User talk:SteveBaker/archive9

Shorthand

Dear Mr. Baker -- That's a very plausible suggestion on the shorthand question! (Sorry not to get back any sooner than that.) I'll try to figure out if it can be corroborated. Interestingly the cryptic comment in question was made by none other than Robert Oppenheimer, which you might find alluring. It was in regards to reports on declassification of previously secret information, so it could very well be that he is indicating that section whatever contains information which might look innocuous (something to do with radio signal transmission, for example) did have an important military purpose (e.g. control of rockets remotely). Anyway I will let you know if anything comes up! Thanks again. --Panoptik (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - it's definitely intriguing. The thing that bothers me is why the guy wrote down just one line in shorthand in amongst all of the other longhand notes. Was he in too much of a hurry? If he knew shorthand, why didn't he write it all in shorthand? Someone who was writing a cheesy 1960's era spy thriller would suggest that he did that to hide the information from a casual gaze...or perhaps someone else wrote it? Sadly, we're not likely to figure out much more from a single line of badly written shorthand. SteveBaker (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Right—the fact that it is written in shorthand is what makes it interesting. I think it's clear that only one person wrote it (Richard Tolman, if you are curious). I've thought that either he was taking it down as direct dictation from someone (possible, though I didn't seem him do that anywhere else while going through many boxes of his papers, so that's odd), or that he was intending it to be hard to easily read (but then again all of his work on this topic was classified for a long time, so it's not like he'd have had it laying about). I lean towards the latter possibility though it doesn't entirely make sense; he was taking notes, and most of the other notes were far more inspecific (responses by other members of a committee to a report, most said things like "looks great" or "no complaints", etc.), and so maybe when he was taking notes on something semi-technical he decided to mask it a bit, even if that's not much of a safety scheme. Anyway, maybe something else will come up with further work (I'm still waiting for the archive to send me the copies I requested, so I'm doing all of this from memory and my own notes). --Panoptik (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh - yeah - he's moderately famous. Tolman as in "The Tolman Length" - surface tension and whatnot - er, the distance from the side of the glass to where the meniscus ends and the surface of the water is flat? Something like that. I used that equation not so long ago so I actualy knew that without looking it up! (Although I'll admit to clicking on your link just to be sure.)

But it seems odd to write such a short sentence down in shorthand though. Sure, if someone is going to be talking for a long time - and you want to copy it all down - then shorthand is the thing - but for one miserable little sentence...why? If it was a security thing - why not simply memorize it - it's not like the precise wording would be likely to matter and a simple technical statement about Ack-Ack and rockets is hardly difficult to remember. It's not even likely that he wrote it for someone else because shorthand is notoriously difficult to read if you aren't the person who wrote it. My mother used to do shorthand - and she always told me that it was more an aid to memory than a precise writing style. The only thing I could imagine is if he was EXPECTING it to be a long presentation - so he started taking notes in shorthand - but for some reason it ended quickly - or he found he didn't need notes after all. It's really tough to come up with a good scenario here. Well, keep me informed - I love a mystery! SteveBaker (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Protecting pages

Hey SteveBaker, quick question how to protect pages because today there was this one page that kept getting attacked and I kept reverted and trying to fix it back to it's original page. It took over an hour! See my contributions to get a feel for what I did (Drayton Manor and some football club). --n1yaNt 22:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I like participating in the reference desk, thanks for showing me it. --n1yaNt 22:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Woo! Never mind I figured it out, I fixed 45+ pages due to vandals today. I went above and beyond haha. --n1yaNt 23:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Make that 55! --n1yaNt 23:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Normal users can't protect pages - you need to be an admin to do that. But do you know about how to revert vandalism? Click on the 'history' tab - next to the entry for the vandalism, there will be an 'undo' button - click on that and it'll show you the 'before' and 'after' changes - click 'Save page' and you're done. To edit a LOT of vandalism, go to the 'history' tab then click on the date next to the most recent "good" version. That'll bring up that version of the page. Do a quick visual check that this is the right version - then click 'edit this page' and add an edit summary of "rv: Vandalism" or whatever - then hit "Save page" and you're done. SteveBaker (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's lame we can't protect things, oh well. Yes, I reverted a ton of vandalism today, I'm so proud! --n1yaNt 05:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the trouble is - whilst it is lame that you and I can't protect things - you wouldn't be so happy if one of those people you were revert-warring with went and protected their change so you couldn't edit it! It cuts both ways. It really takes quite a major effort to get an admin to protect a page. I was working on the article Computer - which is probably one of the most vandalised pages in the entire encyclopedia (perhaps second after George Bush). We were getting 20 to 50 vandals per DAY - with perhaps one or two valid edits per WEEK! If ever there was a page in need of 'semi-protection' - that was it! Still, it took weeks of gentle pursuasion and many protracted debates before we got it semi-protected (ie preventing anonymous edits - but allowing signed-on users with at least a week of experience). Even then, the semi-protection lapsed after a month or so. Getting permenant defense against vandals is almost impossible. SteveBaker (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's for clearing that up. I glanced at the history for GWB and computer...hilarious, in a Wiki-sort of way. --n1yaNt 06:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you adopted me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niyant (talk • contribs) 07:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Somehow, the two sections I added are only visible if you click on "show" to the right of the card that follows, and yet the text from my messages does not show in the edit box for this one. I apologise if I have messed something up for you. Bielle (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Turning Off Java Script Events

