.

Anyway, i'm glad you're interested - maybe you can make some changes to the page to reflect your view more clearly. Fresheneesz 03:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, I guess someone removed the link to the essay i was talking about. Here it is: Wikipedia:Non-notability/Essay. The top of that page has been FUBAR since I last saw it... Fresheneesz 03:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Go

I have started Wikipedia:WikiProject Go, not before time. Charles Matthews 16:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good :-) I'm in Oregon at the moment, and am about to fly out to Vancouver, so I'll have a look in a few days... Stephen B Streater 21:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] question - accepted arbitration

Hi, looking back at my arbitration thing, I noticed its basically been accepted. I'm wondering now, what does that mean? And whats supposed to happen next? Do you know? Fresheneesz 23:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for chipping in, but I've been active on a number of Arbcom cases. First it's moved from WP:RFAR to a subpage, which may well have a differnet name (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fresheneesz); there will then be subpages for /Evidence, /Workshop and /Proposed decision. Some sections should only be edited by clerks or arbitrators, these are clearly marked. Threaded discussion is not used, except in /Workshop. Each participant may make a statement in /Evidence, which should be as factual as possible and should include diffs to back any claims. The most usual remedies are bans from certain articles or (rarely) namespaces. Normally the unequivocally disruptive editor will simply be blocked or banned as a community action these days. Guy 00:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The less you go for, the more likely you are to succeed. My advice is to go for the core of asserting the right to discuss policy, but don't go for condemnation of your opponents as you have some wiki-weaknesses too. I'd avoid making this a big issue about notability itself, though the poll results are interesting and support your right to have a poll. I'm in Canada at the moment, so may take a few hours to respond. The most important thing is not to be so insistant that you annoy the arbitrators. Stephen B Streater 13:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Mhm, I was thinking the same thing. I was just kinda lazy and wanted to address what i thought were all the most important issues - but I didn't want to have to deal with multiple arbitrations or whatever. I've tried to stay away from the arbitration thing to let it just get commentary. But now that it looks like that is almost over, I'm still wondering what will happen next. Fresheneesz 19:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Almost over? It's barely begun. All that's happened is that the arbs have now been persuaded that there is something for them to consider. Guy 22:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "publishing"

A fewe months ago you suggested renamingthe article publishing to reflect its concentration on print, & it seems also very swpecific to fiction etc publising in the US, and focused towards how to get one's writings published, (There is a perfectly good topic to discuss in WP, because probably many editors/user here want to do that)
I am about to propose it, & do it if no objections, but I ask your help in finding a good name. I don't want to say Print Publishing, because e-books and the like are published similarly. We may need 2 levels, publishing (books and magazines), & publishing industry in US. I say these as a 1st try--what do you think? & then I'll post something. DGG 20:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the first title. The second seems a little parochial, but may be accurate. This would allow an umbrella "Publishing" article which could link to these articles as well as games publishing, video publishing, music publishing, and also book and magazine publishing not restricted to the US. Stephen B Streater 01:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Drini 22:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michele_Bachmann heating up again

Stephen, the debate is flaring up again... you might want to take a look. There is also a new user involved, who could use some good ol' fashioned Streater-style mentoring. :-) I'm hestitant to get more involved myself because of my previous conflicts with the anti-Bachmann crowd (in PRT debates). ATren 20:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm back in England now - I'll have a look after work. Stephen B Streater 09:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks like there are some good people involved now; things are already calming down. Browse over there if you like, but the fire is definitely under control. :-) ATren 17:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the coming election is probably having an effect. Stephen B Streater 10:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hi

do you think there is any chance of eidos selling the IP rights of the Deus Ex franchise to Warren Spector's new company?

I expect it depends on the price! Stephen B Streater 08:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Referred from user:Guy

Hi Stephen, User:Guy referred me to you for assistance. An article on my company, which had been up on Wikipedia since 2004, was recently listed for deletion and, I believe, deleted without reasonable discussion. The opinions of industry experts were ignored because they were not established Wikipedians.

The article, XPLANE, is up for deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 24. The deleted article and an attempt at improvement are up at User:Dgray xplane/XPLANE. I would appreciate any insights or assistance you can give. Thanks in advance for any help you can give.Dgray xplane 16:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look. The key is independent sources to provide the information. Stephen B Streater 11:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much! In case it's helpful, I have started to compile some independent sources at User:Dgray xplane/references.Dgray xplane 02:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I've suggested a "relist". Wikipedia is concerned about bias creeping in through commercial interests, and prefers a less complete but unbiased article to a more complete but biased one. If your company is widely recognised it would help if a variety of people could contribute to the article. Stephen B Streater 18:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
PS Look at other references to see how these often work: ideally these will be a web link to an article about the subject which doesn't just mention the subject in passing and isn't a press release by the subject company. Names of publications which are hard to find and verify probably won't be sufficient as the content needs to be accessible enough to the average editor here to check not just for accuracy but for bias also. Stephen B Streater 18:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patents

Hi Stephen. Do you have any views on the best way to proceed regarding obtaining UK / European patents? Is it wisest to engage an agent or try navigate the system yourself? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mark Kilby (talk • contribs) 13:14, 9 December 2006.

I'd recommend getting professional help. This will give you an idea of the cost, and this will indicate how much work is involved. UK is easier than European, and often both are worth starting even though Europe covers the UK. Stephen B Streater 21:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/e/User_talk%7EStephen_B_Streater_9d4e.html"