User talk:Stephen B Streater/Archive 2

Art of War/Wall Street Quote

I have just pulled out the DVD of the movie and turned on subtitles to make sure. The quote is absolutely correct without dispute. Just FYI I know this has been bothering you. :) FrankWilliams 16:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking. I'll sleep soundly tonight :-) Stephen B Streater 16:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FORscene

I put some comments on its discussion page. Fresheneesz 19:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Stephen B Streater 19:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUPP

Actually, I would say that the poll is about as even as possible. Just over 60% is not enough to create a policy and +30% is not enough to show that the policy doesn't have a hope. I can't think of a more neutral point in a straw poll. —David618 ^t 20:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what does this mean? That we are asking the wrong question! What we need is a poll on:

Status quo (very old now, so in need of update if only for clarification)
Something much more popular than the status quo which moves us forward

Can you think of something which will attract a significant proportion of the opposers? Stephen B Streater 20:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea at Tony's Nth RfC

Hello Stephen, I just wanted to lend you some support for the idea you expressed at Tony's RfC. I don't think that a software change is the way to go at this point, but I didn't want you to feel like you were being smacked down. Please keep bringing up ideas. I think when people aren't in a stressful RfC situation they'll be a little more kind.

And congrats on being a new father! :) --F a ng Aili ^talk 14:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) Stephen B Streater 14:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

undeleting

I saw this on Tony's talk page in response to me... "might even change my Green Energy vote if someone (perhaps a new ++Admin) feels inclined to include the userbox so I can see it."... Was that directed at me? If so, I am always happy to undelete things on request and userify them, just let me know (via link if possible) what the thing in question is so I can review it. ++Lar: t/c 14:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was directed at you (Tony never got round to doing it). I meant to add it to the top of the DRV debate so everyone can see what they are talking about. Stephen B Streater 14:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I'm a bear of very little brain. can you give me a link to what we're talking about? Is it this: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Template:user_green_energy Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that was it, done. A tip: ALWAYS give links to EVERYTHING. Especially if you're asking for an action to be performed, make it as easy as possible for the person you're asking to know what it is that is being asked. Happy Editing. ++Lar: t/c 15:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - that's it. Thanks for the tip. Stephen B Streater 15:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Codec Information

I maintain a separate Wiki called MultimediaWiki that documents as many hard, technical details of multimedia technology as possible. I just became aware of Forbidden's codec techs and will be writing them up soon. I recognize this is a long shot, but are you at liberty to discuss any underlying details of the ESCAPE video codec used in various games published under the Eidos umbrella? Thanks. --Multimedia Mike 22:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can talk about the things in the patents, as they are published. I'll see if we have copies at work, so I can summarise the pertinent details. Stephen B Streater 22:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A haiku of thanks

Thanks for your support

In my RfA, which passed!

Wise I'll try to be.

I really appreciate your confidence, and keep spreading those positive vibes!

-- Nataly a 04:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

notation was/were

Apologies -- actually this is a difference between British and US english. In British "notation were" is correct collective nouns are treated as plurals in British but not US english. I corrected it by reflex forgetting that I was editing something international. --Richard Clegg 14:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick straw poll of an English and a South African has both of them preferring eg "The herd is moving on". Perhaps both are standard these days. Stephen B Streater 15:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Bartleby http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/020.html "In British usage, collective nouns are more often treated as plurals: The government have not announced a new policy. The team are playing in the test matches next week." Given that British usage allows either and US usage prefers the singular, I think sticking with your "notation was" is the best plan. --Richard Clegg 16:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I've been watching too much American TV, as I'm more happy with the US usage given in your reference (and I was born in the US too). I'll bear this in mind when writing about British subjects. Stephen B Streater 17:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rotating admins

I don't really have any criteria as such, but off the top of my head, I think that if we made it a thousand edits, of which 500 must be article edits, and if the person has ever been blocked, a thousand clean edits since the block (because even the best editors occasionally get heated, or blocked for 3RR), that would be close to it. What do you think?Grace Note 23:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's an interesting idea.

