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] 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] 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)

[edit] arbitration?

I am considering going to dispute resolution or arbitration against JzG, for his activities on the PRT pages. I wanted to do it back in April, but I took the high road then due to JzG's personal issues; but now it's coming back to haunt me that I didn't do it then. It may be too late now. What's your opinion? ATren 18:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been following the recent discussions on that thread. What are your complaints, and what remedies would you like to see? Stephen B Streater 20:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It's nothing new; JzG just won't let the old fight die. He re-ignited the fight during Fresheneesz's arbitration (reviving the false "I fought the POV pushers and won" claim), and we've been going back and forth since then. Part of the problem is he's bitter that I vigorously (but civilly) opposed his arb com candidacy.
I'm just sick of being called a POV pushing troll, when I am neither.
JzG has put up a subpage off his talk page, so we can attack each other there (we've worn out our welcome at places like AN/I), and I've put a bunch of evidence up there. If you want to take a look: User:JzG/ATren ATren 01:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Arbcom is a bit confrontational - Wikipedia works best when people work together to reach consensus. I don't think you'd win an Arbcom case against JzG without understanding the merit in JzG's position, which is based around the lack of physical implementations of the PRT concept after 40 years of enthusiastic press (which demonstrates the intrinsic bias of the positive published sources).
Most people here don't care that much about about your reputation, or the lack of respect JzG shows you. Your self-image will never be the same as others' image of you, so don't take it too personally. It says as much about JzG as it says about you. If this is your main concern, Arbcom won't be interested.
I suggest doing good work outside the PRT article. This will improve your reputation and standing. The general drift of Wikipedia policy and PRT progress will clarify what PRT should contain, and if you come back to the article in a year, the consensus will be clearer and less acrimonious.
You could consider an Arbcom to stop Avidor editing this article, as you consider him to have a vested interest in the article. Stephen B Streater 10:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, it's not even about the article anymore, which I think is fine (it took months of fighting back JzG's reverts to make it what it is, but the end result is that it is now a very balanced treatment). I'm just sick of being called a POV pusher. I knew nothing about PRT a year ago - I just saw a blatant abuse and I tried to correct it, and that got me into a bitter, neverending fight with one of Wikipedia's most "stubborn and opinionated" (his words) administrators.
From day one, I had no other agenda whatsoever, other than protecting the truth. And not only that, I had done a ton of research so I became sort of an expert on the topic, even to the point of writing simple simulation code to test out some of the concepts of which I was initially skeptical. And yes, I was skeptical at first. But the more I researched, the more I realized how insidious Avidor's and Light Rail Now's campaigns were: they were brutally twisting facts to support their campaigns.
Nevermind the applicability and cost arguments (which are still quite valid until one is built) - Avidor and LRN were lying about the research and technology, and pushing the ridiculous idea that this was some sort of conspiracy. That's what I fought. Skybum had the same views as I did: that the technology was feasible and the main questions were things like cost and how to overcome barriers to implementation - but he agreed that Avidor's and LRN's campaigns were junk. Yet, Skybum was repeatedly labelled a POV pusher, which was absolutely untrue.
So at this point, I just want it to stop. JzG keeps calling me a POV pusher, without a shred of evidence to support it (opposing Avidor's extreme view does not automatically imply you're a POV pusher). His proof has always been "trust me, I'm a respected admin" yet, in my case, he's wrong. I've always tried to be very neutral in my edits, and I've always been accepting of reasonable, thoughtful discussion of my changes - but not blanket reverts with condescending edit comments.
Anyway, it may have died down now (and I've made every attempt to be careful in the above discussion, so as not to re-inflame the debate) so hopefully this will be the end of it. If he doesn't bring it up again, I consider the matter closed. If he does bring it up again, I may consider DR or RfA. If you happen to notice another flame-up, feel free to mediate. :-) ATren 15:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd be happy to mediate, if it flares up again, if only to stop you spending so much time on it. You could be fixing bigger things. Stephen B Streater 09:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't Destroy

I've started an essay called Don't Destroy. Thought you might like to look at it. Fresheneesz 00:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just got my phone internet working on my African holiday... But your link appears to be red. Is this irony? Stephen B Streater 17:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Now I'm back with my 8Mb/s link, I've found the essay: Don't Destroy. I'll have a look. Stephen B Streater 20:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added some comments, thinking about the long term effects of an inclusionist policy. Stephen B Streater 19:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 5 pillars

