User talk:Stephen B Streater

Archive of talk sections which have been dormant for six months.

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• Archive 5
• Archive 6
• Archive 7
• Archive 8

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

2010 page referring to Psion 1 'PDA' in 1984. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^[1] to an extent^[2] like this^[3] is in no way needed^[4] and in fact^[5] detracts from readability.^[6] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Match cut Three film examples still require references
• Edit Decision List
• Continuity editing
• Shot reverse shot Requires a conventional film example
• L cut One film example still requires a reference
• Insert (filmmaking) Done
• Eyeline match Done
• Cutaway (filmmaking) Film examples require references
• Axial cut Done
• Cutting on action Done
• Jump cut
• Buffer shot
• Cross-cutting
• Dissolve (filmmaking)
• Fast cutting
• Slow cutting
• Flashback
• Video logging
• Establishing shot Started
• Long shot

Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...

Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've added the list to Film talk page. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be discussed on the policy talk page. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted there. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not cheeky! Thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] - you can now honestly say that you had one of your fantasies fulfilled today... ;-) Risker (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is full of surprises :-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I was thinking of making the same edit at Fermi paradox. The word "virtually" in that sentence did not make sense, and was "virtually" unnecessary. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. You know what they say? Great minds think alike! Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephen. You edited the 5D Mark II article, asking whether House used to shoot on 35mm. That's indeed the case, as the Imdb technical page confirms: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0412142/technical

35 mm (Fuji Eterna 400T 8583) Super 35 (source format)

The way you edited the sentence makes it sound as if the Mark II has only been used on these two productions (Saturday Night Live and House). I had originally phrased it "such as [...]" because other productions have made use of the camera as well. Cinematographer Rodney Charters for example has shot the Mark II on the TV show 24 numerous times. 24, too, normally shoots on 35mm film:

35 mm (Kodak Vision2 Expression 500T 5229) 35 mm (Kodak) (3-perf) Super 35 (3-perf) (source format)

Chris TC01 (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I think it is worth inluding inline references for statements like this. I'd be happy with a more expansion version too. Stephen B Streater (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Immunize (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I replied on your talk pages. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a very precise sourced version and Captain Occam insisted it be shovelled away into a non-existent criticism section. The point is not about Lynn. but whether the data presented is up to snuff. Mathsci (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - we now have a much better paragraph to discuss, so its inclusion is much more likely and its prominence will be higher. And Captain Occam has graciously acknowledged your general point that it should be included. If editors can at least slightly push in the same direction, we'll continue to make progress with the article. Stephen B Streater (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was not to edit the article again, but I was familiar with that material. Mathsci (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't generally go for compromise - see the top of User_talk:JzG for a quote - but stepping stones towards the best solution are often the most effective way to get there, particularly when editors start from different places. And sometimes I learn something new and end up where I wasn't expecting. Stephen B Streater (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic, really, that the #ashcloud has brought down the CloudCamp. I hope you'll be free for the rescheduled event. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And with a conference all last week and an investment show next Saturday, I was looking forward to something to fit in mid-week ;-) I'll let you know if I hear anything about the next one before you do. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is to let you know that there is now a discussion at AN/I regarding an issue that you commented on here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback on the new Assumptions section of Race and Intelligence. I think it is an improvement and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. I also think that having the participation of you and some other new, experienced editors has helped, at least a bit, with the dynamics of the article. David.Kane (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! This has always been one of the more interesting articles to be involved with, but I feel we are making quite a lot of progress these days. Stephen B Streater (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to weigh in here. --causa sui (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my edit comment; I think it explains my concern. Crum375 (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But the current version is even worse - it says they cannot be included as long as secondary sources exist - ie if they can be included at all, it is only when there are no secondary sources. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems the latest version is clearer. Crum375 (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that issues such as the one I raise here are among your areas of expertise.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well played. Greg L (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The graphic works under Firefox and Safari as you predict. It also plays smoothly on my N900. PS I was considering issuing a block notice to E for "Disruptive editing, abuse of editing privileges and wrong POV" but he changed his edit first ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty as charged, of course. Hey -- I now know that even if you brought me to AN/I, I could always just filibuster my way along, ignoring the criticism heaped upon me and (depending on my personality type) perhaps even feeding off of all the denigrating negative attention.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you would have to agree not to do it again :-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would agree that everyone was reading the guideline incorrectly, but I would agree that if the guideline were revised I would follow it. Maybe. Or maybe not.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to revise the guideline yourself, leading to a flurry of edits and a much clearer result. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about rudeness. But these parties just went through a five month mediation in which all these policy issues were discussed, ad nauseum, in relation to this material. Outside of a small group of scholars, most psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, and biologists do not believe that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. But a small group of editors will do whatever they can to create the impression that the small number of researchers who do believe this are represented not only as majority or mainstream (which is not true) but as representing a scientific consensus. Right now the article is in a reasonable state but there are still several areas where someone can too easily get the wrong impression. Sooner or later this wil probably just go back to mediation ... Slrubenstein | Talk 20:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would offer to mediate if I wasn't so busy. What I can do when I am around is to try to bridge people's differences and help them communicate with each other. I have tried to slow down the editing process a little so that people can understand more before they edit - Captain Occam is one of several who have been very amenable to this idea, and I'm sure many reverts in all directions have been avoided as a result of this slight change in tempo. Your lessons on policy are a useful reminder to all editors, but as you know from the NPOV discussion, even intelligent and experienced Wikipedians don't get it all right first time. I have suggested several times to some SPAs that they broaden their experience here, which will also assist them in forming an intuitive idea of what these policies mean. It is one of Wikipedia's ironies that the emotional force which drives people to edit here can also pull them away from NPOV. Luckily, editors are accountable to each other. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your gesture. Alas, some of the most thoughtful and well-informed editors have already been driven away from the article. Without a large and diverse and research-skilled or well-informed editors, most articles would be doomed, regardless of policy ... Slrubenstein | Talk 21:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The trick is to take it easy and not burn out. This is one of the most watched articles I've come across, so there will be many good editors dipping in from time to time. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephen B Streater. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! –xeno^talk 20:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you keeping the discussion focused.[2] Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't normally edit these articles, so I'm prepared to be flexible! Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made the following comments on xeno (talk · contribs)'s talk page:

