User talk:Stephen B Streater

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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

Film technique articles in need of work[edit]

Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Just think...[edit]

[1] - you can now honestly say that you had one of your fantasies fulfilled today... ;-) Risker (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of surprises :-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I was thinking of making the same edit at Fermi paradox. The word "virtually" in that sentence did not make sense, and was "virtually" unnecessary. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. You know what they say? Great minds think alike! Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: 5D Mark II productions[edit]

Hi Stephen. You edited the 5D Mark II article, asking whether House used to shoot on 35mm. That's indeed the case, as the Imdb technical page confirms:

35 mm (Fuji Eterna 400T 8583) Super 35 (source format)

The way you edited the sentence makes it sound as if the Mark II has only been used on these two productions (Saturday Night Live and House). I had originally phrased it "such as [...]" because other productions have made use of the camera as well. Cinematographer Rodney Charters for example has shot the Mark II on the TV show 24 numerous times. 24, too, normally shoots on 35mm film:

35 mm (Kodak Vision2 Expression 500T 5229) 35 mm (Kodak) (3-perf) Super 35 (3-perf) (source format)

Chris TC01 (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I think it is worth inluding inline references for statements like this. I'd be happy with a more expansion version too. Stephen B Streater (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Stephen B Streater. You have new messages at Immunize's talk page.
Message added 14:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Immunize (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I replied on your talk pages. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Why bother?[edit]

I wrote a very precise sourced version and Captain Occam insisted it be shovelled away into a non-existent criticism section. The point is not about Lynn. but whether the data presented is up to snuff. Mathsci (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes - we now have a much better paragraph to discuss, so its inclusion is much more likely and its prominence will be higher. And Captain Occam has graciously acknowledged your general point that it should be included. If editors can at least slightly push in the same direction, we'll continue to make progress with the article. Stephen B Streater (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
My intention was not to edit the article again, but I was familiar with that material. Mathsci (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't generally go for compromise - see the top of User_talk:JzG for a quote - but stepping stones towards the best solution are often the most effective way to get there, particularly when editors start from different places. And sometimes I learn something new and end up where I wasn't expecting. Stephen B Streater (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


Ironic, really, that the #ashcloud has brought down the CloudCamp. I hope you'll be free for the rescheduled event. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And with a conference all last week and an investment show next Saturday, I was looking forward to something to fit in mid-week ;-) I'll let you know if I hear anything about the next one before you do. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

AN/I: Abuse of sysop tools, and failure to follow consensus – Causa sui[edit]

Hello. This is to let you know that there is now a discussion at AN/I regarding an issue that you commented on here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for your feedback on the new Assumptions section of Race and Intelligence. I think it is an improvement and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. I also think that having the participation of you and some other new, experienced editors has helped, at least a bit, with the dynamics of the article. David.Kane (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! This has always been one of the more interesting articles to be involved with, but I feel we are making quite a lot of progress these days. Stephen B Streater (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


You might want to weigh in here. --causa sui (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Your note[edit]

See my edit comment; I think it explains my concern. Crum375 (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

  • But the current version is even worse - it says they cannot be included as long as secondary sources exist - ie if they can be included at all, it is only when there are no secondary sources. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
    • It seems the latest version is clearer. Crum375 (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


I believe that issues such as the one I raise here are among your areas of expertise.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


Well played. Greg L (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The graphic works under Firefox and Safari as you predict. It also plays smoothly on my N900. PS I was considering issuing a block notice to E for "Disruptive editing, abuse of editing privileges and wrong POV" but he changed his edit first ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Guilty as charged, of course. Hey -- I now know that even if you brought me to AN/I, I could always just filibuster my way along, ignoring the criticism heaped upon me and (depending on my personality type) perhaps even feeding off of all the denigrating negative attention.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
But you would have to agree not to do it again :-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I would agree that everyone was reading the guideline incorrectly, but I would agree that if the guideline were revised I would follow it. Maybe. Or maybe not.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
You'd have to revise the guideline yourself, leading to a flurry of edits and a much clearer result. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence[edit]

