User talk:Stephen B Streater

FORscene AfD

Hi Stephen, I do usually read the articles before closing AfDs, except in cases in which the consensus is overwhelming. In your case, I checked it out, but because my task was to determine consensus, and because the discussion yielded four delete votes and zero keep votes (or one, assuming that you intended to vote keep), there wasn't really any way for me to close the AfD except as a delete. There are indeed ways in which such an article can be written that maximize the chances it will avoid (or survive) the AfD process. Mostly, it must not appear in any way like an advertizement: no gushing adjectives, no celebratory or admiring comments, no excited speculations about where the company's or product's future might lead. I can still see deleted articles; if you like, I'll take a more thorough look at yours and see whether I think it might be rewritten in a way that would give it a stronger chance to avoid deletion. However, you'll have to give me until tomorrow: my Wikipedia time for today is done. Good luck getting the baby to bed! Regards, Babajobu 12:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate your time. Some of the earlier delete votes were for a much more gushing versions, before I had NPOVd it and collected the supporting evidence together (I'm learning fast!). But I (and other(s)) have tidied up the article quite a lot, so I would appreciate an impartial eye as to what might still be causing offence.

PS I included the history section to support one of the discussion points - I expect this would be thinned quite a lot in the "final" version Stephen B Streater 14:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Stephen, after looking over the deleted article, I do indeed think the topic meets notability guidelines, and could be written in a way that would get it past/through AfD. Tomorrow I'll write up a new version of the article and post it, with an explanation on the talkpage as to why I did so. Cheers. Babajobu 09:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - you are a Star :-)

PS Baby stopped crying again as soon as I got her back in front of Wikipedia - she's fast asleep now! I'll post a video somewhere :-).

Hi Stephen; sorry, but I don't have much Wikipedia time at the moment. I'll be able to get to the article eventually, I'm sure. Babajobu 06:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Stephen B Streater 09:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the cache for your original FORscene Wikipedia article at answers.com has been purged. If you have a working link for the article I would be interested in reading it. Isn't it kind of ironic that a wikipedian wants to read a deleted article? The edit history would valuable for future scholars too. Sigh. (Requestion 04:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for your interest - I'll put in a request for userfication. I think when a new article is written, they can undelete the original history, so everything will turn out OK in the end. Stephen B Streater 06:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I userfied it as you requested. JoshuaZ 03:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia article?

Stephen, I saw your name in my watchlist just now and wondered if it was really you! I remember your interview in Acorn User some years ago. In more recent years, whenever I've read anything about Tomb Raider, I've thought: that's one company that started out producing RISC OS software that's made it big time in the PC world.

I was wondering, why don't you have your own article on Wikipedia? JRawle 15:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Yes it's really me! Who knows why I don't have my own article ;-) But I can't write my own, as that is against Wikipedia policy. You can start one if you like! Stephen B Streater 17:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You now have an article at Stephen Streater – I'm not sure if you'd prefer Stephen B Streater, but you can easily move it. I've no doubt got some of the information wrong, but I expect you know someone who can correct it.

It looks OK to me. Of course, the full story (which no one would believe if I hadn't kept the documentation!) will have to await my book ;-)

I might have chosen Stephen B Streater, but there's no ambiguity. Apparently, signing with a middle initial says something about your personality. Stephen B Streater 19:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, was it your grandfather who knew TE Lawrence, or am I mixing you up with someone else who was once profiled in Acorn User? JRawle 18:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Not as far as I know, but it wouldn't surprise me. Stephen B Streater 19:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I finally checked through the old Acorn Users, and it was actually the interviewer whose great uncle was Lawrence's driver. So that solves that particular mystery! JRawle (Talk) 21:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving that. Stephen B Streater 06:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the article to Stephen B. Streater. But what's the deal with the stop? I'm under the impression that it's proper to use a stop with abbreviations, but maybe this is a British vs American English issue? If that is the case, then the article should use the abbreviation without the stop. -lethe ^{talk +} 16:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

When I write my name with a pen, I write the ".", but when I learned computing they didn't have proportionally spaced text and the dot took too much space. Hence my computer sig not having a dot, but my handwritten signature having one. I'm happy with the article called Stephen B. Streater as it is not my signature, but my name. PS The redirects are good too. Stephen B Streater 16:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Video Editing Software

I started it with the intent on comparing Apple NLE's, since that was the extent of my realm of knowledge in that area, but it doesn't really matter what you do with it. Someone else already started a page comparing NLE's of other brands as well, so a lot of my content could get added into that. I just haven't had time to deal with that, and I'm not very good at working with tables in Wiki-code. --TangentIdea 22:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

OK - I'll stick to the generic page then. Stephen B Streater 23:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Go

Hi regarding your edits to Go (board game):

• Weiqi is the original name for Go and is still widely used around the world. Including native text in an English article is a useful. Many people want them because they help future researchers to further the study through native sources. Native text can be encyclopedic information and has many benefits. It is unwise to remove native text JUST because this is an English encyclopedia. It would be foolish to not add native text to articles.

• Go was invented and developed in China and therefore is a Chinese game. Just as Shogi is called Japanese chess and Xiangqi is called Chinese chess because they originated from those countries regardless of the fact that they are played alot in East Asia and the West. The English name Go also originated from the Chinese character 碁 (Go). Please use Talk:Go (board game) for further discussion of the article. Saito Hajime

PRT

Hi, you seem interested in PRT and .. well so am I. You seem much more practically minded than the rest of the people on that page. If you want to talk about stuff that not article related, I'm slightly more knowlegeble about it than most. Cya around. Fresheneesz 19:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm generally busy but have the occasional hour spare to look, learn and contribute. See you around then. Stephen B Streater 20:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

(just so you know, most people reply on the other person's talk page, making the discussion look very .. one sided. But I won't get that "new messages" thing if you reply here only. Just FYI!) Fresheneesz 23:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've often seen discussions in one place ;-) If you add my talk page to your watch list, you'll see my replies. Then we can have a coherent discussion. If you prefer, we can go over to your place. Stephen B Streater 06:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yea yea, but I dunwanna be allerted to everyone else's changes to your discussion page. Anyway, I don't mind talking here i'll "watch" the page. Fresheneesz 07:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Broken Link

It is working fine with me ? from IE and Mozilla . Maybe you need to enable some settings ? Can you test it from another browser ? Alhoori

SkyTran/UniModal

Hey, I was wondering if you had any opinion about the deletion ("merge"), of the article Personal rapid transit/UniModal. Do you? If so, I would ask if you'd be willing to argue its case for unprotection and undeletion. Thanks. Fresheneesz 22:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I never saw the original article, so it's hard to comment with authority. Some of this debate is like arguing about angels on pinheads though. I've interfered sparingly so far until I can spot more of a consensus (or a way of helping one develop). When I started off, I had my FORscene article deleted, and this is much more real than any of this PRT - it's a question of fitting in to the WP flow rather than fighting it. There are police admins much more extreme than JzG, and you might get one if you push hard enough! Stephen B Streater 23:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks similar to my debate with JzG, except that you had better evidence. Its disturbing to me that admins seem to want to delete messy pages, instead of either help cleaning them up, or using the "cleanup" tags etc. Thanks for the tip. Fresheneesz 22:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, FORscene meets the guidelines and was still deleted. The person who deleted it thought it was worth keeping, and the person who proposed it says he probably wouldn't propose it now. The one problem was that I started the article off and am involved with the project. This is an issue you don't have with PRT. Stephen B Streater 23:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

ForScene

Regarding your question on my talk page re: your software; firstly, WP runs on consensus, so no matter what I personally believe, it could still be deleted or whatever according to what other people think. As for me, I'm not a huge policy wonk, and I don't have it in personally for anybody (if anything, I think some administrators take things a bit too far). That said, recreating the article with the same text would probably not fly (and is a criteria for speedy deletion). It also leaves a bad taste in my mouth when someone writes an article about something they have a large personal stake in (for the same reason as self-written bios are often not very good). So it'd look better if an unrelated person wrote an article on FORscene. This would also tend to bolster claims to notability; if no one else thinks it's important enough to write an article, besides the president of the company, how notable can it be?

If you were to recreate the article in a mostly identical form, it certainly wouldn't fly. Even if it were to meet the new Software guidelines, it'd get a really hard look, because you helped write those guidelines. If a neutral third party wrote an article, this would be the best situation. That said, I'm not out to be hard on anyone, just keep the encyclopedia encyclopedic. I've just seen too many people trying to spam the place with advertising. Just after I submitted ForScene for AfD, I noticed that this was probably not the case here. I might not even have nominated it, had I known then what I know now. But it's consensus, as I started out with, and the consensus was that this article did not assert notability and was too much advertising.