Pros

Lots of people would get some admin experience
Being an admin would become much more routine as it wouldn't depend on consensus support

Cons

Some undesirable people would gain powers - many who currently fail RfA, for example
The average experience of an admin would plummet
Everyone knows an Admin who can help out, but if all admins are rotated, they may all become strangers
The influence of the Trustees and Stewards would be less, as day to day administrators would no longer know them
RfA tells people how they could improve and raises many interesting issues - this would be missing
I've only been here a few months, and have already come across two admins who have apparently been de-sysopped - Rob Church and Ed Poor. Is this change necessary?

Concerns and proposed work arounds

Many people do not want to become admins because of the extra work involved, so there would have to be an opt-in
Many people dip in and out of Wikipedia, so there would have to be some way of making sure the admins were active - perhaps based on recent edit activity
Most users don't know how to use the Admin tools. This doesn't matter at the moment because at least one admin does know, but if all Admins were rotating, an exam might be required
Bad editors/admins would constantly come round and round - more wheel wars and less consistency would follow. A negative RfA could prevent this, though this could harm community spirit

It's a complex area, and I think support of such a big change might depend on the detail. Perhaps a less dramatic change to the current system would surfice

Long term Admins generally keeping their power to ensure there is always a pool of experiences Admins available to the project
A way of protecting experienced users against a single Admin of their choice - abuses of power seems to be rare enough for this to help a lot
People who fail (or would fail) RfA not to have Admin powers
More account in RfA to be taken of how well users know each other
Smaller changes are more likely to be implemented and to be improvements

I hope this assists you in making a more detailed plan. Stephen B Streater 06:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

So, can I open that RfA now? Just zis Guy you know? 07:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't wait... But I think I ought to. I've just about absorbed what Wikipedia is about, but looking at the other RfAs, I think I would benefit from achieving at least one of the following: Interiot's edit count: 1,000 edits to main (I'll reach this the soonest); 1,000 articles (will take longer as I often work on them a bit); help with transforming an article into Featured Article Status - I'm working on Mathematics, but we're still on the first paragraph. (How many mathematicians does it take to agree a Wikipedia article? i.) PS I appreciate your guidance, which is making my time here a lot more productive and enjoyable. Stephen B Streater 08:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess JzG proposed nominating you for adminship? I have to admit, I have seen your comments around a bunch of project talk pages and policy pages, and I like the cut of your gib. I gave the idea of nominating you a thought as well. So obviously I would happily support JzG's nom. On the other hand, I also agree it's a bit early. And your article space edits seem low. -lethe ^{talk +} 08:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) Stephen B Streater 08:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's quality that counts, not quantity. Ten good, well-sourced and well written edits weighs heavier in my judgment than a hundred small ones. Just zis Guy you know? 12:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few of those :-) Stephen B Streater 13:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nod. But while many of us care about quality, my RFA got some concerns and downchecks for not having enough articlespace edits... just something to be aware of. If your goal is passage, do not worry, but if your goal is passing with a huge margin you may want to cater to some of those idiosyncracies... (personally I think the 1FA requirement is a bit onerous myself)... you'd have my support now if you were to stand. ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. I have noticed that most candidates have relatively few edits per page compared with me - or rather more articles, to put it another way. I'll be happy with some more edits behind me and some more experience at sorting situations. And knowledge of some more guidelines can only help. Stephen B Streater 16:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But do bear in mind that it's understanding of the principles which counts, and that you have amply demonstrated. Oh, and we need to increase the average age of the admin cabal. Too few of us are grown-ups :-) Just zis Guy you know? 07:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mathematics is well on the way to Featured Article - we've agreed the first paragraph :-) Also, I may have more edits than I thought - Interiot tool 1 apparently now misses some. Stephen B Streater 08:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am TOTALLY doing my bit to keep the average age of the admin cabal, my age is way up there you know, I have KIDS older than some of the 'crats. Except I'm not IN the cabal, I'm just a regular admin. I've dropped all sorts of hints and no one has yet to put the Rouge Admin flag on my page so... I'll have to plot on, er PLOD on, without you all. ++Lar: t/c 17:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, here's what Interiot's tool 2 gives:
Username Stephen B Streater
Total edits 1856
Distinct pages edited 327
Average edits/page 5.676
First edit 11:14, 12 February 2006

(main) 760
Talk 419
User 217
User talk 172
Template 1
Category 1
Wikipedia 158
Wikipedia talk 128
Stephen B Streater 17:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on prototype FORscene article...