Hi, just to check, is this edit actually by you, or is that an unknown anon copying-and-pasting the first sig from the page? Thanks :) --Quiddity 03:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi! You are right in your suspicion that I didn't make that edit. My edit at that time was this: [1]. Stephen B Streater 09:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome to the Podcasting WikiProject! I look forward to working with you to make this project the best it can be. The project is just starting out, so I hope you'll join me in getting to work on cleaning up Wikipedia from un-notable podcasts, as well as with the other goals and open tasks. If you have any questions pertaining towards what to do or anything like that, feel free to ask me or leave a comment on the project's talk page. Thanks, and i look forward to Working with you! Ganfon 23:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. FYI I watch my (video) podcasts on the Nokia N93. Stephen B Streater 06:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

(The fact I left something in Houston isn't really applicable, as I was purely checking for grammar and readability.) Yes, I see your point, but I don't think we can keeps something because there may be sources. This isn't an arbitrary requirement; without independent sources, writing a neutral article becomes very difficult. But an AfD isn't a removal of the topic forever, it's just saying that, in its current state, the article doesn't satisfy notability guidelines. There is no prejudice against recreating it if and when sources are found, and many admins will restore the deleted material to you if you ask, so no work is lost. My problem with this article is that, if the site wasn't to do with Wikipedia, it would surely be deleted. We are applying double-standards; keeping our own topics because of WP:ILIKEIT (or perhaps, "I'VE HEARD OF IT") arguments. Trebor 09:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes - I chose Houston so you could see my point didn't just apply to the sort of weird articles I edit ;-)
I agree that if there are too few sources, we can't gauge the NPOV position as an individual. But in practice, there can be discussions between experts on the talk pages to create a NPOV consensus. We have had many discussions in Mathematics to get exactly the right wording - we source things after if necessary. Listing hundreds of sources makes verification harder, because unless you can read them all, you don't know if a fact as verified in the one article you didn't get hold of. Whether this is the best way of doing things is not supposed to be open to debate, because the people writing the rules don't seem to have much practical knowledge of what makes things which actually work. I had a Polish friend before the Berlin Wall came down. He said Perestroika was terrible. Before the reforms, the authorities were so ineffective that people could get things done by ignoring the rules. But with the reforms, the authorities became very effective, and nothing could get done because the rules which were being enforced were imperfect. The whole system collapsed shortly after.
My view of WP:V and WP:N can be nutshelled as follows: verification is to check the accuracy of controversial, specialist, dubious or disputed claims. Notability is to ensure that there are enough editors interested in editing an article to ensure continuing accuracy. So if something is of particular interest to Wikipedia editors, it will require a lower level of notability than some other important point which no one is interested in. Stephen B Streater 13:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
While discussion can create a NPOV tone using general knowledge, the eventual aim should be to source everything. Wikipedia isn't about what's true, it's about what's verifiable, so first hand opinions don't count for much. For instance, I know The game (the game) exists. But as it's never been covered by a reliable source, we can't write anything definitive about it. I could add something which I know to be true, but how does anyone else check that? You may disagree with policies and guidelines, but they have wide consensus so you should still try to use them (or at least argue strongly why they shouldn't be used in this case). Your definition of notability isn't in-line with the commmunity's one. Trebor 13:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I voted to delete The Game article here. And I helped write the current notability guideline, in particular the section WP:N#Rationale for requiring a level of notability here. So my view is in line with the consensus. So you might like to rethink your last reply in the light of this new evidence. Stephen B Streater 13:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I stand entirely by it. Your endorsement of deletion on The Game appeared to be for triviality, whereas in actual fact it is fairly well-known (among certain demographics). People would have taken an interest in it, perhaps even come up with a vaguely "true" article, but that doesn't mean it is verifiable or notable. Your views that notability is purely a matter of enough editors to maintain it is wrong. The consensus is shown on the guidelines: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." This article doesn't quality under it. Why are we keeping it? Trebor 13:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm supporting keep because I think Wikinfo may be able to provide the evidence, and I remember reading about it in a major publication last year. The gist of that article was the WP had a contradiction - the more you know about smething the less you are allowed to write about it because of conflict of interest - resolved by Wikinfo. Deleting an article about a subject without even attempting to get information from the subject seems unnecessarily destructive. Stephen B Streater 13:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Surely