You are right about rudeness. But these parties just went through a five month mediation in which all these policy issues were discussed, ad nauseum, in relation to this material. Outside of a small group of scholars, most psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, and biologists do not believe that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. But a small group of editors will do whatever they can to create the impression that the small number of researchers who do believe this are represented not only as majority or mainstream (which is not true) but as representing a scientific consensus. Right now the article is in a reasonable state but there are still several areas where someone can too easily get the wrong impression. Sooner or later this wil probably just go back to mediation ... Slrubenstein | Talk 20:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I would offer to mediate if I wasn't so busy. What I can do when I am around is to try to bridge people's differences and help them communicate with each other. I have tried to slow down the editing process a little so that people can understand more before they edit - Captain Occam is one of several who have been very amenable to this idea, and I'm sure many reverts in all directions have been avoided as a result of this slight change in tempo. Your lessons on policy are a useful reminder to all editors, but as you know from the NPOV discussion, even intelligent and experienced Wikipedians don't get it all right first time. I have suggested several times to some SPAs that they broaden their experience here, which will also assist them in forming an intuitive idea of what these policies mean. It is one of Wikipedia's ironies that the emotional force which drives people to edit here can also pull them away from NPOV. Luckily, editors are accountable to each other. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your gesture. Alas, some of the most thoughtful and well-informed editors have already been driven away from the article. Without a large and diverse and research-skilled or well-informed editors, most articles would be doomed, regardless of policy ... Slrubenstein | Talk 21:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The trick is to take it easy and not burn out. This is one of the most watched articles I've come across, so there will be many good editors dipping in from time to time. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Your request for rollback[edit]

Wikipedia Rollback.svg

Hi Stephen B Streater. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! –xenotalk 20:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


I appreciate you keeping the discussion focused.[2] Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't normally edit these articles, so I'm prepared to be flexible! Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


You made the following comments on xeno (talk · contribs)'s talk page:

I have also managed to criticise Causa sui without retaliation. There is obviously a mutual misunderstanding going on which has led to mistrust. Issues get amplified with interaction. It is much easier to see the storms developing from the outside. Initially no one is at fault, but the unintentional mutual provocations lead to instabilities in the interaction between you. I'm sure either side could fix the problems, but if bothsides could change it would mean less work for both. In my plan, the fixes for each side would be different. The question is, would people rather be proved right and continue this disfunctional interaction, or give up that option in order to work productively together? Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I really have no idea what is going on here, but every time I try to make an edit to one of these articles I get paragraph-long diatribes about my personal character, usually on article talk pages or even my own talk page. This is harassing and has to stop. I've never descended into the same kind of juvenile behavior, and so this is absolutely not a two way street. It seems that the only way I can make them happy is to stop editing their articles, since any time they disagree with something I'm doing, they make it into a personal issue and react with aggression and hostility directed at me. If you can get someone to submit to mediation, I'll be there; I tried once and had no luck. If I were outside looking in, I would have blocked for WP:NPA a long time ago. --causa sui (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