[BTW if these comments are better placed on the discussion page of FORscene say aye and I will move them]

I found the article informative, factual and focussed, and I appreciate the need to keep it this way even more so for Wikipedia. I failed to spot any errors (as you already know however, I'm not so good with dates). But I do have some comments which may be of use as I have been following FORscene development for some time.

Was there a player written in native code at one point, is this a notable milestone (perhaps not if that path is no longer being developed)?
What about FORscene's defence against piracy, not just relative to tapeless and non-tapeless, are the benefits even over other tapeless systems? Or would this be out of scope as it might belong more in an article about video deliver i.e. relating to FORweb / FORmobile?
What about privacy too - how is this addressed by FORscene (e.g. lots of TV/films are kept heavily under wraps during production)?
Worth having a section on enhancements planned / in the pipeline (e.g. storyboard)?
There is no mention of integration with FORlive in terms of ability to edit monitor, edit, and publish from a live stream (which I believe is possible as it is something mentioned in relation to MyGard)?
Add some balance by mentioning alternatives? I don't know of any professional products but I know of at least two consumer oriented products - eSEQ / eyespot. I appreciate this route can get messy as it could open the door to personal opinion... Perhaps competing products could be referenced as external links? Also on competition, you mention how blackbird addresses issues of video editing over the internet but do not say what these issues are or why other methods do not solve them so well, is it worth adding more on this topic (without compromising any IP?)
So far as I know FORscene is 'net native' - i.e. it is built wholly on internet technologies e.g. pure Java - but the article does not mention the fact it uses HTTP - is this worth mentioning given I believe it has significance in terms of requiring less administration to make it work over firewalls and so on?
Are their any allowances one would have to make regarding FORscene? e.g. would editors used to tape-based or other systems have to make some significant sacrifices or changes in working practices? Is it as easy to use as some other systems e.g. eSEQ (BTW I noticed on Formidable's site that they had school children using FORscene).
You have external links to some Forbidden pages but not FORlive - which has been streaming live footage 24x7 for what seems an age (at least more than two years).
Vrious output methods are mentioned but not XML which I thought I read somewhere it handled.
If somebody wanted to get a basic idea of how to use FORscene, referencing the Clesh tutorial may be a convenient way to see practially how it works. Although as FORscene is aimed at professionals, the tutorial may convey a false impression. Is there an equivalent video for professionals?
How is collaboration supported? I have seen libraries of footage on the Clesh site. But I also read about being able to view video as it is being assembled. There is no section covering collaboration. Does collaboration mean logging in with your own ID but being able to view / use folders and footage shared with somebody else?

mk 20:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth leaving these here as they are here, but if you copy the suggestions to User talk:Stephen B Streater/FORscene I'll carry on discussion there (in a couple of days). Stephen B Streater 23:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on article talk page + fixed up now. Stephen B Streater 20:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Make it live~~ I have made it live, if anyone complains send them to me. Just zis Guy you know? 23:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) Stephen B Streater 06:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unimodal and JzG

