User talk:Stephen B Streater/Archive 6

non-notability

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

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

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

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

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

WikiProject Go

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

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

question - accepted arbitration

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

Pardon me for chipping in, but I've been active on a number of Arbcom cases. First it's moved from WP:RFAR to a subpage, which may well have a differnet name (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fresheneesz); there will then be subpages for /Evidence, /Workshop and /Proposed decision. Some sections should only be edited by clerks or arbitrators, these are clearly marked. Threaded discussion is not used, except in /Workshop. Each participant may make a statement in /Evidence, which should be as factual as possible and should include diffs to back any claims. The most usual remedies are bans from certain articles or (rarely) namespaces. Normally the unequivocally disruptive editor will simply be blocked or banned as a community action these days. Guy 00:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The less you go for, the more likely you are to succeed. My advice is to go for the core of asserting the right to discuss policy, but don't go for condemnation of your opponents as you have some wiki-weaknesses too. I'd avoid making this a big issue about notability itself, though the poll results are interesting and support your right to have a poll. I'm in Canada at the moment, so may take a few hours to respond. The most important thing is not to be so insistant that you annoy the arbitrators. Stephen B Streater 13:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Mhm, I was thinking the same thing. I was just kinda lazy and wanted to address what i thought were all the most important issues - but I didn't want to have to deal with multiple arbitrations or whatever. I've tried to stay away from the arbitration thing to let it just get commentary. But now that it looks like that is almost over, I'm still wondering what will happen next. Fresheneesz 19:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Almost over? It's barely begun. All that's happened is that the arbs have now been persuaded that there is something for them to consider. Guy 22:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"publishing"

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability

Hello,

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

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

Michele_Bachmann heating up again

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

I'm back in England now - I'll have a look after work. Stephen B Streater 09:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like there are some good people involved now; things are already calming down. Browse over there if you like, but the fire is definitely under control. :-) ATren 17:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the coming election is probably having an effect. Stephen B Streater 10:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

hi

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

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

Referred from user:Guy

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

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

I'll have a look. The key is independent sources to provide the information. Stephen B Streater 11:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! In case it's helpful, I have started to compile some independent sources at User:Dgray xplane/references.Dgray xplane 02:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I've suggested a "relist". Wikipedia is concerned about bias creeping in through commercial interests, and prefers a less complete but unbiased article to a more complete but biased one. If your company is widely recognised it would help if a variety of people could contribute to the article. Stephen B Streater 18:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

PS Look at other references to see how these often work: ideally these will be a web link to an article about the subject which doesn't just mention the subject in passing and isn't a press release by the subject company. Names of publications which are hard to find and verify probably won't be sufficient as the content needs to be accessible enough to the average editor here to check not just for accuracy but for bias also. Stephen B Streater 18:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Patents

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

I'd recommend getting professional help. This will give you an idea of the cost, and this will indicate how much work is involved. UK is easier than European, and often both are worth starting even though Europe covers the UK. Stephen B Streater 21:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

arbitration?

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

I haven't been following the recent discussions on that thread. What are your complaints, and what remedies would you like to see? Stephen B Streater 20:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's nothing new; JzG just won't let the old fight die. He re-ignited the fight during Fresheneesz's arbitration (reviving the false "I fought the POV pushers and won" claim), and we've been going back and forth since then. Part of the problem is he's bitter that I vigorously (but civilly) opposed his arb com candidacy.

I'm just sick of being called a POV pushing troll, when I am neither.

JzG has put up a subpage off his talk page, so we can attack each other there (we've worn out our welcome at places like AN/I), and I've put a bunch of evidence up there. If you want to take a look: User:JzG/ATren ATren 01:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom is a bit confrontational - Wikipedia works best when people work together to reach consensus. I don't think you'd win an Arbcom case against JzG without understanding the merit in JzG's position, which is based around the lack of physical implementations of the PRT concept after 40 years of enthusiastic press (which demonstrates the intrinsic bias of the positive published sources).

Most people here don't care that much about about your reputation, or the lack of respect JzG shows you. Your self-image will never be the same as others' image of you, so don't take it too personally. It says as much about JzG as it says about you. If this is your main concern, Arbcom won't be interested.

I suggest doing good work outside the PRT article. This will improve your reputation and standing. The general drift of Wikipedia policy and PRT progress will clarify what PRT should contain, and if you come back to the article in a year, the consensus will be clearer and less acrimonious.