you should be abstaining until a response is forthcoming then. Even if it was featured in an article in a major publication, it seems very unlikely that Wikinfo was the primary or central subject; as you say, the article was about Wikipedia. Trivial mentions (which are all that have been found thus far) do not make something. Trebor 14:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I often change my opinion as the debate continues. That is the point of debate. Often also I manage to help improve an article to the point where people decide to keep. My opinion of Wikinfo has diminished during this debate so far. Don't forget that a guideline does not have to be enforced to the letter - I listed in the current guideline some of the policies which the guideline is designed to enforce, in particular WP:V and WP:NPOV. The article makes few value judgements, so I'm not much concerned with NPOV, and the few claims are easily verifiable. This indicates the notability guideline may be being misused in this case. Stephen B Streater 14:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Notability is more than simply a way to enforce policy; if it is, it's being misused in almost every AfD, not just this one. But I stand by the fact that, if you strip the article of anything unverifiable, then it's less than a paragraph. Practically everything is sourced directly to Wikinfo itself, aside from trivial mentions elsewhere. But how do we know what it says about itself is true? What if it claimed to be the foremost Wiki on the web, would we include that? Independent sources are a way of checking that what a site says about itself is actually true. Trebor 19:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd be interested in your views of the purpose of notability. I would not be happy with taking an uncritical self-view of Wikinfo without independent corroboration, which is why I have put a message on their Village Pump asking if they know of any such information. My recollection is of a discussion of Wikinfo in a very reputable printed source, but this may not be locatable within the five day AfD. It's interesting comparing Wikinfo to Wikipedia: most of the Wikipedia article is unreferenced, and a significant number of references which do exist are either from Wikipedia itself (people seem happy to trust Wikipedia to talk about itself, but not Wikinfo, which is a kind of double standard) or unreliable websites such as alexa. OTOH, New Scientist has a two page interview with Jimmy Wales, though this probably wouldn't meet all the criteria for WP:V, it clearly demonstrates notability. In reality, any articles about Wikinfo would get most of their information from the Wikinfo web site, so the whole process is dubious, but that's another issue again. I just get the feeling that people writing these rules don't know how the real world works, and people blindly applying the rules can do a lot of damage. Not that this applies in this case, mind you. If I hadn't seen the article discussing Wikinfo, I might be supporting deletion too. Stephen B Streater 21:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Notability is always a sticky area I find, and there are editors with far more intelligence in the area than me. I think it's mostly ensuring an article can be verified with independent sources, in order to create a NPOV article; purely self-sourced articles aren't going to get anywhere. Additionally (and less importantly), it's an objective (or as objective as you can get) measure of the subject's "importance", i.e. if something has been noted, it is notable. But the second point is less relevant, as without non-trivial independent sources I can't see any way of writing a balanced and accurate article.
The Wikipedia article isn't particularly good, and relies too much on primary sourcing and so on. But there now exists ample sources from which to write a balanced article; Wikipedia has been covered extensively. I would be very interested to see the article you mention, particularly if you say it focuses in some depth on Wikinfo. Just to clarify: I may well support keeping Wikinfo if more third-party sources with increased depth can be found (and the AfD is a way to stimulate a search), I just don't agree with keeping it without them (and find the arguments which say that to be rather weak). Trebor 21:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I've already had a few responses to my Wikinfo request. Some responses about sourcing, others saying that if a clearly existing entity with clear and undisputed information about it cannot appear in Wikipedia, it shows why they started Wikinfo. I'll see if I can find out where my article came from. If it is in New Scientist, I'll still be able to find it somewhere. Stephen B Streater 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking around and came across this which claims Wikinfo is the only fork which is actively edited. Certainly a claim to notability, since anyone can fork Wikipedia. I'll see if I can turn up my original article, but probably not tonight. Stephen B Streater 22:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent) Don't worry, there's no rush. In relation to Wikinfo being the only actively edited fork, that may be true but it's original research (added by User:David Gerard); we can't really source things to a wiki. Trebor 23:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The people on Wikinfo haven't come up with anything that meets Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines, so I think adding sourced material to another article would be the correct Wikipedia thing to do. Perhaps one day there will be enough for an encyclopaedic article. Stephen B Streater 12:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, if they continue to grow they should get more coverage. Thanks for a considered view. Trebor 14:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Message