Hi Steve: You made mention in your comment on my comment on your answer to the OP with the "letters returned" query on the Misc. Ref. Desk yesterday that there is a way to turn off the part of the JavaScript that prevent one from escaping the clutches of some sites. Porn is not a big feature in my life, but, like the questioner, I have been caught. My browser is (and please don't yell at me; I know almost nothing about computers except -usually- how to follow instructions that allow me to use some programs, and, at 60, am not likley to get much better) IE. Can you direct me to a place where I can find the instructions? (If this should be on the Ref Desk, just let me know, and I will move it.) There is no rush. Thanks for any help you can provide, and may 2008 be kind to us all. Bielle (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't use IE (I'm a Firefox kind of a guy - I mostly use Linux) - so I have no clue how to do it in IE. Ask your question on the Computing desk - I'm sure someone will be able to tell you how. SteveBaker (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. I will think about rewording the question for the Ref Desk. Bielle (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Disappearing Act

Hi Steve: I added a question about turning off Java Script events just a few minutes ago. Its title appears in your Table of Contents, but the section has vanished. I am writing this to see if one or both new sections (this one being the second) will reappear. Bielle (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's another case of one of these "cards" that people leave here having formatting errors that mess up subsequent edits. Someone left an Xmas card that did that - it looks like the New Year card did the same thing. Gagh!

Anyway - your question has magically reappeared - and I'll answer above. SteveBaker (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Adios RD?

• Strong Oppose You can't leave - I and others will keep you as a contributor on the RD desks. Perhaps you have a major hangover this morning, I know I do!  ;-( hydnjo talk 16:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

RefDesk

Steve, I'd hate to see you leave the desks and I hope you'll reconsider your decision. I fully support your point that editing people's comments is simply wrong (and also rude and disruptive), but I don't see how your position differs much from the general editing guidelines here. No, the refdesk isn't technically a talk page, but it acts as one (we make comments and sign them, we don't edit a single comprehensive answer together as in the article space). Most of the folks who rejected your proposal seemed to feel that they were already operating under the guidelines for talk pages and didn't want to see redundant rules added. Perhaps a compromise solution would be formally request an expansion of the scope of the page I linked to, to have it be in force for all pages where people leave comments, rather than specifying only talk pages? Just a guess, but the guideline probably only specifies talk pages because they're the largest percentage of pages that meet the general criteria of pages with signed comments. Expand the terminology from "Talk page guidelines" to "Signed comment guidelines" (or similar) and get the specific protection you want without any redundancy or "extra" rules. What do you think? Matt Deres (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - it's a matter of principle - the decision is made. SteveBaker (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I'll just have to accept that then. If I could impose on your patience for just a moment longer... on the RefDesk talk page you said that the guideline for editing talk pages wasn't sufficient coverage for you because the RefDesk isn't a talk page (if I understand you correctly). My proposal was to extend that guideline so that it did cover the RefDesk (and other places folks sign comments, like AfD and FAC). I'm not sure I understand your objection to that. Do you now feel that the guideline isn't strict enough either? Matt Deres (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

While I frequently didn't even understand the questions you answered on the Ref Desk, when I did understand, I found your answers careful, logical and, quite often, amusing. I will miss your voice there. I suspect many others will, too. Thanks for all the good reading. Bielle (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I go away for a few days and this happens! I hope that we are able to find a solution which is acceptable to you, and which will enable you to resume your excellent contributions to one of the most useful corners of the Wikipedia. You will be sorely missed. DuncanHill (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, am perplexed by your reaction to this. What you want is the well established de facto situation, though there is very good reasons not to make it de jure (WP:IAR being one). Presumably in the years you have been editing no-one has edited your signed comments here or elsewhere, so why on earth would you think anyone was going to do it in the future? Unless you plan to indulge in personal attacks, libel or defamation, the chances of anyone justifiably editing your comments are essentially non-existent. Moreover, if this principle is so unacceptable to you, you should probably reconsider your signed contributions to any talk page or project space, since they too are not inviolate. The RD is simply an extension of that. I hope you will reflect on this and change your mind, Steve, as it seems awfully knee-jerk to me and would be a big loss to our readers. Rockpocket 01:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No - it's not a well established de-facto standard because at least three or four people have subsequently asserted their right to do just that - and the community didn't come out with a united front and tell them that it was unacceptable because we have a de-facto standard. Instead several people have said that they will continue to edit other people's posts - and nobody is telling them that they can't do that. But it IS a matter of principle - it's not "knee-jerk" - you know me - I think long and hard about these things.

If I sign something (a cheque, a contract, a post on the RD) it means something. It means "I, Steve Baker, hereby attest that I wrote this and I agree to it". This is a problem throughout WP - talk pages, village pump, everywhere - but it's a hundred times worse on the RD because it's a public place where anyone and everyone comes to ask questions and read replies. People who ask questions on the RD are generally not Wiki-savvy - they won't check their "watchlist" to see if the answer that was given had changed - they won't use the history mechanism either. They'll read a post - signed by me - and reasonably assume that I wrote it. NoClutter asserts the right to remove computer jargon on the computing desk and replace it with some "equivalent" form of words...but without the 40 years experience I have in the computing business - what are the odds that that's going to work without error? Others have asserted the right to "fix spelling and grammar" - fine until they change "Silicone" to "Silicon" on the science desk or "Poynting vector" to "Pointing vector" on the math desk because they think they are fixing spelling. If I make a mistake (and I often do) and I've SIGNED that mistake - then it's mine. By all means add a followup - right there under my post to say "Steve, I think you mean't Pointing vector" - and I can let it ride or explain that this isn't at all what I meant or apologise for my error. Editing my post ISN'T needed in order to do that kind of thing. The downsides of allowing this kind of thing by far outweigh the benefits.