You could consider an Arbcom to stop Avidor editing this article, as you consider him to have a vested interest in the article. Stephen B Streater 10:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, it's not even about the article anymore, which I think is fine (it took months of fighting back JzG's reverts to make it what it is, but the end result is that it is now a very balanced treatment). I'm just sick of being called a POV pusher. I knew nothing about PRT a year ago - I just saw a blatant abuse and I tried to correct it, and that got me into a bitter, neverending fight with one of Wikipedia's most "stubborn and opinionated" (his words) administrators.

From day one, I had no other agenda whatsoever, other than protecting the truth. And not only that, I had done a ton of research so I became sort of an expert on the topic, even to the point of writing simple simulation code to test out some of the concepts of which I was initially skeptical. And yes, I was skeptical at first. But the more I researched, the more I realized how insidious Avidor's and Light Rail Now's campaigns were: they were brutally twisting facts to support their campaigns.

Nevermind the applicability and cost arguments (which are still quite valid until one is built) - Avidor and LRN were lying about the research and technology, and pushing the ridiculous idea that this was some sort of conspiracy. That's what I fought. Skybum had the same views as I did: that the technology was feasible and the main questions were things like cost and how to overcome barriers to implementation - but he agreed that Avidor's and LRN's campaigns were junk. Yet, Skybum was repeatedly labelled a POV pusher, which was absolutely untrue.

So at this point, I just want it to stop. JzG keeps calling me a POV pusher, without a shred of evidence to support it (opposing Avidor's extreme view does not automatically imply you're a POV pusher). His proof has always been "trust me, I'm a respected admin" yet, in my case, he's wrong. I've always tried to be very neutral in my edits, and I've always been accepting of reasonable, thoughtful discussion of my changes - but not blanket reverts with condescending edit comments.

Anyway, it may have died down now (and I've made every attempt to be careful in the above discussion, so as not to re-inflame the debate) so hopefully this will be the end of it. If he doesn't bring it up again, I consider the matter closed. If he does bring it up again, I may consider DR or RfA. If you happen to notice another flame-up, feel free to mediate. :-) ATren 15:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to mediate, if it flares up again, if only to stop you spending so much time on it. You could be fixing bigger things. Stephen B Streater 09:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't Destroy

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

I've just got my phone internet working on my African holiday... But your link appears to be red. Is this irony? Stephen B Streater 17:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm back with my 8Mb/s link, I've found the essay: Don't Destroy. I'll have a look. Stephen B Streater 20:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added some comments, thinking about the long term effects of an inclusionist policy. Stephen B Streater 19:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

5 pillars

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

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

Welcome!

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

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

Sources

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

Yes - I chose Houston so you could see my point didn't just apply to the sort of weird articles I edit ;-)

I agree that if there are too few sources, we can't gauge the NPOV position as an individual. But in practice, there can be discussions between experts on the talk pages to create a NPOV consensus. We have had many discussions in Mathematics to get exactly the right wording - we source things after if necessary. Listing hundreds of sources makes verification harder, because unless you can read them all, you don't know if a fact as verified in the one article you didn't get hold of. Whether this is the best way of doing things is not supposed to be open to debate, because the people writing the rules don't seem to have much practical knowledge of what makes things which actually work. I had a Polish friend before the Berlin Wall came down. He said Perestroika was terrible. Before the reforms, the authorities were so ineffective that people could get things done by ignoring the rules. But with the reforms, the authorities became very effective, and nothing could get done because the rules which were being enforced were imperfect. The whole system collapsed shortly after.

My view of WP:V and WP:N can be nutshelled as follows: verification is to check the accuracy of controversial, specialist, dubious or disputed claims. Notability is to ensure that there are enough editors interested in editing an article to ensure continuing accuracy. So if something is of particular interest to Wikipedia editors, it will require a lower level of notability than some other important point which no one is interested in. Stephen B Streater 13:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