In short, you'll have to be careful of the policy wonks hitting you with CSD G4 (recreation of deleted material), and it will always look bad to write your own article, and to defend it under criteria you had a hand in influencing is also odd. But, I don't have a personal stake in it one way or the other, it's all about the consensus. Ryanjunk 17:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I do not intend recreating an article myself for the reasons you state, but several people have expressed an interest in creating an article. As it happens, FORscene easily meets the existing guidelines for notability which I had no part in creating. I just wanted to ensure the article was primarily deleted because I wrote it and am connected with FORscene. This seems to be the consensus now. Stephen B Streater 18:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I am quite happy to take this to WP:DRV if you like. It's tricky; Forbidden is a publicly traded company and it appears from the figures that this is not yet setting the world on fire, but it is more worthy (in a strictly biased and subjective sense) than 99% of the games we have articles on because they have x thousand players (many of whom have, of course, only played once and got bored). My wife works for Site Intelligence, a niche-market web analytics software company currently not posting a profit due to investing in new coding, employing around 30 people, growing steadily, taking market share from more established players by better fitting their customers' business model. In a couple of years they'll either have made it big or vanished. Right now it looks good, with some big names on board (B&Q, Tesco, Argos, Lloyds TSB, Carphone Warehouse, SAP). Right now Site Intelligence is being used by two out of the top three UK online retailers and is competing successfully against some heavyweight US competitors. Notable software? Hard to say. I'd be happiest if someone at the BBC were to create an article on FORscene, noting on the Talk pae that it's new content. Either way if it gets created and speedied, call me. The safest bet if it does get created is to take it to AfD and try for an unambiguous keep vote. I'm undecided: the only person I know whose judgment I trust and who has enough knowledge about that market is you, and I can't ask you for obvious reasons :-) Just zis Guy you know? 18:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You could ask the British Army ;-) I genuinely think there should be an article on WP. The broadcast customers are too busy making programmes as a rule - massive deadlines etc. as well as massive budgets to nurture. Also, the scope of FORscene is pretty big - should a broadcaster write it, a podcaster (you can podcast directly from FORscene now), the British Army (too busy climbing Everest!). Perhaps you could NPOV the article (as VSCA seems to have been the real problem), simplify the history section, let me know what needs verifiable sources, and see if it looks reasonable for WP:DRV in a tidied up form. Stephen B Streater 21:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yebbut that's not very many customers is it? And from what I know of the Men from Auntie, there is time between deadlines. Judging from the bar takings at the Lower Red Lion when the location crews are in, anyway... Just zis Guy you know? 22:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Reading your comment a bit closer, I see that you are referring to the production teams. FORscene is used for post-production ;-) I could still ask someone in the Broadcast industry to write an article, but it may not be very WP. Stephen B Streater 06:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

We intend never to have many customers - they need support. What we want is a few customers who are big. We have distributors around the world in Italy, Japan, Finland, Canada, as well as the UK. Perhaps I can refer you to the notability guidlines [WP:CORP]: "A product or service is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself [including] published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles". Sales is only one measure of notability, particularly for a new product. Stephen B Streater 06:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You might also like to watch BBC News 24 - who have changed their logo every hour to proclaim: "RTS News Channel of the Year". If even the BBC announce this, it shows how significant RTS is. And guess what? FORscene won the award for best technology in Post Production last December. Stephen B Streater 06:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks!

Hi, I appreciate your input on my DRV.
I noticed you created FORscene, I've personally never used it but I was wondering if you have heard about the new ajax technology that is being used to power web-browser applications for video editing, spreadsheets, word-processing, and music playback. It looks pretty promising. The idea is to have several useful applications for use in any supported web-browser. [This] site has a some of the new applications created by Linspire founder Michael Robertson. Of particular interest to you would be [eyespot]. I would be interested to hear what you think about it. Again, thanks.--Lwieise -=- Talk to Me 11:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, I have heard of Ajax and think it is a big advance on traditional installed software. FORscene (which needs an article here on WP still!) is implemented as a Java applet because of the limitations of Ajax. Javascript is too slow to implement a real time video codec, so you are reliant on installed software. With Java, you can update the codec as well as the application - as we do from time-to-time with FORscene.

I'll have a closer look at eyespot. It looks like a simple version of Clesh, Forbidden's consumer offer launched with Tiscali earlier this year. We are still adding consumer-type features (one of the delights of Web applications), so I suspect eyespot is simpler to use but more limited at present. The market for internet video is vast though, and sharing video over the internet (web/mobile/podacast) is much more fun than having it stuck on your desktop. My user page has some examples I shot on my various camera phones. See also Nokia N93 for a taste of the future from another angle.

PS You can open a free Clesh account here and give it a go. If you have a mobile phone, I can tell you how to upload mobile photos and videos, and how to publish for mobile too. Stephen B Streater 13:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I would have never thought to do this but...

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

WikiProject Go?

Hullo there. I have been thinking that a go wikiproject could usefully be set up here (cf. Wikipedia:WikiProject). Following a few discussions on terminology and suchlike issues, I feel that having such a project might have a purpose, beyond just encouraging go articles here. We also ought to clarify how best to get diagrams posted. (I haven't myself been as busy with the go articles as I might have been, but that is at least in part because Sensei's Library is more suitable.) Charles Matthews 11:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll support that. Making it easy to add diagrams will allow many articles on strategy/tactics and famous games. Stephen B Streater 13:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Unimodal

Hey, thanks for the support. What options were you mentioning? I'm fine with discussing it with JzG on his page, if he is. But my page is fine too. Fresheneesz 03:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of reducing JzG's work load ;-) Also, the general strategic principles are not restricted to just this article. Did you see my points on WP:SOFTWARE? Stephen B Streater 06:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your points about WP:SOFTWARE, but I don't know how policies about software can be extrapolated to SkyTran. I suppose the answer to that lies deep within the talk page there? Fresheneesz 06:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's more prosaic than that. The sort of consensus there is reflected across WP. Stephen B Streater 07:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you read The Art of War? Stephen B Streater 08:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No I haven't read the Art of War. Why? Fresheneesz 22:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You're much more likely to get your way if you read it first! Stephen B Streater 22:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, alright, I'll put it on my list. Fresheneesz 06:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The Unimodal article is quite informative, but reads a bit like a brochure. You know: "Imagine walking down in the gentle summer breeze to meet your pod, with the birds singing in the background". I know I exaggerate but consider Hypothetical Trip:

• A person would approach a portal, walk up the stairs, and get in the ready pod. One would tell (verbally) the pod where to go, and the pod door would close automatically. The pod would then accelerate forward and up along the acceleration guideway, and would then merge with the main guideway at 100 mph. The pod would travel toward the destination portal and would exit on the decelerate track, then start slowing down, and presently stop at an exit portal. The door would automatically open, and the person would get out and walk down the stairs. The pod would then close its door, and edge forward to wait in a line with other pods, all waiting for people to use the pod in front at the entrance portal.

Now consider the same section with different spin:

• A person would approach a portal, stuggle up the stairs with with a pram and heavy shopping, (flying in the face of decades of social progress, wheelchair access is not provided), only to find that all the pods are busy. After waiting what seems like an age, a pod finally arrives. Our prospective passenger, a young professional lady, notices that the only person in the pod is a man - who has all the appearence of being a complete weirdo. She quickly considers whether to risk being trapped in a box she has no control of with a complete stranger, but is already late for an important meeting. One would tell (verbally) the pod where to go, but unfortunately the background noise and her foreign accent render the speech recognition unreliable. As she enters, she notices a feint but rather unpleasant smell left over, presumably, from the last time the pod broke down. She can just make out the view through graffiti etched windows. The pod door closes automatically, leaving our intrepid traveller to her fate.

So which is more realistic? Is this entirely POV? Why should you have one and not the other in a NPOV article? Stephen B Streater 09:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think you know which one I think is more realistic. But the other paragraph does bring up good rhetorical points. One thing I did notice is that the random creepy guy incident would almost never happen, unless he was so creepy that he didn't get out when he was supposed to... that would be more of a call-the-police type of incident, rather than the get-in-the-vehical-anyway type.

Yes - I remember now that PRT is personal and you can get your own pod. Stephen B Streater 08:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the reason I wrote that was to give people a clear idea of the way a system would work. The workings of a system are usually not very clear in PRT sites, as the focus on certain points rather than the whole system. The paragraph explained how the system is *supposed* to work, rather than how it *might* work. There are millions of ways a system might work, but only one way that its supposed to work.

I reworded it a little... we could just remove it for now, I just thougth it was a helpful description:

Hypothetical system description, from start to finish:

• An entrance portal leads up to the place where pods wait. The automatic pod door would open when signaled to by a registered user, and the pod would be told (verbally) the destination of travel. After the pod is told where to go, it would then accelerate forward and up along the acceleration guideway, and would then merge with the main guideway at 100 mph. The pod would travel toward the destination portal and would exit on the decelerate track, then start slowing down, and presently stop at an exit portal. The door would open, and the rider would get out at an exit portal. The pod would then close its door and edge forward toward an entrance portal, waiting behind other pods if there are any.