Stephen B Streater; allow me to congratulate you firstly; on your business success and your fortune and secondly on the wonderful news of having a young daughter. I don’t know what you think about the marriage of different generations but I can wait for such a rich girl if that is ok! On the serious side, I left you a message on Talk:Languages of Iran. Kiumars

I'll mention it to her when she learns to talk, but I think she is a bit young for you! I'll have a look at the talk page. Stephen B Streater 14:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
LOL! I will be dead by then! By the way, you have another mail on Talk:Languages of Iran but please please please read carefully this time!Kiumars
I'd already replied - you have to be quick in this game! Stephen B Streater 15:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
LOL! You have another mail on Talk:Languages of Iran! Who is quick then? Kiumars
I've read this. I'll think about where to get the information and be back tomorrow. Stephen B Streater 17:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hey Stephen,

I just would like to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 54/13/11. I appreciate the trust expressed by members of the community, and will do my best to uphold it.

Naturally, I am still becoming accustomed to using the new tools, so if you have suggestions or feedback, or need anything please let me know. - Gilliam 21:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome! Stephen B Streater 22:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Community enforced mediation

Hi, could you fill me in on your experience with arbitration cases and other dispute resolution? In particular I'd be interested in links to tough situations you helped to resolve. Regards, DurovaCharge! 23:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of this is discussed by protagonists in my RfA - you'll have to skip past the unrelated video issues to find the relevant reports of my work which are scattered throughout.
Most mediation efforts are spread across many contributions on many pages, so too hard to list here, but if you follow the links, you will see that this cooled a hot situation between Nigelj and John254.
And here is some appreciation: Kind words.
I also have contributed to cooling heated arguments in policy pages such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
Getting starting on one of your ones will demonstrate how it all works ;-) Stephen B Streater 10:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
How does this sound? It looks like the proposal is moving toward experimental implementation. I suggest you observe the first case or two and have some e-mail discussions with me about them. You look like you'll probably be fine for this sort of thing. The main area where I'm concerned is in selecting cases that have a high probability of being resolved this way. Unfortunately, a fairly large percentage of ArbCom cases have at least one participant who has no larger interest in Wikipedia than their own short-term tactical perspective. That sort of person may try to exploit this program, if you know what I mean. The mediator's most important responsibility would be screening. DurovaCharge! 21:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
We could try this. The reuslt would probably be along the lines of: I wouldn't do that and wouldn't get that result. Stephen B Streater 22:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
To be perfectly candid, I have two types of situations primarily in mind. One is the editor who simply doesn't understand the site very well and lacks the initiative to research arbitration cases. I'm looking for people who understand what they're getting into (or who'd bring themselves up to speed). The anathema of this undertaking would be the user who enters mediation cynically as a play for time to delay an arbitration that would probably go badly, and who plays along with mediation until the moment they actually get blocked as a result...then finds an excuse to raise a firestorm and tries to close down community-enforced mediation as one more stunt to send up smoke and stall for time. The mediator's biggest responsibility is to filter which cases to accept. DurovaCharge! 03:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I have in mind two sides which have differing models of Wikipedia. Each side works within their own rules, creating antagonism which they cannot escape from without outside help. Stephen B Streater 08:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
So far you seem like someone who'd become a good mediator. I've added a short paragraph to the proposal about how new community mediators would join. Since there hasn't been any case yet that's gone the whole distance, let's wait for one and talk it over by e-mail. Unless something comes up that changes my mind about you I'd create a list of community mediators and add your name next to mine. I've added a short list to the proposal's talk page about how this would grow as it moves toward regular approval. It's not meant to be hidebound, but at some point it would move into Wikipedia namespace with a centralized page to request mediations and an archive of past cases. Sounds good to you? DurovaCharge! 16:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I think this could help make Wikipedia a more pleasant place to be. Stephen B Streater 16:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Things are moving toward acceptance. The proposal is in the Wikipedia namespace now and I've listed you as a trainee at Wikipedia:Community enforced mediation/Requests. We've got two other trainees so far and tentative discussion about a possible case. It isn't clear whether both parties want to go forward, and frankly nobody should feel pressured to become a test case. Nothing would actually move until the community approves a trial run. I've proposed a three month test of the idea. Thanks very much for your enthusiasm. DurovaCharge! 03:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The first case may as well be a suitable one - no rush. Stephen B Streater 08:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

