User talk:Stephen B Streater/Archive 5

RfA stats
RfA debate Final (30/27/7)

Stephen B Streater 11:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Stats at end of debate (using Interiot 2 tool)
 * Username	Stephen B Streater
 * Total edits	3760
 * Distinct pages edited	656
 * Average edits/page	5.732
 * First edit	11:14, 12 February 2006
 * (main)	1692
 * Talk	770
 * User	111
 * User talk	439
 * Image	2
 * Template	2
 * Template talk	1
 * Help talk	1
 * Category	1
 * Category talk	1
 * Wikipedia	481
 * Wikipedia talk	259

Please stop spamming us with links to your company and website. Danny 00:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, shame on you Stephen, for trying to make Wikipedia better! A Transportation Enthusiast 02:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We're all trying to make WIkipedia better. But being a visionary was never easy, and it's not easy here either. Stephen B Streater 08:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA message

 * Could you provide a transcript, please? I can't play .ogg files!  (aeropagitica)    (talk)   08:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You could always install the plug-in! I could email you a link to the Java version too. Which would you prefer? Stephen B Streater 09:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Found it, installed it, played the video. Bit of a party political broadcast but a nice garden and phone!   (aeropagitica)    (talk)   16:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As it's not my phone, I thought it would be OK. You're the first person who has been able to watch it... Perhaps you deserve a prize ;-) Stephen B Streater 17:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Can't play ogg files? Whatever next! Looking forward to a Wikipedia Java player and anything that would ease the process of getting footage into same. mk 13:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No idea how to play this file; my ogg player does audio, but not video. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 14:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. Can't help you I'm afraid - it was easier to write our own Java player than to fix the plug-in issues! Stephen B Streater 14:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added a summary of my experiences of adding ogg playback capability to my computer on my user page (hope that's not an inappropriate use of resources). I've saved you the details of all the trouble I had finding the right player! mk 15:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a 6.5MB message is a bit much, even in this modern age. There are still dialup users out there. But, for windows users, this codec will, when installed, enable Windows Media Player (assuming you bind it to ogg files) to play this vid: http://www.illiminable.com/ogg/ Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Java version adapts to your bandwidth. It plays in real time, so you don't need to know about file size. We could add an Ogg output option for image size to FORscene - that would allow smaller videos to be watched, while still keeping a bigger version for re-use under the free licence. Stephen B Streater 14:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't play ogg files either *hangs head in shame* It is a very cool way to give RfA thanks, though! -- Nataly a 14:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. There's no long term reason why this should be hard, though. Stephen B Streater 14:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Enjoyed watching your original RfA video, I used VLC media player to view it. A very good app I must say.-- Andeh 17:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for watching :-) I also use VLC. It works very well on my Mac. Stephen B Streater 17:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Streater, if you do not stop promoting your software at once I will not hesitate to block you and all of your business colleagues and investors permanently. We are bukding an encyclopedia here. Your attempts to expropriate the project for your own commercial ends will not be tolerated here. Danny 19:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The all-in-one judge, jury and executioner - is that the way WP operate? mk 20:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I absolutely don't think the message to have been designed to expropriate the project for...commerical ends, and I rather think Danny's pronouncement, at least as regards the RfA message, to be overwrought. Where one, in good faith, offers a suggestion as to a means by which to improve the encyclopedia (however tangential to the overarching goals of the project such means might be or seem to be), especially where he makes such suggestion only to those with whom he has been previously engaged (here, in an RfA discussion, at which, it should be observed, I offered only weak support) and in a non-disruptive fashion (here, essentially concomitant to the RfA participation templates the presence of which after an RfA is ineluctable), he ought not to be chastised, if only because we ought to have many larger issues about which to worry.  Joe 04:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that seems to be the end of the discussion, eh? Since Danny works for the Wikipedia foundation, it seems there will be no more discussion on this issue, even if that means blocking a good-faith user who (it seems) can no longer even mention the word "video" here. What a shame that Wikipedia has become so bureaucratic that even the discussion of change gets the threat of a permanent ban. A Transportation Enthusiast 05:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Things are never as bad as they seem. Danny has been helpful in fact. I'm happy to assist, so it's just been a question of me learning more about how things work here. Stephen B Streater 08:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * From the tone - "you and all of your business colleagues and investors" - I diagnose irony. Just zis Guy you know? 12:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hopefully something said in the heat of the moment. Setting aside any debate about whether something nefarious is going on, the logic implies Stephen's actions indirectly result in other people being penalised. This doesn't sound at all fair on them, or fair on him to levy such pressure. And exactly who are these other people? Is it anyone that happens to agree with Stephen's thoughts that is automatically implicated! If so then that particular net could spread far and wide because he happens to speak a lot of sense reading his contributions here!! mk 12:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been looking for clarity here for some time, and Danny has given this here. There's no shortage of ways for me to contribute which everyone is happy with. Stephen B Streater 13:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No trouble at all watching on Linux. (Actually, OGG formats are about the only ones that can be played on Fedora Core by default, but that's another matter...) Watching any open format on Windows is a real pain. I once had to give up trying to find an ogg player for someone I'd sent music files to, and converted them to mp3 instead!