It's not like village pump - which is somewhat a place where only fellow Wikipedians hang out - and it's not some chatline like user talk pages. It's the public face of Wikipedia - just like article space...except on the RD, we sign our posts. That makes the RD unique - and for that reason, unique rules are required. SteveBaker (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment editing at the RD

Seeing that everybody is against your proposal, just wanted to say that I support it (I think). Too bad Clio's on a vacation, she also seems concerned about the immutability of her contributions to the RD (as per userpage). --Taraborn (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be so bad if there weren't so many people who state quite clearly that they WOULD edit people's posts for various non-formatting reasons. If we had 100% unanimity that this was unacceptable - then no guideline would be needed because community pressure would suffice. But it's not like that. We're in a situation where most people are saying "we don't think people should do this but we're not going to make a fuss about it" and a few people are saying "yes, I would certainly do this" - then you need a guideline to make it clear to the few that the many say that it's not OK. Absent such a guideline - and with people who would change my posts after I've signed them - I simply can't continue to contribute. I don't want to spend all that time researching and carefully answering questions only to find some yahoo out there deciding that I meant 'effect' and not 'affect' or "fixing" an equation or picking some approximate term to replace a piece of carefully chosen jargon. That kind of thing can change the entire meaning of what I wrote - yet it's still right there with my signature on it.

This is much worse on the RD than elsewhere in WP. The problem on the RD is that the OP is unlikely to read these posts a second time (especially if they are long and complicated as my replies tend to be) and they certainly won't be checking the history (99% of them don't even know it's there) - they'll never see any subsequent fix that I might make - so they are just going to assume that I'm an idiot or something. So it's gotta be a clear guideline that people don't do that so I can say "You had no right to change my post" and they can't say "Oh yes I do".

Some people have concerns about personal attacks - but in that case, I see no problem with removing the ENTIRE post and leaving a note explaining why. But the ability to veto certain words (perhaps removing critical context from the remaining post) is not acceptable - and it's not necessary. Some people have claimed that the existing WP guidelines cover this situation - I don't think they do (although they kinda suggest what we want) - but the people who claim that are not going to the "I should be allowed to edit" people and telling them that it's disallowed by the existing WP rule...so those people don't have the courage of their own convictions. Another reason why we need a clear guideline for the RD. Yet other people claim that the RD community doesn't have the power to make guidelines - that's just B.S - we have a whole pile of guidelines that are specific to the RD that are right up there at the top of the desk ("No medical or legal...", etc) - adding a new one is just a matter of agreeing to do it.

Well, anyway - I can't tolerate a situation where I sign something to say that I wrote it - and someone else can come in and change my words. It's happened to me in the past - froth did it as a (really lame) joke one time - and couldn't understand why I went ballistic because of it. It would be different if the RD worked like article space where there was one big response that everyone edited and improved on over time - then it's a team effort and that's fair enough - but it's not like that (nor can it be - because the OP will not be continually watching for fixes to the initial reply). When NoClutter asserts the right to remove computer jargon (or at least the bits he/she considers unacceptable) - and on the computing desk of all places(!) - we have to draw a hard, bright line.

So, there it is. I tried to deal with the problem - and I failed...well, that's the RD's loss - not mine, I have plenty of other things to amuse me during those L-O-N-G compiles!

SteveBaker (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Pardon the butting in, but.. It surprises me that this would be considered much of a problem. Other than froth one time (I assume he wouldn't do it again) are people really editing other's comments for content? There should be wide agreement that this sort of thing should rarely, if ever, be done. This sounds like more of a subtle disagreement over how to make guidelines than a major disagreement over whether people should go around editing other editor's signed comments. Friday (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes - it seems so. NoClutter did it (the infamous "automagically" thing) - several other people said that they do it all the time. If it were just one case - and everyone came out and said "No, as a community we cannot accept this behavior" - then sure, we could do without a formal guideline - but read what was written. That didn't happen. What happened was that several more people came along and asserted their right to do fix grammar and spelling - to redirect links...who knows what else? Read my response to RocketPocket in the section above. It IS a matter of principle. When I sign something - it's mine, right or wrong. This isn't article-space where nobody is allowed to sign and everyone gets to tweak stuff. SteveBaker (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Steve, your comments here demonstrate are either misinterpreting or misunderstanding the discussion. I don't believe anyone claimed "that the RD community doesn't have the power to make guidelines" (If they did, I would be pleased to see the diff). Your proposal, to which there was much opposition was not to write a guideline as you suggest here. Instead you proposed we create a formal policy on this so that we can all be crystal clear about our rights, which in Wiki-terms is a very different kettle of fish. Twice now I have suggested we do incorporate this into a RD guideline [1] [2]. This may simply be a result of confusion on the difference between policies and guidelines. I hope so. If you are interested, like you suggest here, in discussing a RD guideline (instead of a formal policy) then you should put that to the community. I think you will find you may get a different response. If not, then I can only ask you again to reconsider your decision to leave, but also that you do not misrepresent the comments of others in justifying your decision. Rockpocket 19:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - I was talking in terms of a guideline - to quote my statement from the top of the thread:

"PROPOSAL: That we add to the RD guidelines something along the lines of:..."