Anyway, I wrote much of the article based on the idea of the system, the way its *supposed* to work. If parts of it read like a brochure, I guess thats my fault. Lets just put it in the discussion section with the rest in that case. Fresheneesz 20:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes - the article is very well explained. I wouldn't remove any sections at the moment. I'm just looking to see how one might make it less idealistic to meet NPOV issues. Stephen B Streater 20:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, where do you think the article stands now? Very POV, or very NPOV? What do you think should be done with the article? Fresheneesz 07:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Three issues for me

• Can the article be improved to be NPOV? It's still POV. For example "Also, the system uses passive magnetic levitation" makes it look like the system is up and running. You can't write "would use" or "could use" everywhere, as this is too cumbersome (fundamentally, non-existence is the issue). You could try different devices such as "The design calls for", "the intention is to have", "... has been proposed/suggested". It looks like the article has been written by a believer. (See my above spin version, which I admit is inaccurate, but the tone is very different from yours).
• Could the article claim less? Fundamentally it asserts the viablility of the design. It assumes the design can be built, both technically and politically. This lacks WP:V. Suppose the design will never be built, and this becomes obvious for some reason eg it gets superseded. The question is "should the article be included in this case" - and if so, what would it look like. It still claims to exist, or be about to exist, which suffers from WP:V every time. It claims too much and that is the problem. Can WP contain concepts which never will exist? I think it can, as there are many completely fictional entries. If it is ever built, the article could then be updated to reflect this.
• Would an article which claimed less fail on notability? I think you should be aware though that precedents I have seen for other single-design authors are deletion for non-notability. Lots of people have good ideas. Stephen B Streater 08:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok I fixed all of the issues with making sure the article doesn't imply that the system exists yet. All that I could find at least. Fresheneesz 00:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll have another look. You might like to look at the edit history of an article I started recently for a non-existent product. I'm not saying it's perfect, but no one has tried to delete it: Nokia N93. Pointers from this article (though this may be just my interpretation):

• Start as a stub inviting contributions
• Mention famous manufacturer's name in title for credibility and consistency with other models
• Blue links to existing related items to support credibility
• Multiple references
• Links to article from other relevant articles to show how it fits in
• Wait for contributions from multiple people (who find it from other articles probably)
• Remove uncited comments so reliability of information remains high
• Add lots of cites from independent sources as soon as these become apparent
• Add release date and price asap
• Keep article short
• Link to articles rather than repeating them here - include only factual information. Ref 3 is too chatty for WP.

Below are some more suggestions for Unimodal. Stephen B Streater 06:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So corresponding things I would look for in the Unimodal article:

• Start as small or stub to reflect perceived importance of subject. If article grows organically, people are less likely to delete it. Given history, better to try and grow existing mention as verifiable credible material becomes available - particularly initially grow by only adding references rather than actual text
• Who has agreed to manufacture Unimodal? Add a mention in their article that they have been a potential contractor for making PRT systems eg Unimodal (with cites)
• If Unimodal gets its own PRT section, link to Unimodal section of PRT from other WP articles - wait for paragraph to grow into a section first
• Multiple independent references - add lots of these in, one per day/week as the first thing. People are unlikely to remove independent references from an encyclopaedia and it builds credibility
• Wait for contributions from multiple people. People who edit are more likely to want to keep it, whereas most people don't care
• Remove unsupported material and conjecture. You could try "People have considered how this could work in practice". [Cite]
• Add price estimates with sources (you have some already)
• Add estimated release date asap - are there independent sources saying: "could be available in x years"?
• Keep article short. People resent long articles. If it was that important, why wasn't there an article already?
• Don't repeat chatty brochure information. Pick out key facts and link to chatty articles

Stephen B Streater 07:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright I'll look into trying a couple of those things out in the next week or two. One question tho, since the article is already deleted, and JzG feels theres no context for *any* article, would it still be ok to start a very short stub? Fresheneesz 03:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not initially. You need to build up the Unimodal paragragh first with references, then manufacturer and projected delivery dates (providing cites), then its own section in the PRT article first. This information may not all be available yet, but if the system is good then there'll be more and more feasibility studies and trials, giving more articles and press coverage. If you can get a PRT article published in New Scientist (their readers will probably be interested), then this could be quoted as further evidence as to the importance of the topic. Stephen B Streater 06:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You might also be interested in the Pure Wiki Deletion System. Stephen B Streater 08:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a little blurb on a couple different PRT designs. I'll wait for it to grow. Fresheneesz 10:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Email address

For those who would like to contact me privately, I have an email address at Forbidden Technologies: sbs at forbidden.co.uk

1000th edit

Long time no see - congratulations on your 1000th edit. Ben Finn 12:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope you are well. I'll see if I can add anything to the Sibelius article too. Stephen B Streater 17:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Stephen, thanks for formatting our edit better. Sherri

P.S. Just noticed. Could you please capitalize the "P" in PerfectPitch.com to be consistent with other areas of article? This is in References section, which, it does not appear we can edit.

Done. Stephen B Streater 19:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I award you this Deletionist's Barnstar for the best researched AfD nomination at Itiva, Renata 06:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Off-wiki attacks poll

Just a small note - when reducing the poll to numbers, RJII suporting both strong throw out altogether and Remove for Discussion/until Consensus should probably be counted only once. I'd suggest counting him under the strong throw out. --Wikimol 18:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to edit. I think we both spotted the other change not counted in the totals. Perhaps add "as amended by" to the bottom of the table after my sig. Otherwise we'll end up with pages of polls. Stephen B Streater 18:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey

When did you leave Eidos? I noticed neither your article nor your user page mention that, I thought it should probably be added. I was curious whether you decided to leave because of a lack of interest in the gaming industry (as opposed to video graphics technology) or what. Thanks for any help. --Col. Hauler 18:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I left in 1999, the year Eidos reached £1,000,000,000 market cap (unfortunately not all mine!). The typically minimalist RNS (Regulatory News Service announcement through the London Stock Exchange) is here:

Eidos PLC - Re Directorate

RNS No 6500t

EIDOS PLC

10 June 1999

Eidos plc

Board Change

Eidos plc ("Eidos"), one of the world's leading publishers and developers of

entertainment software, announces that Stephen Streater has resigned as a

director with immediate effect.

Charles Cornwall, Chief Executive, said:

"On behalf of Eidos I would like to thank Stephen for his contribution to

Eidos over the years. Stephen helped found Eidos in 1990 as a company

involved in video compression technology. Video compression has remained the

principal focus of his work and he now feels he can best continue this within

a dedicated new start-up venture. We wish him all the best for the future."

Contact:

Charles Cornwall, CEO: 0181 636 3000

Jeremy Lewis, CFO: 0181 636 3000

Neil Camp, Binns & Co: 0171 786 9600

Ryan Barr, Brainerd Communicators: 001 212 986 6667

END

Eidos wanted to buy .com shares which I blocked while I was there - 2000 was the time to sell shares to raise money for investment, not the other way round! I've always enjoyed games programming, and made some money as a student doing this. But I wanted to take advantage of the rapid growth in IT in general and the Internet in particular to make the Video Platform for the Internet AKA FORscene. Some day this will get the article it deserves on Wikipedia, but in the mean time, people are starting to use it to add video to Wikipedia. I've started a discussion about it here.

Please feel free to make any appropriate edits to the article about me. Stephen B Streater 20:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

RP: Editing

Just to let you know that it is considered impolite to edit other people's comments on talk pages
But I only want to correct double redirects!!!!!!

The text was the proposed wording for a (at the time) controversial section. Although the dust has settled now, changing the debate might cause problems later. I think talk pages are full of errors and omissions, partly because they are not highly edited, and this is OK. Of course, the articles themselves should be perfected. PS If you sign your talk comments with four ~s, people will be able to tell where each person's comments start and end. Stephen B Streater 12:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:WTH

I didn't actually create that shortcut, it was already in use (see What Links Here). You are right that it's not exactly intuitive, though. (Apparently, 'WTH' is IM for "what the hell?" .) --Stratadrake 21:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That explains everything it. Stephen B Streater 22:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Art of War/Wall Street Quote

I have just pulled out the DVD of the movie and turned on subtitles to make sure. The quote is absolutely correct without dispute. Just FYI I know this has been bothering you.  :) FrankWilliams 16:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. I'll sleep soundly tonight :-) Stephen B Streater 16:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

FORscene

I put some comments on its discussion page. Fresheneesz 19:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Stephen B Streater 19:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:MUPP

Actually, I would say that the poll is about as even as possible. Just over 60% is not enough to create a policy and +30% is not enough to show that the policy doesn't have a hope. I can't think of a more neutral point in a straw poll. —David618 ^t 20:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

So what does this mean? That we are asking the wrong question! What we need is a poll on:

• Status quo (very old now, so in need of update if only for clarification)
• Something much more popular than the status quo which moves us forward

Can you think of something which will attract a significant proportion of the opposers? Stephen B Streater 20:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Your idea at Tony's Nth RfC

Hello Stephen, I just wanted to lend you some support for the idea you expressed at Tony's RfC. I don't think that a software change is the way to go at this point, but I didn't want you to feel like you were being smacked down. Please keep bringing up ideas. I think when people aren't in a stressful RfC situation they'll be a little more kind.

And congrats on being a new father! :) --Fang Aili ^talk 14:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Stephen B Streater 14:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

undeleting

I saw this on Tony's talk page in response to me... "might even change my Green Energy vote if someone (perhaps a new ++Admin) feels inclined to include the userbox so I can see it."... Was that directed at me? If so, I am always happy to undelete things on request and userify them, just let me know (via link if possible) what the thing in question is so I can review it. ++Lar: t/c 14:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It was directed at you (Tony never got round to doing it). I meant to add it to the top of the DRV debate so everyone can see what they are talking about. Stephen B Streater 14:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I'm a bear of very little brain. can you give me a link to what we're talking about? Is it this: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Template:user_green_energy Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If that was it, done. A tip: ALWAYS give links to EVERYTHING. Especially if you're asking for an action to be performed, make it as easy as possible for the person you're asking to know what it is that is being asked. Happy Editing. ++Lar: t/c 15:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes - that's it. Thanks for the tip. Stephen B Streater 15:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Technical Codec Information

I maintain a separate Wiki called MultimediaWiki that documents as many hard, technical details of multimedia technology as possible. I just became aware of Forbidden's codec techs and will be writing them up soon. I recognize this is a long shot, but are you at liberty to discuss any underlying details of the ESCAPE video codec used in various games published under the Eidos umbrella? Thanks. --Multimedia Mike 22:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I can talk about the things in the patents, as they are published. I'll see if we have copies at work, so I can summarise the pertinent details. Stephen B Streater 22:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A haiku of thanks

Thanks for your support

In my RfA, which passed!