I like the idea of embedded video, as is found on sites such as Youtube. However, the entire platform must be open source (not just available for no charge) for it to be consistant with the ideals of the Wikipedia project.  J Rawle  (Talk) 20:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For future reference you can send your friends to our media help page. I'm told the instructions there are pretty good, but if you find them lacking in some way... sofixit. :) We have a browser based audio player. Inline video will be Real Soon Now (tm). --Gmaxwell 20:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Java audio player
Thanks for your trouble report. I'm fairly confident that the problem was caused by the SUN Java compiler defaulting to building code for 1.5 VMs that 1.4 VMs can't read. I've rebuilt the code for 1.4 VMs (I think). Can you retry it? Thank you. --Gmaxwell 15:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi! That PC is temporarily out of action. I'll have a look at a couple of others... Stephen B Streater 16:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Ruts:
 * I haven't got a working 1.4 Windows machine around at the moment
 * Java 1.4.2_09 on Mac OS X 10.4.7 works
 * On Windows, MS Java 1.1 doesn't work, giving "Class not found". (This needs 8kHz audio.)
 * 1.5.0_06 on Mac OS X 10.4.7 works
 * 1.5.0_06 on Windows XP works
 * Stephen B Streater 17:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm. Okay, I've built again with a more compatible toolchain. I'm not sure about MS Java, if it doesn't have the Java Sound API then I'm not sure if I can help it without it I think the available audio is very limited and won't sound good no matter what, and if we can't produce good quality I'd rather try to get the user to download a codec (or an updated version of Java). Are the java enabled phones able to use java applets in webpages? --Gmaxwell 19:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Java 1.1 sound is a bit duff: 8kHz 8 bit μ-law. Still, Java 1.0 didn't have sound at all. I'm waiting for Java 1.1 to die - it mostly remains in some corporate desktops; I hope they all upgrade at some point as 8kHz can attract criticism. Most of these people won't be able to download a plug-in, but they are a diminishing band. If I was starting from scratch, I'd put this down the list and hope the problem goes away on its own. Stephen B Streater 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't come across a phone which can in practice interpret Java applets. There are a few in Japan which pretend to, but not very convincingly. Most Java on phones is run as downloaded applications. MIDP 1 has no sound, but MIDP 2 has sound and 64kB to play with - this generally includes the program and all the data. Some phones have a bigger memory limit. Stephen B Streater 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A practical solution on a phone really needs a smartphone. Symbian is the most popular by a long way. Most phones run on the ARM family, and you can't rely on floating point. Whereas PCs got faster, phones got longer battery life, so they are generally slow unless you have a special codec designed to run on a slow chip. A free Symbian app sounds like a great idea, but typical Ogg formats may be a bit slow. Personally, I'd leave this project until after the web video is up and running. By then, phones may be faster. The phones are still great as video cameras for web video. Stephen B Streater 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My favourite phone web browser is Opera - they seem cooperative and may implement media options if writing an app from scratch is too much work here. Stephen B Streater 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA Analysis
Hi Stephen, sorry, I don't really understand what you mean - do you mean you would like your co-nom to be noted on the report page? - Tangot a ngo 09:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that makes more sense. Just imagine that someone had 100 co-nominators. The report page would then not reflect the actual feeling of the RfA. Stephen B Streater 09:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't think that's within the scope of the report - the purpose of the page is to weed out duplicate votes and for bureaucrats to see if there is an RfA they need to close, and it's not intended to represent the RfA in any other way. By the way, late congratulations on your promotion! :D - Tangot a ngo 16:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking into it. And I think your congratulations are early rather than late ;-) Stephen B Streater 17:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Michele Bachmann
Stephen, I'm involved in a little edit war at Michele Bachmann. It involves my old "friend" (who shall remain nameless) from the PRT pages. Anyway, the article quotes an op-ed piece from a newspaper in Minneapolis (TC Daily Planet, which describes itself as "an experiment in participatory journalism") authored by Mr. Nameless. The problem is, Mr. Nameless is also an active member of the dumpbachmann anti-Bachmann blog. This IMO makes it not-reliable as a source. I've removed it but one editor has reverted twice, saying it's only me that has a problem with this author.