I made a formal request to the RD group to vote to add a line to the guidelines and it was clearly and unambiguously rejected. Sure, I talked about the fact that I believe it should be policy - but I'm more than well aware that changing policy is a huge deal - that's why I asked people to vote for a GUIDELINE. That's not clear enough? Don't people read these things before they vote!?! I can believe that one or two didn't read it - but everyone? Surely not. I give people more credit than that. SteveBaker (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I read it, but when you prefix that request with a statement that you think we should make "formal policy", it sounds like you are confusing a guideline a formal policy (which of course, it isn't). This was reinforced when I pointed out that we cannot make policy in this way, you responded "Sure we are allowed to make RD policy here". A quick review of the rejects suggests your non distinction between policy and guidelines was the basis by which many rejected:

• Myself: "We are not in a position to make a "formal policy" in this manner"
• ToaT: "Such a policy would be largely redundant..."
• S.dedalus: "Reject and speedy close. Per Tagishsimon and Rockpocket."
• Steve Summit:"I don't think we need this kind of hard policy here."

I see you have now clarified your position (though I consider it rather lame to shift the blame onto others for not reading when yuo have clearly sent out mixed messages, but that is neither here not there). I hope we can now have some discussion on this that will reassure you that there community is largely in agreement with you. Rockpocket 20:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I do think we should have a formal policy...yes! But I made it abundantly clear in the proposal which I asked people to actually vote on that they were voting to add a line similar to the one I suggested to the RD guidelines. It was right there with "PROPOSAL" in big boldfaced capital letters! (Sadly, Wikipedia filters out <blink> tags!) Sure, I would like to see a policy and I said as much - but I was being realistic - and that's absolutely NOT what I asked people to vote on. I'm sorry if you were confused - and perhaps your confusion spread to others - but I think I made it crystal clear in the proposal. Hmmm - maybe I need to add "...and I hereby agree to send SteveBaker $100" to the next vote I propose - if people aren't reading them then there is cash to be made here! SteveBaker (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have this terrible urge to write "But then I would come along, and read the post you had signed, and change the SteveBaker to Bielle" but I didn't, because I wouldn't. Bielle (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so now I wonder: according to all these people, if I don't like the word "automagically" or somebody writes "it's" when it should be "its" (I'm almost fed up of seeing this, I cannot understand why so many native speakers make this mistake), am I allowed to change it? (without leaving an explanatory note, I mean) --Taraborn (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Under the guideline I've been trying to get agreement on, fixing those things in other peoples signed posts would most definitely not be allowed - either with or without an explanatory note. However, right now - per WP:TALK you ARE allowed to fix those things so long as it doesn't change the meaning of the post - and you aren't even required to leave a note. You are warned that changing peoples posts like that tends to annoy people. The trouble is that I don't trust other people not to INADVERTANTLY change the meaning of the post. While they aren't allowed to do it deliberately - I'm deeply concerned that they may do it accidentally. This could happen in possibly critical ways in the case of complex technical matters such as comes up in the science, computing and math desks (and probably in the others too). Remember - NoClutter feels it's OK to replace computing jargon terms with layman's terms - 'automagically' doesn't mean the same thing as 'automatically' to computer geeks and in "fixing" that post (which was the height of arrogance IMHO) changed the meaning of the original words - that's not allowed under WP:TALK after the fact - but NoClutter didn't know that changing that word changed the meaning - so from that perspective, it was an OK change (per WP:TALK). That's an EXCEEDINGLY dangerous situation IMHO. As I said above - lots of semi-laymen (probably 99% of refdesk denizens) would see the term "poynting vector" and in all good faith assume that this was a simple misspelling of "pointing vector" (right now, my spell checker is complaining about "poynting") and (per WP:TALK) go in and "fix" it. But in math and computer graphics, the vectors invented by the nice Mr Poynting do not "point" and changing that one word utterly changes the meaning of the post - which is NOW a violation of WP:TALK...but the damage has already been done - and since we have to Assume Good Faith, we can't even go ballistic and complain to the person who screwed it up.

Since it's very possible then that an overzealous spelling nazi might totally fsck my post - I'd prefer that my readers suffered an occasional misplaced apostrophy in order to be assured that they don't get the wrong idea about Poynting vector arithmetic. In my view, you should leave the post alone (that person made a mistake - but it's clearly THEIR mistake because they signed the post) - you are of course allowed to write: "You got the apostrophy wrong again, and you misspelled 'poynting'." in your own post right underneath theirs in the usual way. This is a much clearer way to fix important problems - and it discourages people from routinely hacking around and (possibly) disrupting posts over trivial matters that don't affect meaning or comprehensibility. We aren't trying to write perfect prose here - so long as the message gets across and answers the OP's question - nobody should give a damn whether that apostrophy belongs in "OP's" or not.

Incidentally, I'm a terrible apostrophy abuser - and I'm a native speaker of UK English. I've tried hard to reform - I bought, and read "Eats shoots and leaves" - and came away with the idea that the rules for the correct use of the apostrophy are just ridiculously complicated and gave up on it! I try to consistantly put an apostrophy when there is a missing letter ("I'm" for "I am", "don't" for "do not" and "it's" for "it is") - but otherwise, the English language is a mess and I just generally leave out all other uses of the apostrophy. Sorry! SteveBaker (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, you cleared up all doubts I had, and I have to say that I fully agree with you. I was somewhat surprised when I found out that you could remove comments on your talk page. I thought that would be blatant vandalism, but well, now I've "abused" of that twice to avoid arguing with two (personal opinion forthcoming, don't think of this as a personal attack) morons. Anyway I have an idea, you could make a template (or userbox or however that thing is called) with big shiny red letters warning the reader that perhaps what they are reading isn't what we wrote (so they can't blame us for any accidental misunderstanding caused by somebody interfering). We would, therefore, have to use it whenever we reply to a question. I know it's ugly, but it's the best we can do. --Taraborn (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin rollback

I know we've had our differences recently but I just wanted to let you know I think your post here Wikipedia talk:Non-administrator rollback#Who likes polls? was one of the best in this whole very long and tiring debate (which I've only read a small part of) since I think it sums up one of the very big problems we've had in trying to achieve some sort of outcome. Nil Einne (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's kind of you to say. Thank you!