I have also managed to criticise Causa sui without retaliation. There is obviously a mutual misunderstanding going on which has led to mistrust. Issues get amplified with interaction. It is much easier to see the storms developing from the outside. Initially no one is at fault, but the unintentional mutual provocations lead to instabilities in the interaction between you. I'm sure either side could fix the problems, but if bothsides could change it would mean less work for both. In my plan, the fixes for each side would be different. The question is, would people rather be proved right and continue this disfunctional interaction, or give up that option in order to work productively together? Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I really have no idea what is going on here, but every time I try to make an edit to one of these articles I get paragraph-long diatribes about my personal character, usually on article talk pages or even my own talk page. This is harassing and has to stop. I've never descended into the same kind of juvenile behavior, and so this is absolutely not a two way street. It seems that the only way I can make them happy is to stop editing their articles, since any time they disagree with something I'm doing, they make it into a personal issue and react with aggression and hostility directed at me. If you can get someone to submit to mediation, I'll be there; I tried once and had no luck. If I were outside looking in, I would have blocked for WP:NPA a long time ago. --causa sui (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You may find it hard to believe, or understand why, but some people interpret your responses as aggressive and abusive. That is why you get the reaction you do. Interactions in text, without face-to-face body language, can easily be misconstrued. This is why WP:AGF was introduced. I have suggested some courses of action which you, for example, could undertake to soothe the situation. Also for Mr E. Without additional techniques to avoid conflict, relations can occasionally and without warning spiral down quite quickly in this unnatural environment. No one has taken up my suggestions yet, though I could make some more if people actually want to work together, which is not obvious at this stage. The suggestions could prevent further hassle with other people too. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• If people are interested, I could mediate. We would be good to agree on what we all wanted to achieve though! Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It really wouldn't surprise me if some of my recent responses come off that way, because I am getting angry and frustrated about this, as I believe I am being harassed. In general, it's going to be difficult for me to accept general fault in my previous interactions without diffs. Often in these cases hostility from one party is erroneously attributed to both sides; I've seen this phenomenon many times when I was on the outside, and now I seem to be a victim. As such, there is a tendency toward inadvertent victim blaming here. If mediators can't distinguish, I'm not going to see the point. Frankly, I want to get these articles right, not waste time arguing about anyone's behavior; but I'm being continually dragged back into personal arguments about character and conduct and I'm frankly sick of it. Editing these articles is not worth the abuse, and nobody seems willing to do anything about it. That is a very bad reason for someone to stop editing. --causa sui (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm being summoned to bed - I'll reply in the morning... Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Nevermind. I'm done editing these articles. There was a time when nonsense like this would have been taken care of, but when I'm spending more time engaged in this ridiculousness rather than working on actual articles, it's time to hang it up. --causa sui (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Good morning Stephen. Gee… “Paragraph-long diatribes,” “harassing,” “juvenile behavior,” “aggression and hostility.” What(?)… no ‘kicking puppies’? My goodness. As an admin, I would truly expect him to appreciate the distinction between legitimate criticism of someone’s editing conduct v.s. personal attacks; I’m sure he’s dished out that very advise in the past to others. Please note that WP:Civility, here says incivility includes (c) lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information.