  • You may find it hard to believe, or understand why, but some people interpret your responses as aggressive and abusive. That is why you get the reaction you do. Interactions in text, without face-to-face body language, can easily be misconstrued. This is why WP:AGF was introduced. I have suggested some courses of action which you, for example, could undertake to soothe the situation. Also for Mr E. Without additional techniques to avoid conflict, relations can occasionally and without warning spiral down quite quickly in this unnatural environment. No one has taken up my suggestions yet, though I could make some more if people actually want to work together, which is not obvious at this stage. The suggestions could prevent further hassle with other people too. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • If people are interested, I could mediate. We would be good to agree on what we all wanted to achieve though! Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
    It really wouldn't surprise me if some of my recent responses come off that way, because I am getting angry and frustrated about this, as I believe I am being harassed. In general, it's going to be difficult for me to accept general fault in my previous interactions without diffs. Often in these cases hostility from one party is erroneously attributed to both sides; I've seen this phenomenon many times when I was on the outside, and now I seem to be a victim. As such, there is a tendency toward inadvertent victim blaming here. If mediators can't distinguish, I'm not going to see the point. Frankly, I want to get these articles right, not waste time arguing about anyone's behavior; but I'm being continually dragged back into personal arguments about character and conduct and I'm frankly sick of it. Editing these articles is not worth the abuse, and nobody seems willing to do anything about it. That is a very bad reason for someone to stop editing. --causa sui (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
    I'm being summoned to bed - I'll reply in the morning... Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
    Nevermind. I'm done editing these articles. There was a time when nonsense like this would have been taken care of, but when I'm spending more time engaged in this ridiculousness rather than working on actual articles, it's time to hang it up. --causa sui (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Good morning Stephen. Gee… “Paragraph-long diatribes,” “harassing,” “juvenile behavior,” “aggression and hostility.” What(?)… no ‘kicking puppies’? My goodness. As an admin, I would truly expect him to appreciate the distinction between legitimate criticism of someone’s editing conduct v.s. personal attacks; I’m sure he’s dished out that very advise in the past to others. Please note that WP:Civility, here says incivility includes (c) lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information.

    As evidenced by Causa sui’s recent ANI, he seems prone to not heeding the advise of other editors. This tendency lead some at that time to change their votes in shear exasperation and ask for Causa sui to relinquish his administrative tools. The final tally was 13 to 7 with 3 neutrals in support of the motion. This is an ominous indicator that Causa sui’s continued support of the community is eroding and is in serious jeopardy. Causa sui, of course, did not relinquish his tools as asked.

    The solution is really quite simple. All he need do is avoid edits that exhibit a pattern of neutering terrorism-related articles so the individuals’ connections to terrorist organizations are swept aside and replaced with shear nonsense like this edit to 2007 Fort Dix attack plot, which made the United States’ most dangerous citizen read as if he was Fulbright Fellow in good standing at Princeton. I regard this as POV-pushing of the worst order. Causa sui confuses criticism of this editorial bent of his with *personal attacks*. Such unfounded charges will not deflect from the truth of the matter here and he knows full well what is required to avoid criticism of his editing and sysop behavior in the future.

    But, you know, that above advise is really playing into Causa sui’s game of laboriously poring over and picking apart individual edits and endless arguing about how falsehoods in edit summaries are due to insufficient room to explain what he really meant. I see no need for such games and think it high time to get to the root of the problem. Frankly, all these problems seem to happen because Causa sui magically happens to appear at articles right on the heels of Epeefleche where he then pulls some editing stunt he really had to know would be seen as being provocative (at the very least) or entirely inappropriate. The above-linked edit of Causa sui’s and this one to Malika El Aroud both followed right on the heels of Epeefleche.

    Accordingly, all this wikidrama has all the hallmarks of being nothing more than a long-running feud between the two that morphed into a personal vendetta. It is most unbecoming of an administrator. Frankly, this used to be called “stalking” and the phenomenon now links to WP:Wikihounding. By any name, it is improper conduct and I don’t know why Epeefleche hasn’t started an ANI to have Causa sui climb down out of his ass before now. I suggest the following, simple remedy (instead of mediation, ANIs, and RFC/Us, and all sorts of other, splendid wikidrama): Causa sui can simply take Epeefleche off his watch list and stop looking at his edit history. I pretty much guarantee that this one simple change will fix everything overnight. If Wikipedia needs to be protected from Epeefleche, the rest of the community is perfectly capable of doing so without Causa sui’s help. That simple. Greg L (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  • P.S. I had an edit conflict with Causa sui while posting, above, but went ahead anyway. Seeing now Causa sui’s 00:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC), post, I agree. I find that to be another version of not butting heads with Epeefleche. I am confident the outcome will be the same: peace. Greg L (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
    I C Pt