It truly is an impossible situation though - any subject that interests a significant number of people is bound to create enough opposition to completely screw over any idea of having 100% agreement. Your point that repeatedly putting it up for a vote causes the number of people who still want to debate it to gradually decline is certainly true - but sadly the people who are left tend to be those with the most entrenched positions - which STILL means you can't get consensus. It is not for nothing that we elect politicians, doing that kind of thing via consensus would be crazy. I think Wikipedia has outgrown that particular policy. I think we need a rule that says something like "When more than 50 people contribute opinions, it is only necessary to get a 2:1 majority to pass a new rule." (or a 3:1 or whatever the bar should be set at). That's a rule that 'scales' nicely as the community grows. SteveBaker (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you make a very good point. I've had the phrase "the impossibility of consensus" floating about in the back of my mind for a while. DuncanHill (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The ikky part of this is that change is all-but impossible because a consensus of a very large number of people would be required in order to change the policy of how consensus works for large numbers of people.

The idea of consensus is that you argue until every one either agrees or admits that they should probably shut up and let the majority have their way. But if you ask a yes/no question, that leaves THREE possible outcomes:

1. We reach consensus that the answer is "YES".
2. We reach consensus that the answer is "NO".
3. We fail to reach consensus at all.

But all of the policies and guidelines on the subject fail to answer the question: When making a binary decision - what happens if consensus is never reached? If you are going to employ "consensus politics" something always has to be the default position in the event that a decision is not made. Usually, the default position is taken to be the status quo - but that's a dangerous situation too. The problem is that what happens with a failure of consenssus depends on how you ask the question. In the case of Non-admin rollback, the question was "Should we have this feature added to Wikipedia?" - but suppose that instead, some developer had adopted the "Be Bold" approach and simply added the feature - along with the question "Should we remove this feature that I just added?" then the lack of consensus to REMOVE the feature would imply that it should be kept because we a VERY far from a consensus that it should be removed. Several people tried to use that tactic by suggesting we should use the non-admin rollback for a trial period - that would mean that removing the feature again would require a consensuss, which could never be reached. Very clever!

The system simply doesn't work in the case where no consensus can possibly ever be reached - which sadly happens on all of the really important topics! In the end, change is only possible for trivial matters or when a cabal can sneak a decision through without many people noticing and consensus is required to undo it. SteveBaker (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you be prepared to write a wikiessay developing the above? DuncanHill (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OK - User:SteveBaker/Consensus Essay (no - I don't type that quickly - I had written it earlier this evening in anticipation). SteveBaker (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff - I've printed it off to mull over. I am fairly sure that there has been some research into group dynamics (horrible phrase) which found that in any group larger than (off the top of my head) a dozen, "consensus" is impossible to achieve without some form of leadership or restriction of the debate. I'll see if I can find anything about it. DuncanHill (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the essay if you find actual proof to add to it (or for any other reason for that matter). I vaguely recall that there is a page somewhere with a list of issues to which more than 100 Wikipedians added their opinion - I was thinking of going through that list and seeing how many of those battles finally achieved consensus and comparing it with a similar number of small-scale consensus-making issues to show how things scale (or not) in practice within Wikipedia. SteveBaker (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There's Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians supported something. DuncanHill (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! When you discount things that truly are votes (AfD's RfA's, etc) there are really only a handful of >100 participant cases - so this shouldn't bee too hard to analyse. I'll take a shot at it when I have time. SteveBaker (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Back

Dear boss, only to let you know that I've been editing a little bit. If you have some time to check it, I would appreciate it. Best 22:28, 12 January 2008 (GMT)

Done! My comments are on your talk page. SteveBaker (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've already made the changes. B (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2008 (GMT)

Ah, another question. How can I create a link in the left bar to the same article in a different language? B (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2008 (GMT)

You use the two-character code that relates to that language, then a colon, then the name of the article in that language - so for Portugese ("pt"), for example: [[pt:Mini]] is a link to the article that would be called [[Mini]] if you were using the Portugese Wikipedia. You should put the link at the very bottom of your article to make it come out in the side-bar, otherwise it's just like a regular link. SteveBaker (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

tuxkart

I was looking through ubuntu repos and saw the description for TuxKart- written by Steve Baker. I was like: I know that guy! --65.161.73.245 (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep! That was me! Back when writing games was strictly 'for fun'. Nowadays I get paid for having fun doing it. In case you are interested, one of my other games that got rather popular was Botzilla (although it's not a game in the conventional sense - it's a competition between programmers to write code to drive a city-smashing Godzilla-like robot). I was messing around with another idea for a game in which a lot of the action would take place swinging through dense Amazonian rainforest. It's provisionally called The Lemur of Lima - but right now it's rather stalled because I can't find a physics library that's stable enough to do the things I need and yet also OpenSourced. SteveBaker (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(back in Windows, so I'm logged in) Grr, I wish I could actually do something big. It's hard to tear myself away from learning and actually do something, especially after school/work hassles >_< (college is so much more a barrier to education than a help!!) --f f r o t h 04:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Lament