What do you think? I also believe the word "successful" is POV when describing Minneapolis LRT -- successful by what measure, or in whose opinion? -- and would require qualification.

Any help would be appreciated. A Transportation Enthusiast 00:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look when Vicky takes Sophie. Stephen B Streater 06:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, Stephen. A Transportation Enthusiast 17:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, as always. Stephen B Streater 17:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, I'm thinking of a name change -- "A Transportation Enthusiast" doesn't fit at all around here (I created that name before I thought I would stick around as long as I did). I'd like a simpler variation on the theme, like "ATE" or "ATrEn" or "MaTE" - my first name begins with an "M". It's not like I'm trying to change my identity or anything; I just want to simplify the name. What's your opinion? A Transportation Enthusiast 17:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a more neutral name will make your life here easier. A shorter name is also better - your name (like mine) is unusually long. I'd prefer a short, neutral and pronouncable name. Any Bureaucrat can change it for you. I'd be tempted to wait a week after you've chosen your new name in case you change your mind though. Stephen B Streater 17:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Done! That was relatively painless, I must say. I already feel liberated from my old transportation-constrained username. :-) ATren 23:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Welcome back :-) Stephen B Streater 07:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I missed the boat
Hi Stephen. I feel like a right cad, pushing you to go to RfA and then disappearing for the duration. I've been tragically unable to log the Wikipedia presence I once did, though hopefully this situation is only temporary. I see that your RfA was not successful. I have not read through it at leisure to understand the reasons why not, something which I will do soon. I gather it's something about posting videos with non-free licenses? In any case, I remain firmly convinced that you ought to be an administrator. I've admired your participation in policy discussions, in interpersonal disputes, and in content disputes, and I've seen you in lots of different places. I would like to finish the nomination that I began a few weeks ago. With your consent, I will save it to Requests for adminship/Stephen B Streater 2, and I will entreat you to consider trying the ordeal after some time. I suppose it might be a while before I could get to it, and I think probably the machine wants you to give it some time as well, but I do hope you'll consider it.

And again, I do apologize for failing to follow through with the RfA. It was a sloppy way to do an RfA.