Wise I'll try to be.

I really appreciate your confidence, and keep spreading those positive vibes!

-- Natalya 04:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA

So, can I open that RfA now? Just zis Guy you know? 07:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't wait... But I think I ought to. I've just about absorbed what Wikipedia is about, but looking at the other RfAs, I think I would benefit from achieving at least one of the following: Interiot's edit count: 1,000 edits to main (I'll reach this the soonest); 1,000 articles (will take longer as I often work on them a bit); help with transforming an article into Featured Article Status - I'm working on Mathematics, but we're still on the first paragraph. (How many mathematicians does it take to agree a Wikipedia article? i.) PS I appreciate your guidance, which is making my time here a lot more productive and enjoyable. Stephen B Streater 08:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess JzG proposed nominating you for adminship? I have to admit, I have seen your comments around a bunch of project talk pages and policy pages, and I like the cut of your gib. I gave the idea of nominating you a thought as well. So obviously I would happily support JzG's nom. On the other hand, I also agree it's a bit early. And your article space edits seem low. -lethe ^{talk +} 08:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Stephen B Streater 08:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's quality that counts, not quantity. Ten good, well-sourced and well written edits weighs heavier in my judgment than a hundred small ones. Just zis Guy you know? 12:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a few of those :-) Stephen B Streater 13:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Nod. But while many of us care about quality, my RFA got some concerns and downchecks for not having enough articlespace edits... just something to be aware of. If your goal is passage, do not worry, but if your goal is passing with a huge margin you may want to cater to some of those idiosyncracies... (personally I think the 1FA requirement is a bit onerous myself)... you'd have my support now if you were to stand. ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I have noticed that most candidates have relatively few edits per page compared with me - or rather more articles, to put it another way. I'll be happy with some more edits behind me and some more experience at sorting situations. And knowledge of some more guidelines can only help. Stephen B Streater 16:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. But do bear in mind that it's understanding of the principles which counts, and that you have amply demonstrated. Oh, and we need to increase the average age of the admin cabal. Too few of us are grown-ups :-) Just zis Guy you know? 07:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mathematics is well on the way to Featured Article - we've agreed the first paragraph :-) Also, I may have more edits than I thought - Interiot tool 1 apparently now misses some. Stephen B Streater 08:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am TOTALLY doing my bit to keep the average age of the admin cabal, my age is way up there you know, I have KIDS older than some of the 'crats. Except I'm not IN the cabal, I'm just a regular admin. I've dropped all sorts of hints and no one has yet to put the Rouge Admin flag on my page so... I'll have to plot on, er PLOD on, without you all. ++Lar: t/c 17:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, here's what Interiot's tool 2 gives:
Username Stephen B Streater
Total edits 1856
Distinct pages edited 327
Average edits/page 5.676
First edit 11:14, 12 February 2006

(main) 760
Talk 419
User 217
User talk 172
Template 1
Category 1
Wikipedia 158
Wikipedia talk 128
Stephen B Streater 17:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

notation was/were

Apologies -- actually this is a difference between British and US english. In British "notation were" is correct collective nouns are treated as plurals in British but not US english. I corrected it by reflex forgetting that I was editing something international. --Richard Clegg 14:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A quick straw poll of an English and a South African has both of them preferring eg "The herd is moving on". Perhaps both are standard these days. Stephen B Streater 15:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

See Bartleby http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/020.html "In British usage, collective nouns are more often treated as plurals: The government have not announced a new policy. The team are playing in the test matches next week." Given that British usage allows either and US usage prefers the singular, I think sticking with your "notation was" is the best plan. --Richard Clegg 16:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I've been watching too much American TV, as I'm more happy with the US usage given in your reference (and I was born in the US too). I'll bear this in mind when writing about British subjects. Stephen B Streater 17:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Rotating admins

I don't really have any criteria as such, but off the top of my head, I think that if we made it a thousand edits, of which 500 must be article edits, and if the person has ever been blocked, a thousand clean edits since the block (because even the best editors occasionally get heated, or blocked for 3RR), that would be close to it. What do you think?Grace Note 23:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that it's an interesting idea.

Pros

• Lots of people would get some admin experience
• Being an admin would become much more routine as it wouldn't depend on consensus support

Cons

• Some undesirable people would gain powers - many who currently fail RfA, for example
• The average experience of an admin would plummet
• Everyone knows an Admin who can help out, but if all admins are rotated, they may all become strangers
• The influence of the Trustees and Stewards would be less, as day to day administrators would no longer know them
• RfA tells people how they could improve and raises many interesting issues - this would be missing
• I've only been here a few months, and have already come across two admins who have apparently been de-sysopped - Rob Church and Ed Poor. Is this change necessary?

Concerns and proposed work arounds

• Many people do not want to become admins because of the extra work involved, so there would have to be an opt-in
• Many people dip in and out of Wikipedia, so there would have to be some way of making sure the admins were active - perhaps based on recent edit activity
• Most users don't know how to use the Admin tools. This doesn't matter at the moment because at least one admin does know, but if all Admins were rotating, an exam might be required
• Bad editors/admins would constantly come round and round - more wheel wars and less consistency would follow. A negative RfA could prevent this, though this could harm community spirit

It's a complex area, and I think support of such a big change might depend on the detail. Perhaps a less dramatic change to the current system would surfice

• Long term Admins generally keeping their power to ensure there is always a pool of experiences Admins available to the project
• A way of protecting experienced users against a single Admin of their choice - abuses of power seems to be rare enough for this to help a lot
• People who fail (or would fail) RfA not to have Admin powers
• More account in RfA to be taken of how well users know each other
• Smaller changes are more likely to be implemented and to be improvements

I hope this assists you in making a more detailed plan. Stephen B Streater 06:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Feedback on prototype FORscene article...

[BTW if these comments are better placed on the discussion page of FORscene say aye and I will move them]

I found the article informative, factual and focussed, and I appreciate the need to keep it this way even more so for Wikipedia. I failed to spot any errors (as you already know however, I'm not so good with dates). But I do have some comments which may be of use as I have been following FORscene development for some time.

• Was there a player written in native code at one point, is this a notable milestone (perhaps not if that path is no longer being developed)?
• What about FORscene's defence against piracy, not just relative to tapeless and non-tapeless, are the benefits even over other tapeless systems? Or would this be out of scope as it might belong more in an article about video deliver i.e. relating to FORweb / FORmobile?
• What about privacy too - how is this addressed by FORscene (e.g. lots of TV/films are kept heavily under wraps during production)?
• Worth having a section on enhancements planned / in the pipeline (e.g. storyboard)?
• There is no mention of integration with FORlive in terms of ability to edit monitor, edit, and publish from a live stream (which I believe is possible as it is something mentioned in relation to MyGard)?
• Add some balance by mentioning alternatives? I don't know of any professional products but I know of at least two consumer oriented products - eSEQ / eyespot. I appreciate this route can get messy as it could open the door to personal opinion... Perhaps competing products could be referenced as external links? Also on competition, you mention how blackbird addresses issues of video editing over the internet but do not say what these issues are or why other methods do not solve them so well, is it worth adding more on this topic (without compromising any IP?)
• So far as I know FORscene is 'net native' - i.e. it is built wholly on internet technologies e.g. pure Java - but the article does not mention the fact it uses HTTP - is this worth mentioning given I believe it has significance in terms of requiring less administration to make it work over firewalls and so on?
• Are their any allowances one would have to make regarding FORscene? e.g. would editors used to tape-based or other systems have to make some significant sacrifices or changes in working practices? Is it as easy to use as some other systems e.g. eSEQ (BTW I noticed on Formidable's site that they had school children using FORscene).
• You have external links to some Forbidden pages but not FORlive - which has been streaming live footage 24x7 for what seems an age (at least more than two years).
• Vrious output methods are mentioned but not XML which I thought I read somewhere it handled.
• If somebody wanted to get a basic idea of how to use FORscene, referencing the Clesh tutorial may be a convenient way to see practially how it works. Although as FORscene is aimed at professionals, the tutorial may convey a false impression. Is there an equivalent video for professionals?
• How is collaboration supported? I have seen libraries of footage on the Clesh site. But I also read about being able to view video as it is being assembled. There is no section covering collaboration. Does collaboration mean logging in with your own ID but being able to view / use folders and footage shared with somebody else?

mk 20:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's probably worth leaving these here as they are here, but if you copy the suggestions to User talk:Stephen B Streater/FORscene I'll carry on discussion there (in a couple of days). Stephen B Streater 23:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply on article talk page + fixed up now. Stephen B Streater 20:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Make it live I have made it live, if anyone complains send them to me. Just zis Guy you know? 23:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Stephen B Streater 06:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Unimodal and JzG

JzG just blanket deleted most of the scrutinized information on the UniModal page. I reverted his edits, because I don't think it is at all proper to delete so much information with absolutely no discussion. I think I'll need your help on this one. Fresheneesz 23:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:BOLD, WP:V, WP:NPOV#Undue weight and so on. Just zis Guy you know? 23:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind this edit [1] incuding this quote: as a recent example, I agree with him [JzG] that Unimodal is not deserving of its own page, at least until it acquires either significant funding or has built significant actual hardware. The AfD was close - 3 for delete and 2 for keep, and Skybum didn't vote, perhaps because of the work you have put in on improving the article since the last deletion. He could easily have swung the consensus to delete. The point is that JzG is not miles out of line with consensus. His editing of Unimodal is not a personal attack on you or your presentation but based on Unimodal only just qualifying for an article at all. I think the article should be shorter rather than longer given the difficulty with the sources - mostly quoting the designer and his own projections rather than independent ones. I helped make it more concise after AfD. As you know, I voted for delete, but I respect you work on improving the article and will keep an eye out for new (independent) reporting. The article is well placed for expansion when an authoratitive and external analysis gives independent information, critically examined. Stephen B Streater 08:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I just find it disheartening that he removed:

1. everything that had a reference mark,
2. 4 of 6 sources, and
3. two items that had grounds in real science written in the pages Drag (physics) and Rolling resistance.