JzG just blanket deleted most of the scrutinized information on the UniModal page. I reverted his edits, because I don't think it is at all proper to delete so much information with absolutely no discussion. I think I'll need your help on this one. Fresheneesz 23:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BOLD, WP:V, WP:NPOV#Undue weight and so on. Just zis Guy you know? 23:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind this edit [1] incuding this quote: as a recent example, I agree with him [JzG] that Unimodal is not deserving of its own page, at least until it acquires either significant funding or has built significant actual hardware. The AfD was close - 3 for delete and 2 for keep, and Skybum didn't vote, perhaps because of the work you have put in on improving the article since the last deletion. He could easily have swung the consensus to delete. The point is that JzG is not miles out of line with consensus. His editing of Unimodal is not a personal attack on you or your presentation but based on Unimodal only just qualifying for an article at all. I think the article should be shorter rather than longer given the difficulty with the sources - mostly quoting the designer and his own projections rather than independent ones. I helped make it more concise after AfD. As you know, I voted for delete, but I respect you work on improving the article and will keep an eye out for new (independent) reporting. The article is well placed for expansion when an authoratitive and external analysis gives independent information, critically examined. Stephen B Streater 08:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just find it disheartening that he removed:

everything that had a reference mark,
4 of 6 sources, and
two items that had grounds in real science written in the pages Drag (physics) and Rolling resistance.

I hardly think removing those things makes for a better or more NPOV article. Fresheneesz 10:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might find one or two of these points helpful:

Remain dispassionate so that your judgement is not affected. See WP:OWN.
JzG represents a majority view amongst top-tier Wikpedian editors on what should be in good articles - ie only material of a minimum quality (eg WP:CITE WP:RS WP:V).
I have written, re-written and amended large sections of articles. For example: Java is a dynamic subject, which often arouses fierce arguments. I re-wrote most of this section Mobile devices in this edit. This section was accepted and later completely moved to its current position in a new article. People do not reject radical edits on principle provided they match the consensus mood.
I don't insist on getting my way quickly unless the other person is obviously wrong and refuses to see reason. People who are unreasonable and wrong are likely to be rejected by the consensus of editors who then quickly and completely support my edits.
If my ideas are strong enough, other editors incorporate them too. The stronger the argument, the more likely this is to happen. Conversely, if it doesn't happen, it can be a sign that I need to tighten up my thinking.
The place for arguing a difficult case is the talk pages, not the edit summaries.
When I persuade people, they revert to my preferrred version for me so there is no need to guard my edits.
If the consensus is balanced and I'm right, someone else comes along sooner or later and tips things my way.
At Unimodal, there was no consensus to keep and in fact a majority to delete. I would aim to make the article as solid as possible.
JzG likes getting good articles quickly - he fixes a lot of things. He has a more blunt approach to fixing articles than me, and has respect because he is usually right and also because:
JzG is open to persuasion by quality (not quantity) of argument. If he is not convinced, bring in better evidence. If there is none, you may be wrong.

My changes to Unimodal made it shorter, but my changes were consensual between us - the only two editors on it at the time. Your comment Why did you remove this section. followed by Ah ok, merging the sections is fine. show that there was no consensus between us for deleting chunks. You have plenty of edits yourself and I respect that. You'll remember my DRV comment about the risk of having an article with few editors. Working together, I think we improved the article a lot. There was no consensus between us for major deletions, when I got too busy at work to move things on again.

On your specific points:

My preference is for more references rather than fewer, because references are easier to ignore than to find. Because of the hypothetical nature of the system, this article needs more independent references from more reliable and independent sources (quality not quantity) - for example what other experts are saying about the design, and its pros and cons compared with other systems. I added some of the references originally to beef up what looked to me like speculative content, so I'm not surprised that some things with reference marks were first for the chop.
The Drag and resistance areas were both areas we had discussed because they were not clearly appropriate. They touched on WP:OR and I would have expected a mention with a third reference to this content.