While discussion can create a NPOV tone using general knowledge, the eventual aim should be to source everything. Wikipedia isn't about what's true, it's about what's verifiable, so first hand opinions don't count for much. For instance, I know The game (the game) exists. But as it's never been covered by a reliable source, we can't write anything definitive about it. I could add something which I know to be true, but how does anyone else check that? You may disagree with policies and guidelines, but they have wide consensus so you should still try to use them (or at least argue strongly why they shouldn't be used in this case). Your definition of notability isn't in-line with the commmunity's one. Trebor 13:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I voted to delete The Game article here. And I helped write the current notability guideline, in particular the section WP:N#Rationale for requiring a level of notability here. So my view is in line with the consensus. So you might like to rethink your last reply in the light of this new evidence. Stephen B Streater 13:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I stand entirely by it. Your endorsement of deletion on The Game appeared to be for triviality, whereas in actual fact it is fairly well-known (among certain demographics). People would have taken an interest in it, perhaps even come up with a vaguely "true" article, but that doesn't mean it is verifiable or notable. Your views that notability is purely a matter of enough editors to maintain it is wrong. The consensus is shown on the guidelines: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." This article doesn't quality under it. Why are we keeping it? Trebor 13:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm supporting keep because I think Wikinfo may be able to provide the evidence, and I remember reading about it in a major publication last year. The gist of that article was the WP had a contradiction - the more you know about smething the less you are allowed to write about it because of conflict of interest - resolved by Wikinfo. Deleting an article about a subject without even attempting to get information from the subject seems unnecessarily destructive. Stephen B Streater 13:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely you should be abstaining until a response is forthcoming then. Even if it was featured in an article in a major publication, it seems very unlikely that Wikinfo was the primary or central subject; as you say, the article was about Wikipedia. Trivial mentions (which are all that have been found thus far) do not make something. Trebor 14:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I often change my opinion as the debate continues. That is the point of debate. Often also I manage to help improve an article to the point where people decide to keep. My opinion of Wikinfo has diminished during this debate so far. Don't forget that a guideline does not have to be enforced to the letter - I listed in the current guideline some of the policies which the guideline is designed to enforce, in particular WP:V and WP:NPOV. The article makes few value judgements, so I'm not much concerned with NPOV, and the few claims are easily verifiable. This indicates the notability guideline may be being misused in this case. Stephen B Streater 14:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability is more than simply a way to enforce policy; if it is, it's being misused in almost every AfD, not just this one. But I stand by the fact that, if you strip the article of anything unverifiable, then it's less than a paragraph. Practically everything is sourced directly to Wikinfo itself, aside from trivial mentions elsewhere. But how do we know what it says about itself is true? What if it claimed to be the foremost Wiki on the web, would we include that? Independent sources are a way of checking that what a site says about itself is actually true. Trebor 19:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in your views of the purpose of notability. I would not be happy with taking an uncritical self-view of Wikinfo without independent corroboration, which is why I have put a message on their Village Pump asking if they know of any such information. My recollection is of a discussion of Wikinfo in a very reputable printed source, but this may not be locatable within the five day AfD. It's interesting comparing Wikinfo to Wikipedia: most of the Wikipedia article is unreferenced, and a significant number of references which do exist are either from Wikipedia itself (people seem happy to trust Wikipedia to talk about itself, but not Wikinfo, which is a kind of double standard) or unreliable websites such as alexa. OTOH, New Scientist has a two page interview with Jimmy Wales, though this probably wouldn't meet all the criteria for WP:V, it clearly demonstrates notability. In reality, any articles about Wikinfo would get most of their information from the Wikinfo web site, so the whole process is dubious, but that's another issue again. I just get the feeling that people writing these rules don't know how the real world works, and people blindly applying the rules can do a lot of damage. Not that this applies in this case, mind you. If I hadn't seen the article discussing Wikinfo, I might be supporting deletion too. Stephen B Streater 21:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability is always a sticky area I find, and there are editors with far more intelligence in the area than me. I think it's mostly ensuring an article can be verified with independent sources, in order to create a NPOV article; purely self-sourced articles aren't going to get anywhere. Additionally (and less importantly), it's an objective (or as objective as you can get) measure of the subject's "importance", i.e. if something has been noted, it is notable. But the second point is less relevant, as without non-trivial independent sources I can't see any way of writing a balanced and accurate article.

The Wikipedia article isn't particularly good, and relies too much on primary sourcing and so on. But there now exists ample sources from which to write a balanced article; Wikipedia has been covered extensively. I would be very interested to see the article you mention, particularly if you say it focuses in some depth on Wikinfo. Just to clarify: I may well support keeping Wikinfo if more third-party sources with increased depth can be found (and the AfD is a way to stimulate a search), I just don't agree with keeping it without them (and find the arguments which say that to be rather weak). Trebor 21:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already had a few responses to my Wikinfo request. Some responses about sourcing, others saying that if a clearly existing entity with clear and undisputed information about it cannot appear in Wikipedia, it shows why they started Wikinfo. I'll see if I can find out where my article came from. If it is in New Scientist, I'll still be able to find it somewhere. Stephen B Streater 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking around and came across this which claims Wikinfo is the only fork which is actively edited. Certainly a claim to notability, since anyone can fork Wikipedia. I'll see if I can turn up my original article, but probably not tonight. Stephen B Streater 22:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Don't worry, there's no rush. In relation to Wikinfo being the only actively edited fork, that may be true but it's original research (added by User:David Gerard); we can't really source things to a wiki. Trebor 23:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The people on Wikinfo haven't come up with anything that meets Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines, so I think adding sourced material to another article would be the correct Wikipedia thing to do. Perhaps one day there will be enough for an encyclopaedic article. Stephen B Streater 12:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if they continue to grow they should get more coverage. Thanks for a considered view. Trebor 14:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Message

