User talk:Stephen B Streater/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the  link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:
 * some General guidance.
 * Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
 * Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
 * Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).
 * Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
 * Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
 * Use the Show preview button
 * Provide an Edit summary
 * Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
 * Take a look at Consensus of standards
 * Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, -- Alf melmac 11:47, 12 February 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 06:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

WikiProject Go?
Hullo there. I have been thinking that a go wikiproject could usefully be set up here (cf. 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)

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)

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

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

So corresponding things I would look for in the Unimodal article: Stephen B Streater 07:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 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


 * 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)

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)

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)

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!  J Rawle  (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)