My suggestion is to work together with JzG and (if you're lucky) lethe [2] who is very knowledgeable on technical subjects. And work on PRT, where the existence of the article is not in doubt. If Unimodal looks too verbose, it may get proposed for AfD again and may lose next time. It's already a lot longer than JzG's original summary in PRT. Don't forget WP:OWN. PS I am happy to continue working with you to improve this encyclopaedia. Stephen B Streater 14:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit by A Transportation Enthusiast says Freedom Ship has a small article, and SkyTran deserves one too. I agree the old one was a bit too long and needed to be shortened. And he voted keep. So please don't be too harsh on JzG. I think PRT is a more fruitful area at the moment. This is not a reflection on your article skills, but the underlying notability of the subject. Stephen B Streater 19:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem is, I agree that keeping the article small is a good thing. JzG just edits in an aggrivating and inappropriate manner. While every other user I have had a dispute with has discussed with me about it (and reached a consensus between us), JzG has almost never done this. His edits are almost always undiscussed, and usually are all-encompassing deletions. I really we would be more productive if JzG tried to discuss and cooperate, rather than to step in and change things when they're wrong in his opinion. Fresheneesz 20:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider yourself lucky not to have Tony Sidaway on your case. He's turned WP:IAR into an art form. I have seen JzG on many talk pages, and he's very consistent on policy, particularly looking for WP:NPOV. Proof by assertion won't wash (even from lots of people). You need actual verifiable evidence from reliable sources. These rules are there for a reason, and a lot of the problems come from relying too strongly on non-independent sources. If you get stronger evidence for your edits, you'll find life a lot easier. Wikipedia is very clear - it is not here to contain all truth. This always comes as a surprise, but there it is. Stephen B Streater 20:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Col legno

I was wrong; the description is actually in some other article (Playing the violin?). So maybe there could be an inter-article link to that section. There's a whole list of bowing techniques described there, or somewhere.

Yes, it's here. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 23:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I've added this link in. It's better than repeating all the material. Stephen B Streater 23:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Getting users confused. No he isn't blocked. --Woohookitty^(meow) 22:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Video Hosting Sites

This discussion refers to this article. Stephen B Streater 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephen, we appreciate that you like YouTube, but you can't keep reverting Video Hosting Sites external to a website that you like and deleting competitors as "spam". Thank you for ceasing and desisting your vandalization of that page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.165.145.236 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 13 June 2006.

YouTube, which was present in the article when I arrived, has an internal link. Your favourite site(s) don't have articles and are not mentioned in this article and do not appear any different from any other video hosting sites, so look like spam to me. Stephen B Streater 15:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. WP:EL and WP:SPAM apply. Just zis Guy you know? 16:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a list in. I wouldn't say FORscene qualified as a notable video hosting platform, except that it is notable and a video hosting platform so I've left it off that list. I included Wikipedia as it has local interest, and FORscene is relevant here, but I suspect that Wikipedia is not signficant in the scheme of things, so really that whole section on Wikipedia should go. Stephen B Streater 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In mitigation, I'll just mention that other articles, such as The Register have particular sections on relevance to Wikipedia. I find these interesting in a rubbernecking sort of way. Stephen B Streater 22:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken off the FORscene mention - surprisingly it was left by the last poster, who deleted YouTube for being non-notable. Perhaps he's been reading the AfD ;-) The section on need for video hosting is much more relevant. Stephen B Streater 09:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Do you think you could help User:Dr1819? He is incensed that one of his articles has been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Male Unbifurcated Garment) and has similar problems at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men's fashion freedom. He appears convinced that these deletion votes are motivated by opposition ot the idea of men wearing anythign other than trousers - I'm guessing he's had a few heated arguments in the past and is a bit sensistive on the issue. He's clearly intelligent, but doesn't seem to realise that I'm not some snotty acne-infested kid (or maybe he just thinks that's how I think of him - it's not, of course). Anyway, he is so incensed at the deletions and subsequent reviews of Male Unbifurcated Garment that he will not understand what I'm trying to tell him about the problem with his articles; he comes up with long screeds which simply don't address the point. As you may know I have family problems right now and simply don't have time to give him the TLC he needs to calm him down - I hope you might be able to get him off the ceiling and starting to talk rationally. Right now he's headed for a block (and when he was warned about WP:CIVIL he accused the warning admin of incivility by "calling forblocks or bans" - he doesn't seem to know the difference between an incitement and a warning). You have impressed me before with your patience, I hope you can help. Thanks, Guy. Just zis Guy you know? 17:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can help out with this. I noticed the DRV, but haven't taken part. Stephen B Streater 18:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. The man has a stubborn streak almost as wide as mine... Just zis Guy you know? 19:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll enjoy reading up on your discussions then ;-) I've read through the AfD already, and am linking together what I know of the subject - though family beckons right now. Stephen B Streater 19:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I helped. Or am at least part of the solution. Things have quietened down, and the gist of the two deleted articles condensed into clothing#Male alternatives. Stephen B Streater 14:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fringe terms have been rejected, but the concept of men wearing these clothes still remains. [3] I think it's safe to leave it with them now. Stephen B Streater 08:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. It's exhausting, dealing with the highly passionate. That and moving house, on top of my sister dying, I don't have half the patience I usually do. :-( Just zis Guy you know? 12:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've just bought a new house too (though we fortunately have plenty of time to fix it before we move in) - and I've got a big exhibition next week, so I can appreciate how patience must be preserved for important things. Various people have agreed to go away and find some actual evidence, which will either be possible or will not be. Even Unimodal seems to be mostly settling down now :-) Stephen B Streater 13:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever next?