OK - here's my proposal:

  • causa sui to give these specific areas of conflict a wiki-break by taking them off his watchlist, and work on more fun areas for a few months;
  • Epeefeche to pay particular attention to WP:BIO, which is developing at the moment - see two recent Eric Ely AfD's and related discussion on Jimbo's talk page for evidence of this;
  • in the mean time, the rest of the community can police Epeefleche's actions;
  • if causa sui becomes aware of a particular problem, he should mention it at ANI and let another administrator sort it out; and
  • Greg L to let causa sui continue in peace.

There are enough people here that any individual can take some time off policing any other individual. Stephen B Streater (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Agreed Wise counsel worth 1.2 miiiillion dollars. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Better idea. I'll just stop editing articles for content entirely. If this is how we deal with situations like this, the person who shouts the loudest always wins. RCP is much more straightforward. --causa sui (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
You are under no obligation to accept my mediation proposal. But you might like to bear in mind that I have repeated for you what you have already stated as your decision above: I am done editing these articles, and included some feedback from disinterested observers at ANI. And, as you rightly notice, in this mediation proposal I am not intending to right all the wrongs on Wikipedia; merely to allow editors to continue without conflict. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
He was apparently displeased with events as of late. Greg L (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps he will rejoin when he's had a wikibreak. Time is a great healer. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

One million dollars (with little finger held out)[edit]

By my calculations, 1000 cc of 99.9% platinum at today’s price of $1742.50 per troy ounce is worth $1,199,600. So, two questions: 1) Why would you be making 1 cm cubes to 5 µm accuracy? And, 2) why so many? Greg L (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I made them for the millennium, when there were fears the banking system would collapse (which it almost did a couple of years ago too). Platinum is the densest common element, and the only one which can be made into cubes like this. So if you want to verify their content, all you need to do is measure them and weight them. Compare this with gold bars, say, where you have to trust a hallmark, when you've no idea what a real hallmark looks like. See, for example, How to make convincing fake gold bars. So My cubes could have been either used as money directly, or used as backing for a new (temporary?) paper money issued by me. This may sounds far-fetched, but it would work nevertheless as platinum is platinum is platinum, and everyone can look up its density and its value. It's unlikely to be repeated in the short term as very few people in the world can manufacture cubes like this, and the guy who did won't do it again because he did it as a favour and it took several years longer to do than he expected. Also, the cubes make a great (and unique) executive toy  :-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I figured out the mechanics of making fake gold bars a long time ago. Fortunately, I suppose, I was never so desperate (nor rich enough to afford sufficient gold to form even a 2 mm cladding) to expose myself to the temptation. For me, it would have been being a “financial hacker”: Could I fake out a bank. In the end, I am convinced there is no easy solution around x-rays. Cobalt-60 can blast through just about anything. However, the really powerful systems are non-portable, so the gold would have to go to the Cobalt-60-based x-ray machine.