I hardly think removing those things makes for a better or more NPOV article. Fresheneesz 10:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You might find one or two of these points helpful:

• Remain dispassionate so that your judgement is not affected. See WP:OWN.
• JzG represents a majority view amongst top-tier Wikpedian editors on what should be in good articles - ie only material of a minimum quality (eg WP:CITE WP:RS WP:V).
• I have written, re-written and amended large sections of articles. For example: Java is a dynamic subject, which often arouses fierce arguments. I re-wrote most of this section Mobile devices in this edit. This section was accepted and later completely moved to its current position in a new article. People do not reject radical edits on principle provided they match the consensus mood.
• I don't insist on getting my way quickly unless the other person is obviously wrong and refuses to see reason. People who are unreasonable and wrong are likely to be rejected by the consensus of editors who then quickly and completely support my edits.
• If my ideas are strong enough, other editors incorporate them too. The stronger the argument, the more likely this is to happen. Conversely, if it doesn't happen, it can be a sign that I need to tighten up my thinking.
• The place for arguing a difficult case is the talk pages, not the edit summaries.
• When I persuade people, they revert to my preferrred version for me so there is no need to guard my edits.
• If the consensus is balanced and I'm right, someone else comes along sooner or later and tips things my way.
• At Unimodal, there was no consensus to keep and in fact a majority to delete. I would aim to make the article as solid as possible.
• JzG likes getting good articles quickly - he fixes a lot of things. He has a more blunt approach to fixing articles than me, and has respect because he is usually right and also because:
• JzG is open to persuasion by quality (not quantity) of argument. If he is not convinced, bring in better evidence. If there is none, you may be wrong.

My changes to Unimodal made it shorter, but my changes were consensual between us - the only two editors on it at the time. Your comment Why did you remove this section. followed by Ah ok, merging the sections is fine. show that there was no consensus between us for deleting chunks. You have plenty of edits yourself and I respect that. You'll remember my DRV comment about the risk of having an article with few editors. Working together, I think we improved the article a lot. There was no consensus between us for major deletions, when I got too busy at work to move things on again.

On your specific points:

• My preference is for more references rather than fewer, because references are easier to ignore than to find. Because of the hypothetical nature of the system, this article needs more independent references from more reliable and independent sources (quality not quantity) - for example what other experts are saying about the design, and its pros and cons compared with other systems. I added some of the references originally to beef up what looked to me like speculative content, so I'm not surprised that some things with reference marks were first for the chop.
• The Drag and resistance areas were both areas we had discussed because they were not clearly appropriate. They touched on WP:OR and I would have expected a mention with a third reference to this content.

My suggestion is to work together with JzG and (if you're lucky) lethe [2] who is very knowledgeable on technical subjects. And work on PRT, where the existence of the article is not in doubt. If Unimodal looks too verbose, it may get proposed for AfD again and may lose next time. It's already a lot longer than JzG's original summary in PRT. Don't forget WP:OWN. PS I am happy to continue working with you to improve this encyclopaedia. Stephen B Streater 14:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This edit by A Transportation Enthusiast says Freedom Ship has a small article, and SkyTran deserves one too. I agree the old one was a bit too long and needed to be shortened. And he voted keep. So please don't be too harsh on JzG. I think PRT is a more fruitful area at the moment. This is not a reflection on your article skills, but the underlying notability of the subject. Stephen B Streater 19:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The real problem is, I agree that keeping the article small is a good thing. JzG just edits in an aggrivating and inappropriate manner. While every other user I have had a dispute with has discussed with me about it (and reached a consensus between us), JzG has almost never done this. His edits are almost always undiscussed, and usually are all-encompassing deletions. I really we would be more productive if JzG tried to discuss and cooperate, rather than to step in and change things when they're wrong in his opinion. Fresheneesz 20:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Consider yourself lucky not to have Tony Sidaway on your case. He's turned WP:IAR into an art form. I have seen JzG on many talk pages, and he's very consistent on policy, particularly looking for WP:NPOV. Proof by assertion won't wash (even from lots of people). You need actual verifiable evidence from reliable sources. These rules are there for a reason, and a lot of the problems come from relying too strongly on non-independent sources. If you get stronger evidence for your edits, you'll find life a lot easier. Wikipedia is very clear - it is not here to contain all truth. This always comes as a surprise, but there it is. Stephen B Streater 20:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Help!

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

I can help out with this. I noticed the DRV, but haven't taken part. Stephen B Streater 18:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. The man has a stubborn streak almost as wide as mine... Just zis Guy you know? 19:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll enjoy reading up on your discussions then ;-) I've read through the AfD already, and am linking together what I know of the subject - though family beckons right now. Stephen B Streater 19:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I helped. Or am at least part of the solution. Things have quietened down, and the gist of the two deleted articles condensed into clothing#Male alternatives. Stephen B Streater 14:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The fringe terms have been rejected, but the concept of men wearing these clothes still remains. [3] I think it's safe to leave it with them now. Stephen B Streater 08:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work. It's exhausting, dealing with the highly passionate. That and moving house, on top of my sister dying, I don't have half the patience I usually do. :-( Just zis Guy you know? 12:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just bought a new house too (though we fortunately have plenty of time to fix it before we move in) - and I've got a big exhibition next week, so I can appreciate how patience must be preserved for important things. Various people have agreed to go away and find some actual evidence, which will either be possible or will not be. Even Unimodal seems to be mostly settling down now :-) Stephen B Streater 13:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Col legno

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

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

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

Video Hosting Sites

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

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

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

Agreed. WP:EL and WP:SPAM apply. Just zis Guy you know? 16:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a list in. I wouldn't say FORscene qualified as a notable video hosting platform, except that it is notable and a video hosting platform so I've left it off that list. I included Wikipedia as it has local interest, and FORscene is relevant here, but I suspect that Wikipedia is not signficant in the scheme of things, so really that whole section on Wikipedia should go. Stephen B Streater 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In mitigation, I'll just mention that other articles, such as The Register have particular sections on relevance to Wikipedia. I find these interesting in a rubbernecking sort of way. Stephen B Streater 22:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've taken off the FORscene mention - surprisingly it was left by the last poster, who deleted YouTube for being non-notable. Perhaps he's been reading the AfD ;-) The section on need for video hosting is much more relevant. Stephen B Streater 09:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Forth

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

Well, deep down I'm a hacker. I'm old enough to have written in machine code (6502) so I like the simplicity of Forth. Stephen B Streater 22:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested in the discussion I'm having at User talk:Tobias Bergemann#forth and scheme. Ideogram 13:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Your patience and perspective would be a great help at programming language too. Ideogram 13:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added both to my watchlist. I'll look around for a while and then start contributing. Stephen B Streater 14:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Ideogram 14:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

My earliest programming was on Z80 - in hex. We didn't even have an assembler at first :-) My first programming job was writing real-time control systems for roadstone coating plant (in 128k of RAM). Just zis Guy you know? 09:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Real men program in hex :-) Stephen B Streater 12:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wusses. Binary or nothing... Just zis Guy you know? 12:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Before the wheel we only had 1's. Ideogram 23:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wheel war! rouge admin abuse! Oh, wait... Just zis Guy you know? 14:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

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

Whatever next?