An article on PRT on a related project... Just zis Guy you know? 20:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea :-) I think every article should have its reality reflection. Only unpublished original research would be allowed. I wonder which articles would come out more believable ;-) Stephen B Streater 21:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forth

I'm curious how you got interested in Forth? (You can reply here, I'll watchlist you.) Ideogram 22:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, deep down I'm a hacker. I'm old enough to have written in machine code (6502) so I like the simplicity of Forth. Stephen B Streater 22:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in the discussion I'm having at User talk:Tobias Bergemann#forth and scheme. Ideogram 13:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your patience and perspective would be a great help at programming language too. Ideogram 13:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added both to my watchlist. I'll look around for a while and then start contributing. Stephen B Streater 14:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Ideogram 14:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My earliest programming was on Z80 - in hex. We didn't even have an assembler at first :-) My first programming job was writing real-time control systems for roadstone coating plant (in 128k of RAM). Just zis Guy you know? 09:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real men program in hex :-) Stephen B Streater 12:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wusses. Binary or nothing... Just zis Guy you know? 12:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before the wheel we only had 1's. Ideogram 23:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel war! rouge admin abuse! Oh, wait... Just zis Guy you know? 14:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

notability and verifiability

Of course I want to preserve verifiability in our proposal. Does it imply that one should disregard verifiability anywhere? The main purpose of the essay is to encourage people to use official policy or guidelines rather than use "notability" (which isn't either a guideline or policy) as an issue. Fresheneesz 19:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a long-standing guideline, and it exists as a portmanteau of formal policies: a subject which is notable will have gained sufficient external coverage in reliable secondary sources for us to verify that it is covered neutrally without straying into original research and ensuring that we don't include indiscriminate information, soapboxes or trivia. It's shorthand, nothing more. Just zis Guy you know? 22:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone uses it for shorthand - most don't that I've seen, as those who call an article non-notable aren't looking for sources or neutrality. Fresheneesz 07:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only saw the report on your essay, not the essay itself. Please could you provide a link? Stephen B Streater 17:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Video-related Stubs

Hi Stephen. To answer your question over on Talk:FORscene about whether you should be writing stubs for ALE and so on - broadly yes. With my brain all full of Broadcast Live knowledge right now, and looking at the Avid and FCP pages and just generally clicking around the relevant links, it looks as though there's a fair bit of information sitting at the very top of your brain that should be and isn't on Wikipedia. Clearly therefore it would be an excellent use of your time to put it here - both the video-stuff, as it were, and the new-technology-stuff. The Avid-related pages are astonishingly small considering their enormous power in the market, for example. --JennyRad 11:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'll start with Avid Log Exchange and improve AAF. Stephen B Streater 11:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]