    As for the millennium, I worried not one twit. If there is a collapse of any sort, I expect it will be a viral pandemic; something as virulent as Ebola and as infectious as influenza. Were that to happen, everyone will just stay home—even first responders. Isolated people like farmers could continue to work but with transportation and distribution shut down; fuel, seed, and fertilizers wouldn’t get in; and product wouldn’t get out. Transportation by freight trains (another activity that requires little human contact) might continue by dedicated employees, but local distribution and retailing of food would stop. In circumstances like these, platinum becomes a way to transfer wealth from one individual to another, but does nothing to fix the problem at hand (severe hunger) unless you know someone who A) has a prodigious supply of a wide variety of foods, B) is a long-term thinker, and C) isn’t located very far away. Having gone on really long canoe trips to really remote regions, I can tell you that there can be times when people will bafflingly eschew one cc of platinum in favor of twelve rolls of butt-wipe and a bag of beef jerky. Greg L (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes - I have a water butt and excess fat reserves. But I hope the airlines have insurance against another pandemic, because they come round a lot more often than Icelandic volcanoes. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The mother of all pandemics to date was the 1918 influenza outbreak. One-third of the planet’s population caught it. It had a mortality rate of greater than 2.5 percent. Yet life went on in cities like New York as policemen wearing surgical masks directed traffic and ambulances raced through the streets with the seriously ill. Such a low mortality rate and a feeling that “If I’m strong, I’ll pull through” lead people to just deal with it and take their chances. Hemorrhagic fevers like Ebola have an exceedingly high mortality rate and are surprisingly infectious. Yet, they nevertheless fail to spread widely because the incubation time is short and people in the effected areas of Africa travel on foot, which limits the size of outbreaks; people tend to fall victim and die in small, village-size clusters. Jet travel will be the selective, artificial pressure that enables some, future, “winning” virus to win the evolution contest. If the next pandemic has a mortality rate of—I figure—20% or more, things will be a total mess. Now that is something to be prepared for. Greg L (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Hey -- what about the "Jews poisoning the wells" myth (because they washed their hands) Black Plague? Est. 75 million deaths, 30% to 60% of Europe's population, may have reduced the world's population from an estimated 450 million to between 350 and 375 million.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Re user:Kotniski/Neu[edit]

Sorry to remove your text - I agree that consensus/editing policy needs tidying up and unifying too, but I'd rather keep that separate from this proposal, which is intended to concern a reform of content policy (i.e. NPOV/V/NOR). The points you added have more to do with WP:Consensus and WP:Editing policy (which admittedly suffer from the same problems that the content policies do).--Kotniski (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi - you are right of course. I'll put the consensus bit somewhere else. It just seems to crop up over and over again. Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments over at the Pump, BTW. For some reason, no one is clamouring for extremely long policy pages. Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
apropos your VPP thread, I just want to say that your citation to has totally blown my mind. I am so glad you're raising this issue about over-lengthy, unreadable policy pages. I've devoted many hours to improving these pages, only to see my efforts reverted. user:Agradman editing as (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

sorry to bother you again but I was wondering if you could give me some advice about an article[edit]

a little while ago I asked for help at the wikipedia noticeboard in fixing/removing the news release template from the article Red Back Mining. since then another template has been placed on the article that is a bit similar. It was done today, I left a message at the talk page for the user who put it there, asking him to help me bring the article up to standard/get the template removed, by letting me know the specific problems. I've looked the article over and replaced a couple pieces of information and references. the only problem someone might have with it is the data in the production section since a lot of it has to do with estimates and numbers that the company itself has come up with. If you have some extra time could you help me figure out if any of the data is worth keeping based on the references provided. It's a short article so it shouldn't be too difficult.Grmike (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)grmike

OK. I'll have a look. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
great job with the editing. for market value statistics I just pick a random day to find them on (on pages that discuss more than one company I try to make sure the data for all the companies was from the same day (because stock value/market value changes all the time) and justify that inclusion by including the accessdate. in some cases the companies have their market value from a certain day permanently listed in an article (one reason the forbes ranking of the world's top 2000 companies, is so popular among people looking for company data). Do you think the information in the production section will get the article in trouble again ? I think it contains data that people interested in learning about the company would want to know.Grmike (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)grmike
I was interrupted and haven't got that far. Forward looking statements are generally not very encyclopaedic, I would have thought. We should document what people have said about the past. When it's happened, and been reported, we can record it here. Sometimes we can report what people have said might happen, but I think in that case it is worth saying whose prediction it is - and generally I'd avoid direct company predictions. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What constitutes consensus[edit]

You wrote "I've noticed many civility problems start with an over-optimistic view of what constitutes a consensus."

It's not always civility problems, but I agree that often a group think something will be noncontroversial and is surprised. I've seen this happen after RFCs with little or no objection have run their course.