  As evidenced by Causa sui’s recent ANI, he seems prone to not heeding the advise of other editors. This tendency lead some at that time to change their votes in shear exasperation and ask for Causa sui to relinquish his administrative tools. The final tally was 13 to 7 with 3 neutrals in support of the motion. This is an ominous indicator that Causa sui’s continued support of the community is eroding and is in serious jeopardy. Causa sui, of course, did not relinquish his tools as asked.

  The solution is really quite simple. All he need do is avoid edits that exhibit a pattern of neutering terrorism-related articles so the individuals’ connections to terrorist organizations are swept aside and replaced with shear nonsense like this edit to 2007 Fort Dix attack plot, which made the United States’ most dangerous citizen read as if he was Fulbright Fellow in good standing at Princeton. I regard this as POV-pushing of the worst order. Causa sui confuses criticism of this editorial bent of his with *personal attacks*. Such unfounded charges will not deflect from the truth of the matter here and he knows full well what is required to avoid criticism of his editing and sysop behavior in the future.

  But, you know, that above advise is really playing into Causa sui’s game of laboriously poring over and picking apart individual edits and endless arguing about how falsehoods in edit summaries are due to insufficient room to explain what he really meant. I see no need for such games and think it high time to get to the root of the problem. Frankly, all these problems seem to happen because Causa sui magically happens to appear at articles right on the heels of Epeefleche where he then pulls some editing stunt he really had to know would be seen as being provocative (at the very least) or entirely inappropriate. The above-linked edit of Causa sui’s and this one to Malika El Aroud both followed right on the heels of Epeefleche.

  Accordingly, all this wikidrama has all the hallmarks of being nothing more than a long-running feud between the two that morphed into a personal vendetta. It is most unbecoming of an administrator. Frankly, this used to be called “stalking” and the phenomenon now links to WP:Wikihounding. By any name, it is improper conduct and I don’t know why Epeefleche hasn’t started an ANI to have Causa sui climb down out of his ass before now. I suggest the following, simple remedy (instead of mediation, ANIs, and RFC/Us, and all sorts of other, splendid wikidrama): Causa sui can simply take Epeefleche off his watch list and stop looking at his edit history. I pretty much guarantee that this one simple change will fix everything overnight. If Wikipedia needs to be protected from Epeefleche, the rest of the community is perfectly capable of doing so without Causa sui’s help. That simple. Greg L (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. I had an edit conflict with Causa sui while posting, above, but went ahead anyway. Seeing now Causa sui’s 00:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC), post, I agree. I find that to be another version of not butting heads with Epeefleche. I am confident the outcome will be the same: peace. Greg L (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  

OK - here's my proposal:

• causa sui to give these specific areas of conflict a wiki-break by taking them off his watchlist, and work on more fun areas for a few months;
• Epeefeche to pay particular attention to WP:BIO, which is developing at the moment - see two recent Eric Ely AfD's and related discussion on Jimbo's talk page for evidence of this;
• in the mean time, the rest of the community can police Epeefleche's actions;
• if causa sui becomes aware of a particular problem, he should mention it at ANI and let another administrator sort it out; and
• Greg L to let causa sui continue in peace.