-lethe talk [ +] 02:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your nomination(s) :-) Some opposers had lost track of the need to test new ideas through experiment. The advantage of a wiki is that anything can be undone or adopted depending on the result. I also found some important people who I hadn't managed to find on any of the appropriate discussion boards - RfA is quite high profile, it turns out. PS Luckily I was prepared for the RfA "process" ;-) Stephen B Streater 08:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought the whole thing was farcical. Whether or not you are working on innovative ways of managing active content (ogg being, for my money, functionally sub-optimal - or "useless" to use the vernacular) has no bearing whatsoever on whether you'd make a good admin.  That's about maturity, sound judgment, patience, civility and a willingness to keep an open mind, all of which you consistently demonstrate. Guy 12:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your support. It's funny how the people who are most interested in freedom have the most strict rules. And the most vehement may have done Wikipedia a long term disservice by starting off with such closed minds. Still, there will be other possibilities, perhaps after I get back to England from my trade show. Stephen B Streater 23:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Lots of lauding about free speech intermingled with veiled and actual threats to silence other peoples right to the same - reading the whole thing was an eye opener. mk 21:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Free Speech. Please don't confuse free content with free speech. You have no right to use Wikipedia to promote your monetary interests. I'm disappointed, but perhaps not surprised, to see that we hadn't gotten past this matter and that both Mark and Stephen are still more interested in whining about our refusal to use their proprietary software than in actually increasing the usability and amount of useful content on Wikipedia.
 * My mind is open to many solutions, and in fact I added a java based audio player to our site and will extend it to video once I get a chance to work the kinks out. I don't think the Java player is a great solution, but so long as is it is free software and uses a non-patent encumbered codec (unlike for Forscene player) then there is no reason for us not to offer it. .. So as I said, I'm open to many things, but compromising our long term goals simply because a commercial interest whines at us... I'm not so interested in that. So Guy, before you next comment about innovation, perhaps should should think carefully about who is adding increasing the functionality of the site, and who is merely increasing traffic to their service with external links.  --Gmaxwell 22:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the free software movement is, in its purest form, as restricting as proprietary software. I followed one of Stephen's Forscene video links (before they were deleted) and I was able to play it immediately without a clue as to where it came from or who was hosting it. It played right in Java and I did not have to do a thing.
 * For ogg files, I had to download and install a codec for it to work. If I didn't have a media player, I'd have had to install that too. Then, I had to manually associate .ogg files with the media player. When playing a video, I had to download the entire video (apparently, no streaming), then click on two separate security warnings, and finally the video played.
 * And I'm an experienced user. What about a newbie? Do we expect them to go through all that just to play a video when there is a perfectly usable Java streaming solution?
 * Here's what really baffles me: after the RfA battles, Stephen posted some videos in both formats: an uploaded ogg version and a link to the identical video in Forscene format -- and it was still deleted as unacceptable! How can an alternate link be considered unacceptable? I mean, anyone who wanted a "free as in speech" version had the ogg format at his/her disposal, so what is the harm in linking to a Forscene version that is easier to play for 95% of readers?
 * So, in effect, the "freedom" we've achieved here is "freedom to watch this video, as long as you have this one specific codec", and if you happen to be on a system which doesn't have that codec, you're out of luck even if you have a full Java implementation that would play Forscene videos without a hitch. Doesn't sound very liberating to me at all, especially consdering that the CEO of the company that makes the "free as in beer" (and much more usable) Java player was willing to work with Wikipedia to address the freedom concerns. ATren (formerly "A Transportation Enthusiast") 22:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi ATren, WP are on the verge of releasing a Java player to ease your playback problems - so IMO it is reasonable to question using anything else. As regards video editing, WP have something on the drawing board but it I perceive it will not be here soon and not be all singing and dancing. I can still prepare video footage in FORscene, output in ogg format, and upload it to WP just like I can use commercial word processors to spell check text before posting it to WP. It would make things easier if the integration between WP could be automated - both the pulling and the pushing! As far as I understand, it is content and format are important to be free as in speech but tools are nice to be free as in speech and could be commercial. mk 23:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Greg. My comments are about the reaction. It was the threat to ban a person because of the ideas they aired. WP has a page that criticises itself, yet it can feel so threatened by a discussion.
 * People are prepared though to do their bit for free content in the form of software developed for WP and have been able to demonstrate it. It sounded very much like Stephen was trying to get around to doing his bit in the most efficient way possible (i.e. to work out a way to make available work that is already commercialised), but this proved very hard, even get going as an idea. The message seems to be not to have your commercial success before you've made your contribution to WP.
 * I hope to continue contributing free video content to WP. I have lots of it - just time is what I need. And I disagree about a Java video player - I think it will deliver a great leap for WP. Your audio player worked flawlessly for me at home and in the office. mk 23:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't buy this whole "promoting his business" thing. I really don't think Stephen is that kind of guy. I accept at face value what he said: that he finds ogg problematic (hell yes!) and wanted to offer something which he has already made to work. It's an issue for discussion, not some kind of blot on his copybook. Guy 23:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Gmaxwell is not one of the people I see as closed minded in my RfA debate, which is why I have been happy to help him with his Java audio and video solutions. He is uninformed he he thinks Wikipedia video hits have any impact on us.
 * We have already started discussions with the Dirac people, who have a stand at our trade show. We are discussing how to implement a free Java streaming player which will be useful to Wikipedians in practice ie will just work automatically. Stephen B Streater 05:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Media link policy
Hello! I have brought this issue up at Wikipedia talk:External links, and remembering your comments at User talk:Gmaxwell, I thought you might have something to add to the discussion. - Rainwarrior 03:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. Stephen B Streater 07:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Filmmaking changes
New discussion has started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Filmmaking regarding expansion of the project. As a member, your comments are welcome and wanted! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 21:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll have a look. Stephen B Streater 08:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Gold as an investment
Hi!