I don't know what the solution is. But somehow, it seems like more eyes need to see more proposals. Maurreen (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Also a little more caution on what constitutes a consensus would help. For better or worse, people treat policy text with an almost religious fervour, and take it as sacrilege if it is modified without their knowledge or permission. Stephen B Streater (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


Informatica is committed to posting ideas to the talk page of the stub. We will continue to be open and transparent in our participation on Wikipedia. If any inaccuracies appear on the page, we will contact the Wikipedia admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walery (talkcontribs) 17:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a look later... Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The old article was deleted. Have you had a chance to read the discussion and rationale for this decision? Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the discussion, including your comment that you would be willing to create a stub. If you feel it is appropriate, I can provide information that might make it less time consuming for you to create the stub. Going forward I can offer additions to the stub, via the talk page, if this is the best approach. --Walery (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It is usually best to wait a while after a deletion, though this seems unnecessary in this case given the comments of the closing admin at the deletion debate. One of the most important points is to have reliable secondary sources for any material in the article, as Wikipedia is a tertiary source. So we need (in general) independent newspaper reports on your company. I can make exceptions on some neutral areas if you are quoted and have made regulatory filings. Claims about how you are the best etc need to be filtered through a critical third party - ie raw regurgitation of press releases are not appropriate, and sell side analysts are also suspect. The article should not show any point of view for or against the company, though it can report a representative range of what other people have said in reliable sources. Is this your company? And are you NASDAQ listed under ticker INFA? If so, I can start looking for some independent reports. Things in Wikipedia can take some time to unfold, and so the information in the article should not be time-sensitive or news related - unless the news will still be interesting a few years from now. The sort of things which you could provide which would be less prone to introducing bias are third party comparisons of companies in your area (which mention you). Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


Per your request I wanted to share a handful of industry analyst reports as well as media coverage from the past year about Informatica. Specifically in the three analyst reports from Gartner and Forrester, you will see these analysts opinions about how Informatica stacks up against our competitors.

Industry Analyst Reports

Gartner Magic Quadrant for Data Quality 2009

Gartner Magic Quadrant for Data Integration 2009

May 12, 2010 Enterprise ETL: Evolving And Indispensible To Your Data Management Strategy

Media Coverage - Videos

Bloomberg News - Focusing on Informatica, Sohaib Abbasi December 11, 2009

The Video: Informatica CEO Talks Partnerships, Cloud Computing September 17, 2009

Forbes Video - CEO Insights: Informatica Sept. 16, 2009

Media Coverage - Articles

Informatica’s Software Glue Sells in the Recession By Ashlee Vance, New York Times August 24, 2009

Informatica Upbeat In A Down Economy By J. Bonasia, Investor’s Business Daily July 27, 2009

Introducing The MDM Market’s Newest 800lb Gorilla: Informatica Acquires Siperian!

Global CIO: Informatica Joins Ranks Of Elite Enterprise Software Companies

Industry Chatter: Ramesh Menon of Informatica

Informatica Ups the MDM Stakes

Informatica Executive Has Head In Clouds

The Sky is Bright for Informatica in Cloud Computing

The Sweet Spot: Sandblasting the sales pipeline

--Walery (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


You seem to have dropped out of discussions here. But I have placed a proposed alternative to one section of the policy here - there have been some constructive suggestions by a couple of other editors and since posting it I have made some alterations to it in response to those comments. I hope you will have time to review the proposal and, if you think it is a step in the right direction, see if you can suggest any improvements - or of course if you don't like it register your view. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll have a look tonight after the children are asleep. I've been slightly preoccupied with the election here in the UK, but do think the NPOV policy is worth the attention it is receiving, particularly from experienced and inciteful editors such as yourself; I am happy to contribute to the debate. Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I have been following the political situation albeit not very closely. It sounds like we are in for major budget cuts this coming fiscal year. We live in interesting times.