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

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

notability and verifiability

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

Notability is a long-standing guideline, and it exists as a portmanteau of formal policies: a subject which is notable will have gained sufficient external coverage in reliable secondary sources for us to verify that it is covered neutrally without straying into original research and ensuring that we don't include indiscriminate information, soapboxes or trivia. It's shorthand, nothing more. Just zis Guy you know? 22:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone uses it for shorthand - most don't that I've seen, as those who call an article non-notable aren't looking for sources or neutrality. Fresheneesz 07:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Video-related Stubs

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

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

Admin Noticeboard incident

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

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

Typo

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

Bias

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

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

PRT and Terrorism

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

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

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

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

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

Important things should be said even if they are tasteless. But you arguments here are valid reasons not to include this particular cartoon, which no one is fighting over now. JzG is much more concerned that the article doesn't blindly and uncritically repeat the assumptions which are implicit in the marketing material. I've concentrated on Unimodal and ULTra so far - perhaps I should have a look at the PRT article in detail. I'd be interested to know what you think has to happen before PRT can take off. Stephen B Streater 09:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Stephen, it doesn't matter what I think, I'm nobody. :-)

But seriously, I honestly don't know what has to happen for PRT to take off, I'm not a marketing type so those kinds of topics generally don't interest me. And I freely admit it may never happen for PRT. But regardless of whether it takes off or not, the engineering and science that has gone into it is real. That's indisputable. It's not just a bunch of marketing fluff from salesmen, as some would have you believe. A Transportation Enthusiast 14:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe ATE is still obsessed with this cartoon - that issue was done and dusted weeks (possibly months) ago. It's ancient history. As far as I was concerned it was a lighthearted way of saying something; the PRT-lovers were vehemently opposed to it so it was removed, and that's an end to it. Unfortunately there seems to be a belief that uncritical support for PRT is the only neutral point of view, and that anybody who opposes addition of marketing speculation is part of the Vast Corporate Conspiracy which has kept PRT form being implemented for 40 years. Not that I'm opposed on principle to being part of the Vast Corporate Conspiracy, but the buggers have not sent me the money yet. Seems to me that the forces lined up against it are the light rail engineers, the motor manufacturers, the libertarian right (who don't like spending money on any public project), realists who demand that there be a working one they can touch before spending money, the heritage mob and probably a few other assorted groups as well. Wuith that kind of opposition it's hard to see it getting off the ground any time soon. But that's just my personal opinion. What is absurd is the idea that I am in some way anti-PRT; as a cyclist and an electrical engineer I love the concept! I just don't see it as very likely. I do find it somewhat offensive that my liking for the RKB cartoons should be taken as acceptance of Ken Avidor's POV. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Badlydrawnjeff for a case where I show that I am pefectly capable of separating the quality of an editor's work from my perrsonal feelings about their politics. Just zis Guy you know? 09:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw that nomination. It's pleasing to see you supporting someone who comes from a different viewpoint. Stephen B Streater 10:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason I'm "obsessed" with this cartoon is because you give the impression that you made some grand concession to the "PRT lovers" when you allowed it to be removed, when in fact the reason it was removed was that it was wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I can't think of any reason why someone would want to include it except to push Avidor's POV. A Transportation Enthusiast 14:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Different people come from different angles. We are not here to judge other people. Life is easier when you accept this. The non-inclusion of the cartoon is agreed now - the Transport Enthusiast view has prevailed on that point. People are allowed to be convinced by arguments where they are strong. Just accept that you won the argument and got your way, and move on. There are still a few unresolved article issues to work on. Stephen B Streater 14:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Where?

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

In the Falklands talk page. This debate comes up very often. Stephen B Streater 15:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the general consensus is always the same. WP:SOAP means that Wikipedia reports significant views and does not aim to influence opinions. The view here is that the Argentine (Spanish) name for the islands should be included as a secondary definition. I haven't seen hundreds of foreign names for modern towns - I wouldn't have thought anyone actually used these so they would be non-notable. Stephen B Streater 15:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Please go back to the RfC page and check. I was not talking about the Falklands. ackoz 15:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

OK - I'll check again - your link went there. Stephen B Streater 15:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I was confused by your flag. I'm English so don't speak foreign. Stephen B Streater 16:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Secularization of Christmas

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

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

PRT and ULTra/UniModal

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

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

When I get time, I'll get more involved with PRT. This may improve things :-) I don't know what emails JzG gets, but the various places this debate have surfaced have helped give a better overall picture, which in turn is helping the article. You may find that JzG has relaxed on things where outsiders have suggested there is nothing to worry about, but strengthened his stance when the outside consensus was that he was right. He is under no obligation to reveal his sources, though he did hint that he had had feedback from various neutral observers. Stephen B Streater 21:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If JzG has outside sources for content he is pushing in the article, then he needs to reveal them. What are their credentials? Do they have biases? Or, if he cannot reveal the source, then he should at least reveal the evidence and/or arguments. We should be able to examine this evidence in order to come to a consensus as to its validity.

Take Java as an example. In the late 1990s, many computer professionals scoffed at Java as a toy language. Back then, if you had asked a "respected neutral source" about Java, they'd have probably laughed at you, because C and C++ were everything in those days. A high level, bytecode-based, garbage collected language was considered a joke by many "experts" of the day, becuase Java was pretty far away from their idea of what a programming language should be. Indeed, many experts predicted that Java would never be able to handle the heavy demands of high-capacity server applications.

Yet today, Java is firmly entrenched as one of the top two or three programming languages in use, even for heavy-duty web server applications. Maybe JzG's "neutral" consultants are the equivalent of a computer programmer in 1995: very biased in favor of the established, and against the unfamiliar. Such is the case with Vuchic, who is by all accounts a brilliant engineer, but who has occasionally gotten some basic facts wrong about PRT.

So if JzG has behind-the-scenes sources on which he bases article decisions, he absolutely should reveal them, or at least reveal their evidence and arguments. Who knows... maybe that will help us to close the gap in our positions? But as it stands, he keeps saying the same thing ("there's no public system in existence") which gets us nowhere because that proves nothing about the underlying applicability or feasibility.

I do appreciate your assistance in this matter (and apparently the others do too). You seem to have a more accepting approach to our concerns. A Transportation Enthusiast 00:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your appreciation :-) I think JzG's feedback has been on interpretation of policy rather than PRT itself. Stephen B Streater 06:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

PS When I started Forbidden, very few people believed you could have a Java video player. Now we have FORscene. People still don't believe it, mind you, even though it is there and TV programmes are being made on it every day. PRT may also have to go through this stage after it is built. Stephen B Streater 06:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never been dictatorial except when people refuse to listen to what I am saying :-) They don't have to agree, they just have to listen. Repeating stale old arguments which do not address the issues does not look to me like evidence of listening... I have taken a lot of trouble to explain exactly what my view is, at every stage, and how this relates to policy and guidelines. I am rather tired of being portrayed as a POV-pusher simply because I keep returning to the fundamental and indisputable point that PRT as described in the PRT article does not exist and never has, and every single cited source is essentially promoting the technology, not reviewing dispassionately. My biggest concern for some time has been the consistent failure to cite any reputable secondary sources such as engineering journals; all the quotes and figures come from proponents, and few if any have had the benefit of any kind of peer-review. I finally found this [4] which comes from an international conference on people movers, an audience hardly likely to be biased against PRT, and it says exactly the same thing: that the bulk of the published material comes from proponents and is uncritical in its approach. Just zis Guy you know? 17:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

We've heard what you've said, JzG, and we disagree! And not only that, we have much evidence to support our position! Why is that so difficult for you to grasp? I've still yet to see verifiable evidence of real skepticism of PRT technology. Where is it? The fact that it doesn't exist commercially is the only piece of verifiable skeptical evidence you've provided, and it proves nothing. We don't judge science by the level of commercial success it achieves.

Against this lone piece of skeptical evidence, there are hundreds of academic papers and several books that describe, in detail, the technology and science. Furthermore, there are fully functioning prototypes that demonstrate the technology in action. These are all reliable sources, not promotional literature.

JzG, I've asked you repeatedly: rather than continuing to make vague statements like "every single cited source is essentially promoting the technology" (which is blatantly false), why don't you enumerate specifically the sources you feel to be lacking? Perhaps if you were more specific in your concerns, we could address them properly and this endless debate can cease.

As for the paper you mentioned, once again, it does not dispute the technology, only the literature! If PRT is so deserving of skepticism, why hasn't it been debunked by now? Why aren't the Vuchics of the world rolling up their sleeves and attacking the engineering flaws in PRT designs, rather than writing high level fluff pieces that rely on dubious assumptions? Why are all the attacks on PRT based on political and/or subjective concerns? Where is the real skepticism, JzG? If it's not out there, then maybe you shouldn't be manufacturing it based solely on the lack of skeptical evidence. A Transportation Enthusiast 20:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What, you disagree that there is no PRT installation like that described anywhere in the world? Great! I'm sure you can tell me where to find one. Or is it that you disagree that teh sources appear to be uncritical? In which case the cited analysis stating otherwise is a bit inconvenient for you... You say there are "hundreds" of papers: why don't you cite some from the engineering journals, as I've asked in the past? Whene every link comes from Jerry Schneider's website that does weaken your position a bit.