Hey Steve, I've enjoyed your RD posts over the past year, and hope that you'll get past the disagreement you have about the guideline/policy change and come on back sometime. Anytime I've denied myself an enjoyable pursuit on general principle I've later regretted it. :) --Sean 23:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So, like, are you back now? Because it looks like non-editing of RD posts (which seems at first so obvious it shouldn't need to be spelled out, but I guess not) seems to be a RD guideline now. Unless I missed something in the small Russian novel of the discussion over this that has been generated, isn't that what you wanted? Come back. The water's fine and nobody care's if you hung up a bit "I QUIT!" sign and come right back. ;-) Or you could just hit "log-out" like I did... it's a much more daring and exciting world once you do, I guarantee it!! --24.147.69.31 (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's very good that the problem got fixed - and it would be fun to get back to the daily crossword-puzzle that is the RD - but during my RD-break I've gotten wound up in a bunch of other Wikipedia work that's gotta take priority for a while at least. I guess I'd kinda forgotten how much satisfaction is to be gained by making long term improvements to articles when compared to the ephemeral nature of RD answers. I'm going to take it as it comes. SteveBaker (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Aw, come on. Look! I even slipped it into the header that goes over every Ref Desk! --24.147.69.31 (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Rebadged cars on WikiProject Automobiles

Steve, keep the good work up on WikiProject Automobiles. I see you've been doing a great job. Anyway, have a look at my comments on the project talk page, I've left some about the rebadged cars which might be interesting... Thanks, --Solumeiras ^talk 13:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Image adding

Hey Steve, quick question for ya. Within the last month or so there was a question on the Science RD about identifying a dinosaur in a comic strip. You added a small image to your reply showing relative sizes and I also added an image to mine. I added mine as simply a thumbnail. How the heck did you add yours? When I went to edit the piece to add my $.02 I couldn't even see where you'd added the markup to insert the pic. I've seen the effect before and would like to learn the trick - it made for a very clean look. I've seen the same thing done with those joke Cabal Approved images, but I don't know who added them. Matt Deres (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no magic - I just used:

 [[Image:Vraptor-scale.svg|right|thumb|Velociraptors were TINY.]]

The reason you didn't spot it (I suspect) is that I put the above text up towards the top of the article (not where I posted my reply) because I didn't want the image to mess up the answer to the question that came afterwards. Of course by the time you looked at the thread, several more people had posted - and I could have put the image next to my reply.

As for the 'Cabal Approved' image - THERE IS NO CABAL IMAGE. So obviously I can't mention how it's done. SteveBaker (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so! Thanks. It was driving me a bit batty when I was inserting my image. Obviously I'm aware there's no Cabal and no conspiracy in place to discredit the nonexistent Cabal and certainly no countermeasures in place to stamp out the discreditors of the nonexistent Cabal. I was trying to look up the info on the help pages, but the page for uploading images is longer than the large print edition of the Complete Works of Dickens. Matt Deres (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(Check out the {{tinc}} template - but that always overlays the "Cabal Approved" image at the top-right of the screen - I used:

 <div style="position: absolute; bottom: 4em; right: 2em;">[[Image:Cabal approved.svg|150px|right|Cabal approved message]]</div>

...which is the same as the {{tinc}} template - except that I changed "top" to "bottom" to make it come out at the bottom of the page and overwrite my post. Because the image ALWAYS comes out at the bottom of the page, I was able to 'hide' the long stream of HTML junk futher up my talk page where you'd be less likely to spot it. (I've taken it away now because it was annoying.)

SteveBaker (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:GA on Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles

These are the articles I think should be good articles:

• Chrysler Cirrus
• Nissan Sunny
• Mitsubishi Galant
• Morris Marina
• Subaru Impreza

It would be good to get the more obscure cars as WP:GA articles - what do you think?? --Solumeiras • ^Talk 14:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK - let me treat you to what to expect from a GAC reviewer. If I were reviewing those five articles, here is what I'd say:

Chrysler Cirrus and Nissan Sunny won't come close - neither of them have any decent references whatever - and that's a "MUST HAVE" thing for GAC - so these two articles fail instantly with no further debate.

This under-referencing thing is a SERIOUS problem. Let's boil it down to some hard numbers:

• Take a look at my Mini article - it has 37 references for an article of 48Kbytes...but that's an FA - so perhaps we're demanding too high a standard here.
• Mini Moke (another FA) has 23 references for 22kbytes of text...and that's a REALLY obscure car. I had a bitch of a time tracking down all of that information...but that's the standard we're aiming for here.
• OK - so forget FA's. Let's look at my GA 'MINI (BMW)' article - it has 16 references over a 34Kbyte article - it is a GA right now - but when it passed, it was much shorter, just 13Kbytes. Subsequent editing (due mainly to a second generation of the car arriving on the scene - and me not paying attention) has not maintained the high standards of the version of the article that passed GA - and to be honest, I think it would probably fail for lack of references in the 'second generation' sections if it were re-nominated today.

But even at that level - you can see that we should be aiming for roughly one reference for every 1 to 2kbytes of text.

Mitsubishi Galant has 9 references for 24Kbytes of text - that's less than half what it really needs. What's worse, nearly all of the references are to various manufacturer or dealership websites. We're supposed to be quoting independent sources - magazine reviews, books, independent web sites. So in the end, probably 4 or 5 of those references don't really count for much. It also has a computer graphic image posing as a photo of the car (NO!) that might get it failed - at the very least, the image should be annotated as being a computer graphic - but in truth, I think we should delete it.

