User talk:Stephen B Streater/Archive 7

Video.

Hi, Stephen. I'm glad you see you're still active. We now have a Java video player provided through the same 'hack' of a solution that I used for the audio. You can see it linked from all the videos on commons, check out Commons:Category:Video.

We've pretty close to having proper support on the site, plus there are a number of other exciting things coming up in terms of public support for Ogg/Theora+Vorbis. The cortado player that I'm using isn't perfect, but it does have working buffering. In the past you tested the audio only player with a wide collection of JVMs and helped me spot some compatibility problems. Because this player has a resampler it should be able to use the older low quality audio interface and should be more generally compatible as a result. I'd appreciate whatever feedback you can provide. --Gmaxwell 05:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'll have a look. I've also got some more Ogg Theora/Vorbis videos to add to the Library. Stephen B Streater 07:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First feedback (checking playback on a Mac with Java 1.5.0_07) including bugs

* The system basically works

* When starting a long video, buffering can stop when the % indicator is around 68%

* The are often short gaps in the sound

* Sometimes the video and audio stops for extended periods when almost no data (eg 30B/s) is being transferred. Playback and data flow then resumes

* Starting a second video stops the first - Java allows multiple simultaneous videos to be played

* Closing one of several play windows can give Null Pointer Exception in a remaining window

* Mute button doesn't work

* Resizing window during buffering makes video go black

* Java console reports "stop, reason: wrong-state, stopping" even though the video seems to stop correctly

Stephen B Streater 18:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CEM

Community enforceable mediation has gone into experimental rollout. Thanks for volunteering as a mediator trainee. We'll be in touch as this develops. Durova^Charge! 04:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Stephen B Streater 19:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CEM case opens

Commodore Sloat and Armon have begun mediation. For training purposes we'll be discussing the case by e-mail. I have a gmail account where we can chat as needed (if you have gmail too). Should you wish to comment directly to the participants, community input is welcome at this page. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 09:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to WikiProject Podcasting Members

Hey there all, I've noticed that action on the podcasting project has slowed down. I'd just like to take this time to promote more action from all of you on the project. there are still open tasks to be worked on, and if anyone has anything else to contribute feel free to add a task to the list. Also, I've put the members names into a box, and would like to invite you all to add your favorite podcast to the column. Hope to work with you all soon, Ganfon 20:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonious Editing Club help with RfC regarding Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning?

Hi, Stephen. I found the Harmonious Editing Club and selected you at pseudo-random to ask for help.

I've been party to a debate about deleting, etc., Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning for a few days now. The debate is a bit unharmonious (my least favourite comments are those which seek to spoil pop stories "the butler did it"-style for other commenters) and doesn't seem to me to show signs of getting anywhere.

My biases: I'm on the fence about spoiler warnings generally (which on-the-fenceness doesn't make me think the question unimportant), but feel they are certainly helpful on matter which shouldn't be in the encyclopedia to begin with — e.g. plot elements which aren't notable for some reason such as social impact or novel writing technique.

One aspect which I think is most upsetting to the pro-warning crowd is apparently anti-warning folks are removing warnings en masse from articles containing spoilers, and claiming the lack of reverts constitutes consensus. The pro-warning folks feel that amoung other things, parties who would be interested in commenting are not being made aware of the goings on.

Would you be interested in helping? If not, would you suggest another Harmonious Editing Club member whose alley this might be more up? Am I barking up the wrong tree? What other venue or process would you suggest to try to help this issue unfold better?

Thanks! Christian Campbell 03:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've been very busy at work - and will be until IBC is over in the middle of September, when I'll be able to sepnd some more time here again. Stephen B Streater 07:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Get Rolling

The Podcasting wikiproject had a brief initial surge, but has since died away. I admit my part in this, I've been very busy as of late and have had little time to do any sort of editing. However the project has had almost no progress over the last few months. Our first task is to outline notability requirements. I have placed what was 'discussed' on the talk page on the main page, but there is certainly room for more input. Once the requirements are outlined we will need to start removing non-notable podcasts from Wikipedia. You all joined this project for a reason, now let's get the ball rolling.Ganfon 15:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in a recent podcast I made about the recent FSF demos at the BBC. Stephen B Streater 07:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tomb Raider 6

Sorry if this can sound silly, but I was wondering, as you worked at Eidos (and co-founded it), if you could tell me if there was any plans to finish the story of Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness, in one game or two, or in a book or a comic. I know the franchise was ruined because of the incomplete game, but I think it would be fair to the fans to finish it, for the consistence of the series. If you don't know, do you know how and were and from who I can learn anything about that? Thanks for your time. Klow 21:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I don't know what current plans are, but you could always ring up the company, or visit them in Wimbledon! Stephen B Streater 07:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be solved

I have taken the "List of Companies" problem (what to do with an entire class of articles that get repeatedly submitted for deletion en mass?) for debate to two different places. This really needs to be solved once and for all (we can't keep debating the same stuff for eternity). Would you take a look at either the discussion on the Village Pump or the relevant wikiproject? Aditya Kabir 15:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that as the number of Wikipedia users increases, it will be easier to keep this information up to date. The important thing is to say what the date of relevant information is, and to ensure that only companies which have sufficient outside interest are included. Stephen B Streater

PS I prefer categories to lists for this type of thing, as they are self maintaining and don't get out of sync. Stephen B Streater 08:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Filmmaking Announcement

A PROPOSED PROJECT MERGER with WikiProject Films is under consideration. All opinions and questions are strongly encouraged! Girolamo Savonarola 01:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Podcasting

Hi Stephen B Streater, I noticed you were on the list as a member of WikiProject Podcasting! 2008 brings new updates to the project, such as Wikipedia 1.0 article assessment ratings, and new podcast infoboxes editors are working on.