You can be as uncritical as you like on Wikinfo, here we have to be a bit more balanced. Which means reflecting the real-world situation: there is no urban PRT, there are no plans for any, and there are massive barriers to overcome before any is built. Your agenda is clear, mine is that we should keep our feet on the ground rather than relying on information from "Doug" and "Jerry", to quote some names dropped in past Talk. Just zis Guy you know? 21:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Doug and Jerry"? I have no idea who "Doug" is. By "Jerry" I assume you mean Jerry Schneider, the respected researcher who has compiled previously published academic papers on his website, a fact repeatedly pointed out to you but which you choose to ignore. Once again I implore you, please identify the specific points and/or sources you believe to be unsupportable, and maybe this debate will get beyond the stage of baseless accusations. A Transportation Enthusiast 17:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing the point. Both are PRT proponents, both names have been dropped in Talk. Meanwhile the lack of any citations from engineering journals continues. Just zis Guy you know? 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, JzG once again is conspicuously vague in his criticism of the article sources, even though I've asked him repeatedly to enumerate the sources he finds lacking. This feels so familiar. Any day now I'm guessing he will start calling PRT a fraud and a stalking horse. A Transportation Enthusiast 21:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to criticise JzG for something he might start doing, unless he is actually doing it. As far as I can see, there might be PRT discussions in engineering publications - or at least discussions of the components. If someone can find these good sources, it would improve the article. Stephen B Streater 08:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Stephen, I would say that almost every point in the article is supported by reputable sources, from Irving's text (which was based on 8 years of gov't-sponsored research) to several journal articles that describe the concepts. There seems to be a large concentration of articles in the Journal of Advanced Transportation, but some are by the "off-limits" Anderson and Schneider, so I'm not going to bother going through all the trouble adding sources everywhere, only to have JzG revert them all because we have "too much from Anderson and Schneider".

Furthermore, we've already been through the cycle of {add sources}==>{"too many sources listed"}==>{remove sources}==>{"where is the source for X?"}. The former editor (who will not be named) demanded sources, we inserted them, then JzG came and removed almost all of them, and now he's saying the article is unsourced. It's a vicious cycle that I no longer wish to participate in unless I get a firm committment that JzG will not go in and revert all my edits (based on some arbitrary justification like "too many Anderson citations").

Now, you seem to have a more open-minded view on these pages, so perhaps with your involvement we can get it right.

Also, Stephen, I happened to notice you discuss a hypothetical "request for de-adminship" below in a separate conversation. This is something I would very much like to see, because I believe that we have compelling evidence of an admin who has broken just about every rule, from assuming bad faith (repeatedly) to edit-warring to personal attacks to POV pushing. I've seriously considered taking formal action, but I'm not familiar enough with the process, and frankly I'm quite skeptical that my case would be considered objectively, since I'm an outsider and the admin in question is well known. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes iteration is needed to get things right. The Journal of Advanced Transportation claims it is a fully peer reviewed journal that publishes manuscripts in the field of transportation - do we have any external evidence for this. If so, it could be a useful source. If not, then it may be an unreliable source and we need to continue looking. It looks like no one has really had the time to dig up the definitive independent sources, and this is a cause of friction. Stephen B Streater 18:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you consider Irving's book, which documents the 8 years of US government research, to be reliable? Much of the uncited material is documented there. This, in addition to several journal and conference papers that document later developments. Unfortunately, Irving's book is difficult to obtain (it's out of print). A Transportation Enthusiast 19:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard of Irving's book. The important questions for me are: Was it published by a reputable publisher? and Is Irving reporting on other people's work or his own? - or more specifically Is Irving independent?. Stephen B Streater 20:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The publisher is Lexington Books: D.C. Heath and Company. Irving reports on the work of The Aerospace Company, which was (I believe) a government sponsored non-profit that spent 8 years studying PRT. I believe they built a fully-functional 1/12th scale prototype of their design.

Is Irving independent? I don't know, is any researcher "independent"? He was one of the principal investigators working on a large scale research project for non-profit company sponsored by the government. His role was almost purely research; as a government sponsored project, I don't think he even owned any of intellectual property resulting from his work. It's as close as you can get to "independence" for a researcher. Furthermore, the work of later researchers (Anderson et al) has validated much of Irving's work.

I mean, really, how much more reliable can a source be? A Transportation Enthusiast 03:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone who was reporting on the merits of someone else's work will be more reliable than someone reporting on the merits of his own work. Stephen B Streater 16:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Which brings us to Anderson. :-) Anderson's work is largely based on Irving's, and as such qualifies as a third party validation of Irving's results. But Anderson has been vetoed as a source, so that's why I was pursuing Irving as a source. A Transportation Enthusiast 19:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

So if Irving is a primary source, Anderson is a secondary source, and Wikipedia is a tertiary source. I thought the problems with Anderson was that he was over-represented as a source and that his neutrality can't be relied on unquestioningly. PRT is much bigger than one man, with a history back to the mid 1960s. Stephen B Streater 19:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

So do you agree that we should not be artificially limiting Anderson as a source? A Transportation Enthusiast 20:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I said we should aim for a spread of sources and not rely too heavily on people who may not be neutral. Concentrating our sources unnecessarily detracts from the article as it may give a biased view of the subject. The sources I have found add more diversity. If you can find more sources, particularly sceptical ones, we can add more Anderson in without disturbing the balance. Stephen B Streater 16:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you really agree with the policy of looking for negative references just in the name of balance? It's ridiculous. The skeptical sources are just not there. JzG dug hard and found a single insignificant conference paper that seemed to question PRT literature, and it's automatically included in the article because of this supposed balance. We are artificially limiting Anderson and promoting people like Cotrell in the name of this supposed skepticism that has no verifiable basis. This is about science, not politics.

I've seen no reliable source that questions Anderson's "neutrality". He has published textbooks on his transportation research, as well as several papers in referreed journals (mainly JAT). On what basis can we question his neutrality? Just because he was involved with Taxi2000? His involvement with a commercial endeavor automatically calls into question the neutrality of his peer-reviewed research, some of which was published before his involvement with Taxi2000? JzG's assertion that Anderson et al are "non-neutral" is unsupported -- it is original research. A Transportation Enthusiast 17:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have also seen no reliable source which questions Anderson's neutrality. However, the closer someone is to a project, the less neutral one can expect him to be. What sort of things do you want to quote from him? The peer review is good BTW. I think JzG was asking whether there were other independent people we could include as this would strengthen the article. Stephen B Streater 18:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

<=== reset indent <====

You can classify any prominent scientist as being "close" to his project. Einstein was close to relativity; Darwin was "close" to evolution. Do we throw away their contributions just because we assume they are "too close to their projects to be neutral"? Every time I've added something attributed to Anderson, JzG has objected vigorously. It's happened on at least 2 or 3 separate occasions.

I can't speak to JzG's motivations, but I've seen no evidence that he's trying to find other sources to "strengthen the article". In fact, some of the sources he's fought for (e.g. Light Rail Now and the Cotrell conference paper) are actually quite dubious in their reliability, especially when compared to the reliability of published textbooks and peer reviewed journal articles. In almost every case, JzG is perfectly willing to accept such less-than-reliable sources if they are skeptical in nature, even as he rejects content from Anderson.

But now that you're actively involved, perhaps (hopefully) these problems are behind us, since JzG seems to accept changes from you that he'd reject from us. A Transportation Enthusiast 22:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to helping resolve things here. Ultimately, everyone here has to be reasonable because the whole world can get involved. You have seen the recent much more negative view on Unimodal; JzG is relatively accommodating. Be careful not to mistake scepticism for belief in the negative. I will of course work to find a solution which everyone agrees is an improvement. Stephen B Streater 15:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As for de-sysop, when you have a look at WP:RfDA, you'll see it's very rare and not generally related to detailed content disputes but to prevent significant damage to the encyclopaedia. The best way to get a good article is to bring in additional reputable editors. They will, of course, always agree with me ;-) Stephen B Streater 18:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Chocolate

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

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

RfA Thank you

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

May be worth a moment of your time....

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

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

Thanks

Thanks for helping me so much

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

Thanks for the Barnstar :-) Someone nearby once advised me to be patient on Wikipedia. It's better to let things fall into place at the right time than to try and force them too soon. Stephen B Streater 20:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like good advice to me. Which is why I'm waiting for the right moment before I visit WP:RFA... Just zis Guy you know? 16:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Stephen

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

When I first joined, I quickly noticed that you are are a beacon of goodness on Wikipedia. This is my chance to welcome you back, too :-) I learned long ago not to judge people by my own standards, but to appreciate them for their own beauty. His judgement may have been criticised, but it showed a lot of character for Encyclopaedist to submit to an RfA in such an open way so soon. Perhaps he needs support now more than ever. I'm actually a very unsympathetic person, but can see he's put a lot into Wikipedia, and respect him for that. Also WP:AGF is a wonder. Stephen B Streater 21:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You are so right, dear Stephen - please forgive me for my weakness and my hasty words. Juan needs now, more than ever, all the strength and love we can possibly give, and despite he may have tripped over the first stone he has found upon his return, it is quite easy to make swift judgements; the hard, yet most productive way is to show him the way. I wholeheartedly hope he realizes that, right now, he needs to gain the community's trust by returning to his old ways. We are on the verge of losing him again, and this time, I'm afraid there will be no turning backs if we do. In whole truth, and after the first shock, I am completely sure that all he wanted to do by submitting that RfA was to show he does care for the best of WP, albeit it was definitely the wrong way to show it. Again, thanks for your wise words, dear Stephen. It always makes me very happy to find people like you. A big hug, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 21:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You are completely forgiven :-) May you bring the gift of hope to our newly returned editor. Stephen B Streater 21:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hacek

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

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

Changed my mind from weak oppose to weak support. Stephen B Streater 09:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist's RfA

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

I'm guessing too, as I haven't seen many of your edits, but here are my thoughts. Some people may object to your scientific approach - POV was mentioned. Your name itself may exacerbate the problem. If you came across an active editor called AstrologerApologist or CreationistApologist who was standing for Admin, they might find they had something to prove to you - more than the average editor. Also, you seem to have an implicit assumption is that any worthy person would have a logical reason for their objections, whereas they may be basing their decision on a feeling or hunch. Some people may find this implied assumption offensive. I haven't seen many of your edits, but I'll probably end up on an article you frequent before long, so I'll be able to gauge your style first hand. Some very thoughtful and scientific minded editors have opposed - lethe for example. I'd listen to them in particular. Anyway, good luck until we meet again. Stephen B Streater 20:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask you, Stephen, what you think the flaws of the RfA process are? Not that I disagree with you, but I'd just like to hear your opinion on the matter. For the record, I don't think there was anything unusual about the vituperation at this RfA. Unsuccessful RfAs usually contain harsh criticisms, which is jarring against the normally cordial atmosphere in article space, but I think it's probably necessary.