Morris Marina tells a similar story...18kbytes and 10 references isn't too bad - but the first five are all essentially backing up one statement in the introduction (that the Marina was basically a horrible car - which it was - I owned one!) - only one solid reference was really needed for that - so four of them are basically useless to tying down the facts in the article. Of the remaining five, one is yet another a "the Marina was crap" reference, THREE references back up the truly irrelevant fact that the door handles on the Marina appeared in other cars! One backs up the statement that the switchgear was re-used and the last that the transmission appeared later. Those facts are UTTERLY too trivial to even mention in the article. If my Mini article went into that much detail, fully half the article would be about other cars that used the A-series engine (including the Marina) or the hydroelastic suspension or that the 2004 Morgan roadster ("supercar") uses the Mini's windshield wiper motor. These are things so trivial that they don't even deserve mention. So this article has 10 references - but only two or AT MOST three of them are actually backing up substantial facts. Where is the reference to show that the Marina was used as a rally car? Where is the evidence that it was popular in New Zealand? As a rule, I'd want to see a little blue tag at least once per paragraph.

Subaru Impreza is a 28Kbyte article - as a rough rule, it's going to need at least a dozen references to cover the subject matter. It has five. Two of them back up the crash test ratings, another backs up some performance numbers, the next proves that some varient of it was announced at some car show and another covers some details of the construction of the 2008 model. But still - we have vast amounts of information here - with no referencing whatever! The article also has a section on toy cars - that's not really allowed by the Wikiproject:Automobiles standards - but I doubt the folks at GAC would care.

So, sadly, all five articles would fail miserably if I were doing the reviewing...and in every case the problem is the same. No references. See WP:V - it's policy.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oxyhydrogen

Would you consider looking over Oxyhydrogen. The references section appears relatively substantial. Noah Seidman (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My knowledge of chemistry is too weak to take on that article. It seems to have been much improved since all of the HHO/Browns gas stuff has been incorporated. SteveBaker (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TokamakLogo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:TokamakLogo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"How to keep a two-way conversation readable": its disappearance solved

It always annoyed me that this sensible bit of advice vanished without trace, but I guess I'm either more knowledgeable or more persistent these days because I tracked it down. Using Google to search the en.wikipedia.org domain for the text string,[3] I noticed your name as well (specifically, a discussion in your /archive 4), so I thought I'd post my investigations here for your entertainment (disclaimer: this may not fit the definition of "entertainment" that you're familiar with).

• I first added the relevant blurb to my user page on 12:00, 17 July 2006, and I pipelinked to Wikipedia:Talk page#How to keep a two-way conversation readable. That's my starting point.
• On that date, Wikipedia:Talk page was a redirect to Help:Talk page. Therefore the link wouldn't have worked, so I'm guessing I must have just copy/pasted the text from elsewhere.
• Whoever originally wrote it probably used a version of the Wikipedia:Talk page prior to 00:28, 11 November 2005 (when it was moved to Wikipedia:Talk pages).
• Sure enough, if you check the Talk pages history, the paragraph existed prior to 10:56, 1 April 2006 (how ironic). On April Fools' Day, User:Gareth Aus "redirected some content put onto templates", and created the redirect to Help:Talk page mentioned above.
• So, we have to dive into Gareth's template editing history...
• ...and there it is, added to {{Ph:Talk page}} on 10:58, 1 April 2006...
• ...where it stayed until 19:13, 15 February 2007, when User:DepartedUser redirected the template to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines since it was "an unused orphan".

And that, as far as I can see, is where the little essay died, since DU didn't edit the Talk page guidelines page during that time (I'm kinda hoping after all my sleuthing that you hadn't already discovered this for yourself ages ago).

I'm also giving serious thought to just commandeering {{Ph:Talk page}} for myself and moving the contents of the text box into it. There's enough interested users out there showing up on that Google domain search that I think it might prove useful. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow! That's an amazing piece of detective work. No - I certainly hadn't discovered it myself. I just copied the template from someone else. It's a useful little essay - it's good to see that it's not getting lost. Thanks! SteveBaker (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Bleep

It would be great if you could look in at Bleep, but be warned (-: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Mini. Sorry but you deleted sourced info

Excuse me, sir, but this [4] is a deletion of sourced info.

• If my writing is poor, I kindly invite you to improve it.

• If my reference style is "crappy", ditto.

• I can not imagine how you say-so could dismiss as "factually incorrect" pieces of sourced data. Please explain me.

• If you know that "Bumper height restrictions killed the Mini in the USA", please add that piece of information, but do not remove contradictory sourced data. Please note I used a very cautious "this source said this or that" format.

• I can not understand what do you mean with "not ONLY applicable to the US - so in the wrong place". Please explain me.

I invite you to continue this dicussion in (IMO) its proper venue, Talk:Mini#Safety, not here.