In order to help us know who is working on writing, sourcing, rating articles, and in general helping out the project, I encourage you to check out the WP:PODCAST main page and move your name into the 2008 members list. If you'd like to still be part, but have a more indirect involvement on the project, feel free to leave your name on the former members list. Of course, if you're too busy with other commitments and wish to leave the project, simply remove your name. We'll sure miss you though! :)

The year ahead we would like to focus our energy on not only improving articles, but also provide WP:RS reliable sources to ensure each article meets WP:V verifiability.

All the best and happy podcasting. --Breno ^talk 10:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, I became interested because I podcast some of the videos I make. I subscribe to a few too, so am happy to contribute when I get the time. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:ScienceApologist

Yes - the trick is to provoke your opponents less than they have provoked you so as to diffuse the situation. Your lack of respect for the ignorant and opinionated should not show through into your impartial and well reasoned edits - the debate should be about the content, not the people. And Admin needs quite a low level of performance - mostly being uncontroversial. This is clearly a flaw with Wikipedia, but one which is easy to circumvent by obeying the rules they enforce. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no "trick". It's about civility. It's about being nice to other people. It's about not provoking people. He needs to start interacting civilly with the community. - Revolving Bugbear 17:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My experience of SA, which goes back several years, suggests he has a lot of good things to add, but that he has some kind of autism which means he does not understand what you mean by civility. Arbcom decisions which he does not understand are not helping. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda.

You're a like-minded user, so I thought I'd share this with you.

Aside from Chairman Mao on my user page, here's some stuff I just made:

• Obey Consensus (white)
• Obey Consensus (black)
• Consensus Zombies

Your thoughts? I admit some of the stuff I've said in the past has been pretty stupid, but overall, some of the remarks I've seen from others have as well, too. The inclusionism\deletionism debate is an improper characterization, since it's really mre of a debate over objectivity and factual accuracy versus a naive, anti-intellectual culture of subjectivism and relativism, which promotes a naive tolerance for fringe views, false assertions, unsourced or poorly sourced assertions, and bias. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that most people operate on simple rules which work most of the time. Consensus is one of them. Without these simplifications, life is just too complex to handle. I suggest your credibility will increase as you increase the proportion of sensible and uncontroversial article edits. This will also allow you to add depth to your arguments. You will then come back stronger and win more people over. But I thought your images were good ;-) PS You edit a lot - be careful not to get disillusioned and burnt out. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen, the college couses I've taken in Psychology lead me to believe otherwise. The average person's opinion of you is developed in roughly the first 30 seconds that they meet you. Any experiences involving the person after that are usually incorporated into that framework. See Categorical perception. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But here you constantly meet new people, so you get lots of chances for your 30s. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 07:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Noticeboard

You may not realize it but you split my comment. Could you please place you comment under mine. Feel free to move my response as well. Anthon01 (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - I'll fix it now. Apologies. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So are you agreeing to allow the inclusion of the statement in DN article under a revised section name? Anthon01 (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - it would appear to have sufficient independent comment for a mention. It's ironic that the mention says that there is no evidence that homeopathy works! If the article gets longer (particularly the medical section), or third parties give it more weight, we could say more without giving undue weight. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Shortcut

In my current holding pattern, I have created a link that I think you and others might find useful. WP:PSCI Cheers. Anthon01 (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clesh

If you can find good sources, add them to the article and note why they help at the AFD. We're an open community, so anyone can work on anything. Also, be open as to your involvement, and no one should give you any grief. Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 00:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are perhaps a little naive to say that anyone can work on anything. There are forces of darkness who like to throw their weight around and don't like the status quo to be challenged. And some forces for good who feel the same way. Perhaps I'll ask on the AfD if people would welcome comments from me. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen, someone else contacted me about Clesh - I'd be willing to help out but I don't have much knowledge of Clesh and its relationship to FORscene. If you provide sources, I can evaluate them and (if they seem reasonable to my uninvolved eyes) then I will add them. I do understand your concerns - many editors react strongly to the appearance of COI, even if the edits are good. ATren (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your offer. I'll be in touch. Stephen B Streater (talk)