As far as advice for ScienceApologist goes, I'd be happy to offer some comments here, in addition to whatever he might be able to glean from my vote on his nomination. The self-nom was poorly conceived. These days, you have to make a very good case for adminship, and you didn't. There is some evidence of thin-skinnedness. This was mentioned in the RfA discussion, and it has been born out by my own interactions with you; after being reverted and hearing critical words about your edits, you responded with accusations of condescension. Whether or not I had actually been condescending towards you (and in my opinion, I had not), I would very much like to see thicker skin from an admin. If people don't like your edits, this is different from people not liking you. Assume good faith and don't devolve the consensus-building process by slinging insults (condescension is indeed an insult). Furthermore, I would like to see much more experience with all Wikipedia process. If you were familiar with RfA, you would know what information is expected in a nomination. If you were familiar with editing Wikipedia policy pages, you would know what sorts of edits are appropriate. If you were familiar with Wikipedia policy, you would probably refrain from actions which could be seen as being a conflict of interest, such as editing RfA policy while your own RfA is underway. All of these things are learned in time, and I was encouraged by your subsequent interactions regarding your edits. I would consider you again at a future date. -lethe ^{talk +} 08:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few ideas on RfAs:

• Admins engage in controversial and difficult situations, where playing safe may not be ideal. But prior disagreements often lead to RfA opposition, leading to a playing safe bias in appointments

• Admins are largely unaccountable and permanent, making the community risk averse. A reverse admin RfA (with strong consensus required for de-sysop) would allow more movement - to and from admin

• People's conflicting requirements make the process a lottery. Some candidates have false expectations and are upset by negative responses. Perhaps reading this should be encouraged

• Often people don't know the candidates, are unfamiliar with their edits, and go along with unverified comments in the debate, leading to a pile-on mentality. The first few days could have secret votes/comments to ensure more independence, followed by consensus forming when those knowledgeable have expressed their views

• Lack of consistency is my biggest issue with the current process. Considering several candidates together would help ensure consistency. This could be by putting up the whole week's candidates at the same time or, alternatively, asking people to look at five consecutive RfAs. This would also help ensure some poor admins don't slip in when attention is concentrated elsewhere

• Allow people to change their opinion at any time, and new people to join in. With some hysteresis, admin would then be a dynamic vote rather than such a high stakes event, and people could add or amend their opinions as they got to know the editor. This automatically alows de-sysopping and reduces the criticality of the RfA. Stephen B Streater 09:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Admin status can help a good editor improve the encyclopaedia even if he doesn't ever use the tools because it gives extra weight to good opinions in debates

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

I agree with your second point very strongly; I think it is a very bad flaw of the current system, and would very much like to see a resolution. Of course, this isn't a problem with RfA, strictly speaking, but rather with requests for de-adminship, which is mostly non-existent. For most of your other points, while I would agree that they are thorny problems, I have so far not seen evidence that the system is broken because of e.g. editors having made enemies in controversial edits or unfamiliarity with candidates. RfA seems to work well enough for those people. I like your idea about voting in blocks; it actually reflects how I use RfA myself. But I guess it's easy to point out the flaws in the RfA system. Much harder to come up with a feasible solution. Anyway, thanks for sharing. Your comment to ScienceApologist suggested that you had strong views on the process, and I appreciate hearing what those are. -lethe ^{talk +} 10:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I agree that changing something this important has to be done with care. I haven't come across any abuse bad enough for me to put up someone to be de-sysopped, but some active admins would not be upgraded in the current environment if they had to stand again. Stephen B Streater 10:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you not? Wait a while, you surely will. -lethe ^{talk +} 10:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Re

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

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

Nigelj

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

Thank you for your detailed reply. I'll see if I can do anything helpful. Stephen B Streater 21:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stephen - Thank you for your kind words on John254's talk page. I only just found out that all this row has been going on all over the place. I'm trying to make to contact with John254 to see what I can do to help. --Nigelj 07:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for making the effort. Stephen B Streater 19:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the support!

		Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA!
		To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 02:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your confidence in me during my recent RfA, I am trying to take both my strong and weak points into consideration while both editing and performing any admin duties. If it's okay with you, would you mind if I cribbed notes from your talkpage? I notice many suggestions up there that I haven't seen yet and think they'd be of help. Thanks again! ~Kylu (u|t) 02:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Be my guest :-) Stephen B Streater 11:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Misza13's pile!

Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page. Misza13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing! NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated ROT-26 algorithm. Ability to decipher it indicates a properly functioning optical sensor array.

my RfA

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

My RfA and your vote

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

Light rail article

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

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

I'll have a look. Stephen B Streater 15:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

You've got a Thank you card!

File:RfathxStephen.jpg

Open your card!

Dear Stephen, thank you so much for your beautiful words, your kidness and your trust in me. My Request for Adminship is finally over, and the support and appreciation that the community has gifted me will stick in my mind as long as I live. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am to you for all you've done for me, and all I can tell you is, I'll try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, make sure to come here and give me a good yell! :) Seriously, tho, if you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you'll always be welcome to message me, and I promise I'll try my very best.
Dear Stephen, your kind words were incredibly special to me, coming from one of the kindest and most thoughtful persons I've ever met in my time on wiki. Know that I keep coming and reading your words often, and I grow ever more impressed with your thoughts. Know this, dear Stephen: you have a fan over here! :) Please take good care, an ttyl! With a big hug, your friend,

Phaedriel ♥ tell me

GHe's RfA

Light rail

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

Stephen: I browsed the changes, and they are definitely an improvement. Nice work. I'll try to read the article more thoroughly in the next week or so, to see if I notice anything else. I think I may mainly add a bunch of {fact} markers to try to elicit citations for many of the points. You already caught a bunch of these in your edits, but there may be a few more. In most of the cases, I think reliable references are probably out there, it's just a matter of getting them into the article. A Transportation Enthusiast 05:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouraging comments :-) I'm looking forward to an RfA in October, when I'll have time to hit the ground running. In the mean time, I look forward to working with you. Stephen B Streater 10:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

A barnstar for your work on light rail

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

adminship

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

I appreciate your offer here. For comparison with my previous edit count above, here is my current edit count (Interiot/Tool2):

Username Stephen B Streater

Total edits 3399

Distinct pages edited 618

Average edits/page 5.500

First edit 11:14, 12 February 2006

(main) 1566

Talk 752

User 98

User talk 352

Image 2

Template 1

Template talk 1

Help talk 1

Category 1

Category talk 1

Wikipedia 383

Wikipedia talk 241

I'll have lots of time in October, so was planning to stand then (see three sections up), but as you say I have been around six months and have had good experiences with other editors here, so perhaps now is a good time. I don't know whether JzG had written anything, but he is very busy so I expect he was planning to wait until I was ready. He's around, so you could always ask him.

Either way, if either you or JzG were to nominate me, I am likely to accept this time. Stephen B Streater 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Help to become an administrator

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

I haven't seen how you got your page yet. Did you find the this page first? It has a button about half way down where you replace USERNAME with Patchouli and push the "Nominate youself" button. Did you use this to create your page? Stephen B Streater 08:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• I first created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Patchouli. Next, I have gone to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate and replaced USERNAME with "Patchouli" to nominate myself but after saving my contributions don't change.--Patchouli 08:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• If you are an administrator, then delete Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Patchouli and let me go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate to renominate myself.--Patchouli 08:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to. If we're lucky, you'll only have to wait seven days ;-) In the mean time, I'll see if a friendly Admin can delete the page so you can try again. It's worth mentioning that if you have difficulty with your nomination, some editors might suggest that more experience would be beneficial before you are given the powerful Admin tools. Stephen B Streater 09:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I figure it out. At Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate, I have to enter my username in CAPITALS. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PATCHOULI.--Patchouli 09:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You're supposed to type your username as it is, as names are case sensitive. You see that none of the other nominees are in capitals. The problem is that the correct named article already exists, and this is confusing the generator. So what we should do now is delete both. I've had a look round, but I can't see an admin I know editing this morning yet. I suggest you tag both articles for speedy deletion, and they'll be picked up soon enough by a passing Admin. Stephen B Streater 09:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• I moved Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PATCHOULI to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Patchouli after the latter's deletion.--Patchouli 09:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a redirect rather than a move - the old page is still there. This was almost the right thing to do, as an actual move to the correct address would have worked while the correct address was empty. As it is, the capitals page should still be deleted. Stephen B Streater 09:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• You are right. I will case to remove PATCHOULI.--Patchouli 09:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. That will fix it. Stephen B Streater 09:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)