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

I'll mention it to her when she learns to talk, but I think she is a bit young for you! I'll have a look at the talk page. Stephen B Streater 14:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I will be dead by then! By the way, you have another mail on Talk:Languages of Iran but please please please read carefully this time!Kiumars

I'd already replied - you have to be quick in this game! Stephen B Streater 15:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL! You have another mail on Talk:Languages of Iran! Who is quick then? Kiumars

I've read this. I'll think about where to get the information and be back tomorrow. Stephen B Streater 17:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey Stephen,

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

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

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

Community enforced mediation

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

Some of this is discussed by protagonists in my RfA - you'll have to skip past the unrelated video issues to find the relevant reports of my work which are scattered throughout.

Most mediation efforts are spread across many contributions on many pages, so too hard to list here, but if you follow the links, you will see that this cooled a hot situation between Nigelj and John254.

And here is some appreciation: Kind words.

I also have contributed to cooling heated arguments in policy pages such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Getting starting on one of your ones will demonstrate how it all works ;-) Stephen B Streater 10:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

How does this sound? It looks like the proposal is moving toward experimental implementation. I suggest you observe the first case or two and have some e-mail discussions with me about them. You look like you'll probably be fine for this sort of thing. The main area where I'm concerned is in selecting cases that have a high probability of being resolved this way. Unfortunately, a fairly large percentage of ArbCom cases have at least one participant who has no larger interest in Wikipedia than their own short-term tactical perspective. That sort of person may try to exploit this program, if you know what I mean. The mediator's most important responsibility would be screening. Durova^Charge! 21:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

We could try this. The reuslt would probably be along the lines of: I wouldn't do that and wouldn't get that result. Stephen B Streater 22:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly candid, I have two types of situations primarily in mind. One is the editor who simply doesn't understand the site very well and lacks the initiative to research arbitration cases. I'm looking for people who understand what they're getting into (or who'd bring themselves up to speed). The anathema of this undertaking would be the user who enters mediation cynically as a play for time to delay an arbitration that would probably go badly, and who plays along with mediation until the moment they actually get blocked as a result...then finds an excuse to raise a firestorm and tries to close down community-enforced mediation as one more stunt to send up smoke and stall for time. The mediator's biggest responsibility is to filter which cases to accept. Durova^Charge! 03:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have in mind two sides which have differing models of Wikipedia. Each side works within their own rules, creating antagonism which they cannot escape from without outside help. Stephen B Streater 08:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

So far you seem like someone who'd become a good mediator. I've added a short paragraph to the proposal about how new community mediators would join. Since there hasn't been any case yet that's gone the whole distance, let's wait for one and talk it over by e-mail. Unless something comes up that changes my mind about you I'd create a list of community mediators and add your name next to mine. I've added a short list to the proposal's talk page about how this would grow as it moves toward regular approval. It's not meant to be hidebound, but at some point it would move into Wikipedia namespace with a centralized page to request mediations and an archive of past cases. Sounds good to you? Durova^Charge! 16:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I think this could help make Wikipedia a more pleasant place to be. Stephen B Streater 16:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Original research

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

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

Community enforced mediation

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

We're up to six trainees now with no actual requests for mediation yet. If you'd like to get some practice the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal needs help. BTW with this many people it's easier to post general stuff to Wikipedia talk:Community enforced mediation/Requests. Please bookmark it and thanks for volunteering. Regards, Durova^Charge! 22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

These things take a lot of careful work to fix. I've got recording sessions all weekend for my orchestra, and what with Valentine's day and various anniversaries, I'll start next week. Stephen B Streater 23:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Guns in the US

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

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

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

Hi! We were debating the deletion of the article at the time. This was just a rhetorical device to demonstrate that this entry was not that unusual. If you weren't involved in the debate, you might have taken the comment out of context. Stephen B Streater 19:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I may as well point out to those who didn't understand what I wrote that I was just reporting an opinion which I had heard. Most people who haven't been to the USA get their impressions from films and other unreliable sources. More guns than people and other similar factoids are common currency when referring to the USA. Stephen B Streater 21:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)