Following our previous discussion about notability and reliable sources, I was wondering if you had an opinion on the Wikipedia article. A lot of this seems to be original research. An example is the graph showing a plot of number of articles against time. I cannot find a third party reliable source for this information. Would you propose to delete such independently unverifiable content? Stephen B Streater 14:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I would judge it on a case-to-case basis. I haven't looked at the article in any depth and so don't know if limiting it to independent sourcing would leave out useful information. I'm a firm believer in common sense, so if there's no reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the information I would keep it in. Alternatively, and as has been discussed here, you could add an "inline flag" to say where the information is from, letting the reader make up their own mind. Trebor 15:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Community enforced mediation

Here's your first training exercise: have a look at this thread and add your thoughts to it. Wikipedia_talk:Community_enforced_mediation#One_possible_outcome Regards, DurovaCharge! 20:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

We're up to six trainees now with no actual requests for mediation yet. If you'd like to get some practice the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal needs help. BTW with this many people it's easier to post general stuff to Wikipedia talk:Community enforced mediation/Requests. Please bookmark it and thanks for volunteering. Regards, DurovaCharge! 22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
These things take a lot of careful work to fix. I've got recording sessions all weekend for my orchestra, and what with Valentine's day and various anniversaries, I'll start next week. Stephen B Streater 23:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Guns in the US

Hello, I realize the comment is over six months old, but on the talk page for the article List of unusual deaths, you made a comment I took some exception to. You stated "Lots of people shoot themselves in the US where everone has several guns each, I've heard"

I'm sorry, but that is just a stupidly inaccurate comment. The current statistic is that 40% of American households have guns - high, to be sure, but that's certainly not everyone, which is just a blatantly ignorant perception. Gun owners include hunters, collectors, hobbyists, those who serve or have served with the military or police, and simply people who may keep something for the security of their home or business. For most people, there's nothing inherently violent about guns at all, they were simply raised with them. I personally don't even know of anyone who owns a gun, except for an uncle who's a retired police officer. The only time I've ever fired one (a rifle) was on a vacation to a ranch out west many years ago.

Thinking that 40% of our population is akin to "everyone" is like thinking that George Bush really represent the United States. Nearly 50% of us voted against him - twice. The people he represent only barely edged out the 150 million Americans that want nothing to do with him, many of whom are the same people who don't want anything to do with guns. America is a big country. Elijya 06:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi! We were debating the deletion of the article at the time. This was just a rhetorical device to demonstrate that this entry was not that unusual. If you weren't involved in the debate, you might have taken the comment out of context. Stephen B Streater 19:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I may as well point out to those who didn't understand what I wrote that I was just reporting an opinion which I had heard. Most people who haven't been to the USA get their impressions from films and other unreliable sources. More guns than people and other similar factoids are common currency when referring to the USA. Stephen B Streater 21:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video.

Hi, Stephen. I'm glad you see you're still active. We now have a Java video player provided through the same 'hack' of a solution that I used for the audio. You can see it linked from all the videos on commons, check out Commons:Category:Video.

We've pretty close to having proper support on the site, plus there are a number of other exciting things coming up in terms of public support for Ogg/Theora+Vorbis. The cortado player that I'm using isn't perfect, but it does have working buffering. In the past you tested the audio only player with a wide collection of JVMs and helped me spot some compatibility problems. Because this player has a resampler it should be able to use the older low quality audio interface and should be more generally compatible as a result. I'd appreciate whatever feedback you can provide. --Gmaxwell 05:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Great! I'll have a look. I've also got some more Ogg Theora/Vorbis videos to add to the Library. Stephen B Streater 07:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
First feedback (checking playback on a Mac with Java 1.5.0_07) including bugs
* The system basically works
* When starting a long video, buffering can stop when the % indicator is around 68%
* The are often short gaps in the sound
* Sometimes the video and audio stops for extended periods when almost no data (eg 30B/s) is being transferred. Playback and data flow then resumes
* Starting a second video stops the first - Java allows multiple simultaneous videos to be played
* Closing one of several play windows can give Null Pointer Exception in a remaining window
* Mute button doesn't work
* Resizing window during buffering makes video go black
* Java console reports "stop, reason: wrong-state, stopping" even though the video seems to stop correctly
Stephen B Streater 18:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CEM

Community enforceable mediation has gone into experimental rollout. Thanks for volunteering as a mediator trainee. We'll be in touch as this develops. DurovaCharge! 04:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/e/User_talk%7EStephen_B_Streater_9d4e.html"