I appreciate your returning to the discussion when you have time. We just need more reasonable voices. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I just caught up - before clicking on reload page ;-) When I actually catch up I'll edit my notes and add them at the end. Don't all go away ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Put down some ideas. Not always in agreement with you, but not strongly disagreeing either as pragmatic implementation of policy is important. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Gibraltar or other articles concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioral standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
  • Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard) or the Arbitration Committee.
  • Gibnews (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing the Gibraltar article and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for one year. Should Gibnews return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.
  • Gibnews is strongly warned that nationally or ethnically offensive comments are prohibited on Wikipedia and that substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the site, will be imposed without further warning in the event of further violations.
  • Justin A Kuntz (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing Gibraltar and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for three months. Should Justin A Kuntz return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.
  • Ecemaml (talk · contribs) is admonished for having, at times, assumed bad faith and edited tendentiously concerning the history and political status of Gibraltar.
  • Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary.
  • Any editor who is closely associated with a particular source or website relating to the subject of Gibraltar or any other article is reminded to avoid editing that could be seen as an actual or apparent attempt to promote that source or website or to give it undue weight over other sources or website in an article's references or links. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, it may be best in these circumstances to mention the existence of the source or website on the talkpage, and allow the decision whether to include it in the article to made by others.

For the Arbitration Committee, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Slovaks in Hungary[edit]

I'm looking for feedback (good or bad) on my actions in this case. I'd appreciated your comments here. Dpmuk (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've put up a couple of comments there. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


Hi Stephen,

I am a PhD student at the Open University of Catalonia. I am currently preparing a research project about the governance processes in online collaborative communities, and I would like to kindly ask for your collaboration based on your experience in Wikipedia. Interested in participating? Please drop me a note in my talk page. This would take around 20 of your time.

Thanks! Aresj (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've emailed you some answers. Stephen B Streater (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Great, I saw it. Thank you very much for your help! Aresj (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


Since you have been involved in discussion on Race and intelligence, please note this request Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Race and intelligence. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

RFAR Race and intelligence[edit]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I [edit]

And coincidentally I am just about to edit Blood vomiting game which I was wondering if Charles was familiar with. Rich Farmbrough, 19:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC).

I am. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Interesting read. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Meetup aftermath[edit]

Photos were mentioned. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I hit the upload button only to find I had messages - this being the second new section! I'm putting them on en.wp initially as they relate to this. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
OK - uploaded now.

PS Before anyone asked, I've calibrated the focus on the lens now ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks: they are all on Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 7‎ now. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted[edit]

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xenotalk 16:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to have this feature and also to be a tester of it. Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Cambridge Meetup 8[edit]

24 July, Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 8. You would be most welcome. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

London Wikimedia Fundraiser[edit]

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Potential WikiProject RISC OS[edit]

WikiProject RISC OS is a new proposal, which has been publicised on c.s.a.misc. Coincidentally, there's also a current proposal regarding Restarting the computing collaboration. I note that you've previously made a few Acorn/RISC OS edits (including adding RISC OS to Graphical user interface, the current version of which makes no reference to RISC OS!) I also understand that you plan to be talking at ROUGOL next month and that you "hope to become an Administrator" on Wikipedia. Therefore, if you feel you could support WikiProject RISC OS in any way, it'd be greatly appreciated. I'd be interested if you could please share your thoughts on this. Thanks very much for your time. --trevj (talk) 07:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! My life is a bit full right now. I'll keep an eye out for this in the mean time. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
OK. Article editing is time consuming. But when articles have been further refined and (if?) the project coalesces, I think it'd still be useful if you, as a long established Wikipedian, could find a bit of time to contribute a few comments on the project as a whole. Thanks. --trevj (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi again. I expect there'll be a WikiProject stand at the 2012 RISC OS London Show on Sat 27 Oct. As at previous shows, I intend to enthuse people into contributing to the project. If ever you think you may be able to schedule a brief appearance to say a few words, that'd be marvellous. If this is impossible, I'll completely understand but thought you may be interested in noting it, just in case. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for letting me know. I"ll be along if I can, but that's going to be a busy time for me this year! I'll let you know if I can come a bit nearer the time. Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Fair enough. I'll let you know the details then. -- Trevj (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Podcasting[edit]