There are enough people here that any individual can take some time off policing any other individual. Stephen B Streater (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed Wise counsel worth 1.2 miiiillion dollars. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better idea. I'll just stop editing articles for content entirely. If this is how we deal with situations like this, the person who shouts the loudest always wins. RCP is much more straightforward. --causa sui (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are under no obligation to accept my mediation proposal. But you might like to bear in mind that I have repeated for you what you have already stated as your decision above: I am done editing these articles, and included some feedback from disinterested observers at ANI. And, as you rightly notice, in this mediation proposal I am not intending to right all the wrongs on Wikipedia; merely to allow editors to continue without conflict. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was apparently displeased with events as of late. Greg L (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he will rejoin when he's had a wikibreak. Time is a great healer. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By my calculations, 1000 cc of 99.9% platinum at today’s price of $1742.50 per troy ounce is worth $1,199,600. So, two questions: 1) Why would you be making 1 cm cubes to 5 µm accuracy? And, 2) why so many? Greg L (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made them for the millennium, when there were fears the banking system would collapse (which it almost did a couple of years ago too). Platinum is the densest common element, and the only one which can be made into cubes like this. So if you want to verify their content, all you need to do is measure them and weight them. Compare this with gold bars, say, where you have to trust a hallmark, when you've no idea what a real hallmark looks like. See, for example, How to make convincing fake gold bars. So My cubes could have been either used as money directly, or used as backing for a new (temporary?) paper money issued by me. This may sounds far-fetched, but it would work nevertheless as platinum is platinum is platinum, and everyone can look up its density and its value. It's unlikely to be repeated in the short term as very few people in the world can manufacture cubes like this, and the guy who did won't do it again because he did it as a favour and it took several years longer to do than he expected. Also, the cubes make a great (and unique) executive toy  :-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I figured out the mechanics of making fake gold bars a long time ago. Fortunately, I suppose, I was never so desperate (nor rich enough to afford sufficient gold to form even a 2 mm cladding) to expose myself to the temptation. For me, it would have been being a “financial hacker”: Could I fake out a bank. In the end, I am convinced there is no easy solution around x-rays. Cobalt-60 can blast through just about anything. However, the really powerful systems are non-portable, so the gold would have to go to the Cobalt-60-based x-ray machine.

  As for the millennium, I worried not one twit. If there is a collapse of any sort, I expect it will be a viral pandemic; something as virulent as Ebola and as infectious as influenza. Were that to happen, everyone will just stay home—even first responders. Isolated people like farmers could continue to work but with transportation and distribution shut down; fuel, seed, and fertilizers wouldn’t get in; and product wouldn’t get out. Transportation by freight trains (another activity that requires little human contact) might continue by dedicated employees, but local distribution and retailing of food would stop. In circumstances like these, platinum becomes a way to transfer wealth from one individual to another, but does nothing to fix the problem at hand (severe hunger) unless you know someone who A) has a prodigious supply of a wide variety of foods, B) is a long-term thinker, and C) isn’t located very far away. Having gone on really long canoe trips to really remote regions, I can tell you that there can be times when people will bafflingly eschew one cc of platinum in favor of twelve rolls of butt-wipe and a bag of beef jerky. Greg L (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes - I have a water butt and excess fat reserves. But I hope the airlines have insurance against another pandemic, because they come round a lot more often than Icelandic volcanoes. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The mother of all pandemics to date was the 1918 influenza outbreak. One-third of the planet’s population caught it. It had a mortality rate of greater than 2.5 percent. Yet life went on in cities like New York as policemen wearing surgical masks directed traffic and ambulances raced through the streets with the seriously ill. Such a low mortality rate and a feeling that “If I’m strong, I’ll pull through” lead people to just deal with it and take their chances. Hemorrhagic fevers like Ebola have an exceedingly high mortality rate and are surprisingly infectious. Yet, they nevertheless fail to spread widely because the incubation time is short and people in the effected areas of Africa travel on foot, which limits the size of outbreaks; people tend to fall victim and die in small, village-size clusters. Jet travel will be the selective, artificial pressure that enables some, future, “winning” virus to win the evolution contest. If the next pandemic has a mortality rate of—I figure—20% or more, things will be a total mess. Now that is something to be prepared for. Greg L (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey -- what about the "Jews poisoning the wells" myth (because they washed their hands) Black Plague? Est. 75 million deaths, 30% to 60% of Europe's population, may have reduced the world's population from an estimated 450 million to between 350 and 375 million.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Or even the Toba_catastrophe_theory. Hard to blame that on anyone! Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to remove your text - I agree that consensus/editing policy needs tidying up and unifying too, but I'd rather keep that separate from this proposal, which is intended to concern a reform of content policy (i.e. NPOV/V/NOR). The points you added have more to do with WP:Consensus and WP:Editing policy (which admittedly suffer from the same problems that the content policies do).--Kotniski (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you are right of course. I'll put the consensus bit somewhere else. It just seems to crop up over and over again. Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments over at the Pump, BTW. For some reason, no one is clamouring for extremely long policy pages. Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

apropos your VPP thread, I just want to say that your citation to http://stats.grok.se/en/201002/WP%3ANPOV has totally blown my mind. I am so glad you're raising this issue about over-lengthy, unreadable policy pages. I've devoted many hours to improving these pages, only to see my efforts reverted. user:Agradman editing as 160.39.221.164 (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]