I just noticed your comment on that talk page; I've been leaving that article alone for a while, but I'm still hoping it will improve.

I do think the article title is a problem. As you've probably experienced, there is a fairly small crowd of editors with an active interest in the article &mdash; as far as I can tell, they're all convinced that gold should either be bought as an investment, used as a currency, or both.

I think one of the main problems right now is that "gold as an investment" as an article title makes new editors feel they should not be editing the article because they're not interested in buying gold themselves (I have been told a number of times that I shouldn't be editing any gold-related articles because I do not own any gold), even though, for example, gold price (which is obviously of general interest) redirects there.

So, to be brief, I think the article's stuck right now: there are few editors, with a clear POV that they have trouble keeping out of the article (and its title);  the title, in turn, deters new editors that might otherwise have helped NPOV-isation efforts.

Of course, there's a couple of things I feel could still be done at this point, but I haven't really considered it a high enough priority until now &mdash; the article, while still a bit weird, is no longer just a sales brochure for gold.

May I ask your opinion on this?

RandomP 21:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the Gold as an Asset idea. The article could be broadened to reduce the slant on a speculative investment further. The current feeling is that any use of holding gold is an investment, so I'll add in various such uses and see if people are still happy. Stephen B Streater 21:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, ignore RandomP on this. I refuted his claims before. See the talk page and my talk page. He's now upset and bitter. I clearly have no pro-gold POV. Have you see the stuff Random tries to claim "Hyper inflation isn't that big a deal." "One person disagrees, so that's POV!" Random, grow some balls and take it to the relevant talk page so I can spank you back to your parents' basement again. MrVoluntarist 21:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Either way, following our discussion, Gold as a Store of Value seems to be an acceptable use within this article. Stephen B Streater 07:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

mailing list
Mailing list? For what? Which suggestion did you mention? hah, I'm outta the loop. Fresheneesz 20:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This one. Stephen B Streater 21:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, I think i'll do that. Thanks. Fresheneesz 20:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your kind reference to me at WP:AN. I haven't contributed much to the discussion lately, mostly because I can't think of anything I could add that would be heard above the din, but I did want you to know that I appreciated it. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I am happy to recognise exceptional contributors. Stephen B Streater 07:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sphere vs ball
Hello Stephen, Chambers: "sphere - 1.a solid figure bounded by a surface etc : 2.its bounding surface" When I studied geometry we differentiated between the solid and the surface by using "sphere" and "spherical surface" which I suppose was technical. "Ball" comes in for the same degree of ambiguity - think of cricket ball (solid) and tennis ball (hollow shell). Language can be a devil, and when you consider that it's all we have, it's all the more amazing that we don't have dozens of disasters like the Mars Lander which cost the taxpayer billions, because one team was working in miles and the other in kilometres - very distressing! The real question of course, is whether to apply ball or sphere, ambiguous as both are, to a globular cluster which is neither solid nor a hollow shell; which makes one wonder whether the person who originally used the term in this context (of globular cluster), was simply casting around for a phrase which would denote a spherical shape, without deep philosophical implications about its internal solidity. I just think on balance that 'sphere' sounds so much more rounded and technical, don't you? Paul venter 22:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I come from a mathematical background that agrees with the sphere article definition. I agree that to many people, a sphere is not S2, but a solid shape, and a ball is something you play games with. The article is supposed to be aimed at the general reader, so perhaps sphere is more clear and scientific to them. Stephen B Streater 22:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Giano
Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MacGyverMagic - Mgm|(talk) 22:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