General rules of thumb: don't edit the article itself, except to revert vandalism and blatant libel; and even then, be very clear and forthright in your edit summaries. If you have suggestions to improve the article, make 'em on the talk page. If there's an AfD going, make comments on the AfD, but probably abstain from any delete/keep position; and again, be forthright on your COI. Be aware that we've been burned so often that many of us are cynical and suspicious about any involvement by an involved party, no matter how innocent. I don't say it's fair; but I do maintain that it's totally comprehensible. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the debate seems to have the usual logical errors such as absence of proof for bold assertions being mistaken for proof of absence. However, there seems to be a reasonable debate going on. Given the references quoted are from a national news paper, Europe's third largest ISP at the time, an independent broadcast journal and the Royal Television Society, I wonder what the sceptics would consider a (realistic) reliable source. Most detailed reviews are web-based, as you would expect these days - and ironically, Wikipedia tends not to allow these! Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines suggest to me that dedicated articles and lesser mentions are all important - though you need more of the latter if you don't have enough of the former. Either way, here are a selection of non-blogger references. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a recent article review. Apparently it's a reliable source. [1]. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another Polish web one: [2]. Again, it looks like a reliable source - perhaps one of our Polish readers could comment. It's certainly independent. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's German language pdf link: [3]. Google starts as: "Clesh, die quasi eine Erweiterung der Web-Anwendung YouTube. darstellt. Dem professionellen Bereich dient Forbidden Technologies mit ...". You have to pay to access it, but that does not rule it out of Wikipedia for the purposes of reliable sources - most of which are charged for. Perhaps a German speaker could look into it. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article talks about a real life Clesh workflow: [4]. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article about the significance of Clesh which is not written by Tiscali, and was published by a UK national newspaper in English: Forbidden Technologies launches Internet film-editing. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen, I can't help with the Polish or German, unfortunately. Perhaps we can find other editors who speak those languages. Overall, however, it seems as if the sourcing is weak. I will vote keep, but I don't anticipate my keep vote will be very convincing to other editors who value notability much more than I do.

I've never much agreed with notability when it comes to obvious things. In this case, Clesh is obviously a video editing platform, written to run in a browser. These are confirmed by web sources and such - which IMO are sufficient sources for obvious things like this. Why do we need to establish notability to say that? I would say, keep the Clesh article, trim it down to a stub, with links to FORscene, etc. but consensus opinion around here is that such articles fail the notability test and should be deleted outright.

Similar argument for Unimodal: we know it's an undeveloped concept, we know he's promoted it for nearly a decade, why not have a small article saying that? I guess I'm just a card-carrying, bleeding heart inclusionist. ;-) ATren (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - the arguments about sourcing are well argued and relevant within the context of Wikipedia. The difference between Clesh and Unimodal is that Clesh exists and generates third party reports with increasing regularity - it is only a matter of time before there is unambiguously enough third party material to report on. This will only happen with Unimodal once it is built - which could be a long time away! Like you, I generally prefer to keep information if it is verifiable and interesting. Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But UniModal/SkyTran has at least half a dozen media cites (including the NY Times, LA Times, and several others), so it's conceptual status is actually more reliably documented than Clesh's actual existence. But in either case, there is a verifiable slice of information that should be included for both, regardless of the inherently subjective notion of notability (which I've always disagreed with, but which nevertheless has become consensus opinion around here). So I think both will probably go... ATren (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only time will tell. Unimodal survived the last AfD - and quite a few people are asking for another AfD. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for these links. I wasn't sure about the German / Polish ones but added them to the article anyway and asked for some help interpretting them on the Polish / German talk pages. So far, a Polish speaker has volunteered some help by reading the Polish articles. They responded on the AfD page for Clesh. In their opinion the Polish articles did not add notability so they removed them from the references list, citing they were reviews. However there is an external links section, so for now have re-inserted them there. mk (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mis-typed the Polish review link, which the Polish Wikipedian has corrected. Apparently it's quite complementary :-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UniModal's deletion

Hi, I think you might be interested to know that UniModal was deleted... and I set up a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_5#UniModal. Feel free to comment or not. Fresheneesz (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a comment. If it goes to AfD, the question still remains as to whether it should have an article of its own. I think I supported delete last time, preferring a mention in the main article. I'll see what new references / third party comment have come up since then. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to merge UniModal into SkyTran - is it appropriate to start doing that before the AfD is complete? Fresheneesz (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would do this if you thing the information is relevant to the SkyTran article and is well sourced. Copying things verbatim is an issue because of the licence conditions - that the originators of the material have a right that their content be acknowledged - which would mean that Unimodal couldn't be deleted unless SkyTran was too. If you made the content yourself, or paraphrase it from the original sources, this won't be a problem. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the SkyTran article should be deleted and UniModal moved to SkyTran. That way the history is kept all in the right spot. I'll just wait until the AfD is over. Fresheneesz (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NLP

I am proposing deletion of the entire set of articles on Neurolinguistic programming. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuro-linguistic programming. NLP is an extraordinary pseudoscience that is so successful at disguising itself as real science that it had many people fooled for a long time. I'm amazed this has gone on for so long but enough is enough. I would appreciate any help on this as there is bound to be a bitter fight - there are a number of commercial interests involved and there is evidence of some inside support in Wikipedia itself. I have a separate file of information if you are interested, but for obvious reasons that cannot go on-wiki. Best. Peter Damian (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am interested. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]