Hey, I was just looking over the list of members on the Podcasting group and wanted to see if you were still active in the project. If so, it looks like the project could use a little jump-start. In particular, I think notability requirements and assessment guidelines could be added/updated. Please check out the page if you're still interested and move your name to the 2011 active list. Thanks! Udeezy (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not that active here at the moment, as there are too many exciting things going on elsewhere - for example the imminent launch of the frame accurate Clesh Cloud video editing service as an app for Android tablets. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


Congratulations on the birth of your new daughter, no wonder you're so incredibly busy. Anyway, I dropped you a Wikipedia email with an opportunity to make you even more busy - would really like to grab a coffee with you some time soon. - hahnchen 13:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Moon with 300mm lens and x2 extender image[edit]

I was looking at your image File:Moon with 300mm lens and x2 extender.jpg. Your image appears a little soft. I noticed that you were at f/5.6. I've had more success a few stops higher. You may wish to experiment with a range of f-numbers next time the moon is out. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Also wanted to mention that using mirror lock-up and the 10-second trigger delay can make a HUGE difference in a moon shot too. You probably already know this but I just wanted to mention it for completeness. I'd be interested in seeing a new shot if anything of the above ideas weren't used. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. This x2 extender is notoriously soft, but a bigger F stop could help fix that. Next time it's not cloudy, I'll have another go. I have a tripod, so the 10s should work. There is a new 400mm and x2 extender, which are much sharper (and much more pricey!). Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

David Harding[edit]

Hello, Mr. Streater. I don't know if you're around at the moment, but I wanted to bring your attention to an article I'd like to expand, which you originally created: David Harding (mathematician). I've researched and written a more complete version of it, which is available in my user space. I've also posted a longer explanation on the article's Talk page. The reason I haven't boldly replaced it yet is because I've actually been engaged by Winton Capital to improve the article's for David Harding and Winton Capital Management, the latter I completed recently with an unconflicted editor's help. I'm quite sure that my proposal is an improvement, but I'd like to seek consensus before the edit, if at all possible. If you happen to see this in the next few days and have a moment to look at my suggested changes, I'd appreciate it. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm around in principle - just very busy! The earliest I can give it any time is the weekend after next. Make sure all your information is properly referenced; you're not supposed to make the edits yourself if you have a COI. Slow but sure is supposed to be the way here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Stephen, that sounds fine. Worth noting, I'd previously also asked the editor who had helped before (User:Cmprince) to review the article. Cmprince seems to have been busy this week as well, but it's possible he (I presume) will take it up before then.
One note about COI, the guideline states "any changes that might be seen as controversial or not strictly neutral should be first suggested on the relevant talk page or noticeboard"; while I don't think anything about my proposed changes are controversial (and yes, it's all carefully referenced) I take anything to Talk that isn't clearly described by the "Non-controversial edits" clause. So that's my goal here. Given consensus, though, I've always understood direct edits to be OK.
Anyway, I'm in no particular rush, and I presume someone will get to it sooner or later. Thanks for your attention, WWB Too (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I actually went ahead and added a {{request edit}} template on my Harding note, just in case that may bring in a reviewing editor, so, just a heads up. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Tannhauser Gate[edit]

There is a discussion here regarding Colonel Warden's decision to move Tannhauser Gate to Tears in rain (soliloquy) without discussion. As you took part in previous related discussions on this matter, I am informing you of the current discussion. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 15:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:FORscene editing interface May 2006.PNG[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:FORscene editing interface May 2006.PNG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Stephen B Streater. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 23:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Charles Matthews 20100529.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quoted Companies Alliance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tim Ward (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)