User talk:Stephen B Streater/Archive 8

Invitation to Wikipedia meetup in London


Date: 13:00 onwards, Sunday 10 August 2008

Venue: Penderel's Oak pub, Holborn WC1 map

More information: Meetup/London 12

Hello,

I noticed that you have listed yourself as a Wikipedian in London, so I thought you might like to come to one of our monthly social meetups. The next one is going to be on Sunday 10 August, which might well be rather short notice, but if you can't come this time, we try to have one every second Sunday of the month.

If you haven't been before, these meetups are mainly casual social events for Wikipedia enthusiasts in which we chat about Wikipedia and any other topics we fancy. It's a great way to meet some very keen Wikipedians, but we'd also love for you to come along if you're interested in finding out more about Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, or other collaborative wiki projects too.

The location is a pub that is quite quiet and family friendly on a Sunday lunchtime, so hopefully younger Wikipedians will also feel welcome and safe. Alcohol consumption is certainly not required!

Although the meetups are popular, many UK-based editors still don't know about them. It would be great to welcome some fresh faces, so I hope you can come along.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive the slightly impersonal mass-invite!


 * Hi! I almost came but my wife is about to have another baby, so stayed with her instead. Please let me know when these happen, as I'll probably be able to come to a few later on. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Peace process: pseudoscience
See my message on FT2's talk page and suggesting of mediation process. I think there are some important lessons to be learned from recent incidents, and would value your input. Let me know on my talk page. See also the points I discussed with Guy. Peter Damian (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Identifying reliable sources
I've left a note on the NLP talk page describing the problem of identifying reliable sources for possible pseudoscience. Any help appreciated. Peter Damian (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections
Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter
The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections - voting now open!
Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

request for dispute resolution
Hey Stephen. I wanted to request that you talk to User:AnonMoos about his editing ettiquete and biasedly censoring his talk page. The reason i'm involved with this is that he deleted my good-faith edit, and then yelled at me about it. After responding more or less calmly, he yelled at me again. Hes threatened to delete my work (revised based on his complaints) again if it doesn't suit him. He even called me a vandal. This seems like a very volitile editor, and I'd be very grateful for your always-calm help.

on chastity http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chastity&diff=253366059&oldid=253292402

my talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFresheneesz&diff=253703886&oldid=251844207

his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAnonMoos&diff=253645829&oldid=253590556

Thanks, Fresheneesz (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi! I've been a bit busy recently as you've probably realised by now. Would you like me to intercede still? Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonmoos
Hey, thanks for checking up. It hasn't continued to be an issue - but it has also never been resolved, due to my own laziness. Fresheneesz (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am interested. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

PDA
I'd be happy to carry on a discussion on the Newton talk page, but, basically: Sculley coined the term PDA. There were many portable computing devices with somewhat similar feature sets, of course. Perhpas the beginning of the article could be better worded to be clear that the Newton was the first described as a PDA? Bhimaji (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes - I'd be happy with that, if you are sure it is true. There are similar points everytime a new buzzword is coined for an existing idea. How Microsoft managed to trademark Windows is a mystery to me. Similarly, Cloud computing has been going on for years - I launched FORscene in 2004, for example, years before the term itself was common place. Although Cloud computing talks about more recent developments, it also mentions The underlying concept of cloud computing dates back to 1960 so it makes clear the idea was not new. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For comparison, you might look at Psion Series 3, which is (as it is currently written!) consistent with my view that the Psion Series 3 is a PDA. It was launched two years before the Apple Newton. I will let you know if I find a reference to the actual term PDA that predates the Newton launch - assume not unless I say otherwise! Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2010 page referring to Psion 1 'PDA' in 1984. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Confirmation of your Sculley statement. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC) - but also includes the statement: This piece of beauty from Psion is considered to be the first real PDA. It was first introduced at 1984. when referring to Psion Organiser 1. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added this information in another section, as I can't work out how to keep it both short and accurate enough for the first paragraph - but of course feel free to improve it. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Credentialism
Like it? Heck, no, I say the opposite on my user page! Specifically, I state that IMHO it "blows" and requires "massive cleanup". Feel free to tag that article appropriately, if I don't beat you to it. Groupthink (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wondered what you meant. It didn't seem to fit with your rigorous content policies. Anyway, I've started adding some references to the match cut article, which I expect will also end up somewhat shorter. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for doing so. I take responsibility (and blame) for the rigor you point out, but the content policies are Wikipedia's, not mine.  Blanking is a drastic action I admit, but I can't stand to see unsupported articles sitting around for 2+ years, even if they're well-written.  In fact, I find well-written original research to be particularly galling because it's more likely to successfully mask inaccuracies. Anyway, long story short, my rule of thumb with articles lacking cites is:  Days w/o citations, wait for improvements.  Weeks w/o citations, prompt with nag-tags.  Months w/o citations, employ weed-whacker conservatively.  Years w/o citations, employ weed-whacker liberally. Thanks again for your edits.  If you want to make any more improvements, I've put in a few nag-tags to point out some short-comings that remain with the article. Groupthink (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. I'm gradually fixing the Match cut article... but it seems you have been wielding your knife quite widely! I've added a whole load of other film techniques to my watchlist, and will see if anyone at the Wikipedia Film Department is interested in helping to improve them. Stephen B Streater (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Match cut looks much more than "somewhat" improved. Those refs do bring a smile to my face (perhaps I've spent too much time in academia?) At any rate, I hope I've understood your last post to my talk page correctly. Please feel free to remove those pesky "ref-needed" tags as you add refs, no need to wait for me or anyone else to do so. I'm not sure that I'm understanding your "verified vs. verifiable" concern, but I certainly do agree that attribution to an extent like this is in no way needed and in fact detracts from readability. Finally, yes, I did go on a bit of a tear last night, much more so than usual, and I apologize if I have been an informal Richard in the process. Groupthink (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I've been looking around for something to get my teeth into for a few days, so it was well timed :-) I might ask you to help with some potentially controversial edits on EDL though, in the light of my position in the industry. In a nutshell, there are a significant number of systems which support EDLs. Perhaps they could all be included (including my FORscene system) - see the relevant chat pages - but now I'm thinking there may be too many to itemise eg under WP:LAUNDRY. A resolution might be better coming from someone else. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Film
Yes, I'm still serving as the lead coordinator, did you need assistance with something? I'll do my best to help you out, or if you would like assistance from multiple editors, you can consider leaving a message at WP:FILMS' talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a few articles listed above which don't have significant references. An activist editor has noticed, so it would be good time to fix them! Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added the list to Film talk page. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Your note
I think this should be discussed on the policy talk page. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've posted there. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

comments or questions for me
Not cheeky! Thanks! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Operation Algeciras
Please see my response to you under your comment in my talk page. Thanks. GS3 (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)