IAR, properly understood (at Pengo's RfA)
Hi,

No joke. Pursuant to itself, I always ignore "ignore all rules" -- that formulation is too easily abused or misunderstood by newbies/egomaniacs. I support Interpret All Rules, which codifies the admirable flexibility that the wise supporters of "ignore all rules" want, without allowing for the foolishness. The great one thing about "ignore all rules" is that it permits me to ignore itself, bless the self-contradictory thing. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I thought you might have a well-formulated position on this ;-) Stephen B Streater 17:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

One week GA thing
Hi, I was going through the bulk of the 1400+ current GAs and I put the one week thing as the absolute minimum amount of time that an article would have. In all honestly, with 3-5 reviewers going through all those articles (as well as the new GA requests) you will probably have a lot more. And even if you needed more time, I'm sure any GA reviewer will gladly give it you. Our goal is to keep articles as GA, not de-list them. We will always be willing to help in that regard. Agne 19:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think that Mathematics is one of the mathematical articles which will benefit most from inline citations, as a lot of it is about history and general ideas. The more technical articles might just say: these books all contain what you need to know. Stephen B Streater 19:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * True and I do apologize. I had no desire to stir such ire. Just with the re-review on the way, I figure it was best (and most fair) not to catch editors off guard with a possible de-listing. Being far from a "math expert", I do see value in having some in-line citations for the technical articles. Not one to every forumla but maybe to the general claim of what the forumula establishes and a cite to where it is generally well accepted in the field. There is no "magical number" as to how many cites any given article needs. I think it just enough to pass WP:V and alleviate any potential WP:OR concerns. For a lay person and reader, this aids in our own personal verifiability of what we are reading and enhances Wikipedia's overall credibility. I would say that I don't know even 1/16th of the stuff that you know in this field and things that a mathematician may take for granted, a lay person could be just discovering. Agne 19:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it should be left to knowledgeable editors of the subject to decide which requests for in-line citations can be met and which are nearly impossible to come by. Putting articles on notice that they might be delisted is noble, but surely you aren't suggesting that articles will be delisted without discussing them, are you? --ScienceApologist 20:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * While ultimately the editors of an article decide what goes in it, I think the articles themselves address a wider audience than the editors. When I'm reading about a subject I am less familiar with, I often like to dip into the in-line citations, so I don't think we should rule these out in advance. Perhaps we need two types of good: good for experts and good for laymen. I think Mathematics should be accessible to all, whereas some article like Gröbner basis could be aimed at more experienced Wikipedian. Stephen B Streater 20:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Your input please
There is a discussion on an old friend here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious editor on policy pages; for some unaccountable reason I failed to spot who the problme was for several minutes... Guy 09:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look now... Stephen B Streater 11:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

arbitration
Hi again, I put together an arbitration case at Requests_for_arbitration, and I would really appreciate your input. Thanks. Fresheneesz 05:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm off to a rehearsal now, but I'll contribute later on... Stephen B Streater 08:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

straw poll
Hey, you asked about what I think about "my" straw poll. User talk:GTBacchus actually put up the poll that wasn't deleted. As I told him, it turned out exactly as I expected - many people contending that notability is a bad idea, and of course many people saying that it is a good idea. I expected no consensus, and thats what I see in the polls. One thing I would have liked to see is neutral votes - people were forced to choose "oppose" or "support" when many people's comments showed that they were more neutral than anything else. One thing I was a little surprised about is that it seems that while many people don't think notability is not good criteria, an overwhelming majority see "non-notable articles" as basically a bad thing. Or at least not a good thing, which was what the prompt. Obviously, Radiant and his supporters instead see the poll as evidence that my proposal is rejected. I really just don't understand the way they think.

What do you think of the poll? Fresheneesz 23:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of differing opinions. This suggests more discussion is a good thing as it will help to create a consensus. You can see my views in the poll, and in our previous discussions. I think that as the encyclopaedia continues to grow, more articles will reach my criterion of having enough interested editors, making NPOV easier to maintain, and verifiability will be more important. In the mean time, I think the variability of articles should be acknowledged somehow. Stephen B Streater 07:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)