Thank you for your attention Randroide (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Computer image answer

"In this topic I have to write that this article is not going to be complete without image of, I think today most widely used, simple, PC. I scrolled down the article in hope I will find it, but there isn't. Is it unlogic? For many people around the world, metion of word "computer" at first means PC. But they will not find it here. --Čikić Dragan (talk)"

"This is an encyclopedia - not a picture gallery. Ask yourself this: What additional meaning could come to the article by showing computers that are essentially the same as the machine the person is sitting in front of as they sit reading Wikipedia. We need to show images that ADD information. Most people think of a computer as a laptop or a desktop PC or something - we can expand on their perceptions by showing images of massive supercomputers, computers made of gearwheels, tiny computers that fit into a wristwatch. To try to keep this article down to some kind of reasonable size, we have to use our available screen space wisely - an photo of a common kind of PC is really largely irrelevant. There would be a case for showing (say) an absolutely original early-model IBM PC - that's of historical value...but a common modern desk-side is just pointless. SteveBaker (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)"

I respect you, because you are much older than me, and additionally we are (from) same profession, but I'm still student. I think that sentences like "This is an encyclopedia - not a picture gallery" are needless. And, as you know, there are small picture galleries on Wikipedia, too. They were few times usefull to me. Besides, I'm preety new in editing Wikipedia, so some of your attitudes here exposed (like "additional meaning") were pretty strange to me.
When I looking for some information here I, first of all, search for concrete things, and then for additional meaning sometimes. Otherwise, my cognition of any encyclopedia, so and this, is that it need to afford genuine facts, even when they are boring. That picture do not need to be here regarding me, but I saw this articles on Wikipedias in other languages and it exist there.
Another thing is with keeping this article down to some kind of reasonable size.
That is aspect I didn't regard and I respect now. That was my opinion about this subject.
I wish you best.
Sorry, for my imperfect English.
--Čikić Dragan (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The point is that this is an encyclopedia. It's here to pass on knowledge that our readers may not have. The photo at the top of an article isn't just there for decoration - it's there to provide information about the subject of the article. It's true to say that 99% of people who come to Wikipedia have seen a typical PC. In all likelyhood, maybe 80% of them have one exactly like that sitting on top of their desks right now. What's the point of showing them something they already know about? What are we teaching them by putting a photo of one right at the top of the "Computer" page? We need to get across the maximum amount of information with the minimum of end-user effort - so finding a photograph of an interesting (and perhaps even 'unexpected') computer is providing greater information than a photograph of a PC - which they've seen and understood already.

If you want a copyright-free photo of a computer - then you should go to WikiCommons (which is a free-photograph repository) - not Wikipedia (which is an encyclopedia).

So, what we want for that article is a photograph of a computer that will be interesting to people who come to find out what computers actually are. Quite a few people think that computers are only PC's and laptops - and we can correct that mistake by showing them a photograph of a computer that's most definitely NOT a PC. A super-computer or a computer that fits in a wristwatch or a Lego computer or...ANYTHING except a typical PC.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Circumcision

Dear Steve, per this Ref Desk discussion, most notably Bielle's comment, "It's really too bad, for many reasons, but for this one in particular, that User:SteveBaker is no longer active on the Ref Desks. He had, as I recall, very strong, scientific views against circumcision.", I was wondering what your strong scientific views against circumcision were. Thank you for enlightening me. 71.98.19.53 (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ref Desk thread in which this was discussed is here: [5] my comment was:

"We evolved the way we did for a reason. Removing that flap of skin without fully understanding it's purpose is insane. I predict that within our lifetimes, male genital mutilation (for that's what it is) will be looked down upon in the same way that the female equivalent is now. It's a bizarre religious stricture and it belongs in the dark ages. SteveBaker 00:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)"

Evolution is not wasteful. When creatures are trapped in a dark cave, within an amazingly few generations their offspring evolve to lose their eyes. If human males didn't need the foreskin then we'd undoubtedly have evolved without one...if (as often claimed) there are positive benefits to removing it then we'd most certainly have evolved without it. The fact that we still have it is absolute scientific PROOF that it has a function - even if we don't know what that function is.

The truth is this - people who were circumcised at a very young age have no choice in this matter and because that particular part of the male anatomy is something we're all terrified of being found wanting in - they are CERTAIN to claim they are better off - no matter what. The same thing applies to those of us who remain 'intact'. There is absolutely zero serious, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of health benefits either way - so all we're left with are claims of greater or lesser sensitivity and/or enjoyment during sex. But the trouble with that claim is that only a VERY few healthy men get circumcised after they become adults (the very thought makes my blood run cold!) - so only a very few people can testify after having sex under comparable conditions both with and without the foreskin...and those that are in a position to do so have ample reason to lie about the results because they don't want to seem like idiots for making the decision! So we don't have any proof of health benefits and we don't have proof of advantages or disadvantages during sex.

All we're left with is the sure and certain knowledge that we wouldn't have evolved to be the way we are if the foreskin had no purpose whatever. I'm personally pretty sure that the purpose is to cover the super-sensitive area of skin beneath in order to allow the nerve endings there to be protected until the act of intercourse when the foreskin tends to be rolled back to expose the most sensitive patch of skin on the entire body. Nerves that are exposed to daily wear and tear after circumcision are going to lose much of that extreme sensitivity.

So I strongly suspect that circumcised men are losing out on the experience - but I can't prove that.

From an evolutionary standpoint, we might imagine that men who have more fun during sex are more motivated to do it more often - that would imply that they would produce more offspring and therefore those men would be more prevalent in the gene pool. Hence the foreskin may well be a carefully evolved device that most certainly isn't meant to be chopped off at birth!

Sooner or later, science will figure out the truth - and then the debate will really begin. Right now we don't KNOW. But there are other parts of the body that we don't know the purpose of...do we go around routinely chopping off people's earlobes soon after birth? Are appendices removed "just in case" because we don't understand their function?

For parents (PARENTS!!) to go around mutilating the genitals of tiny helpless babies is one of the most disgusting and brutal practices imaginable to me. If parents went around removing the earlobes of their newborns in bizarre religious rituals they'd wind up in jail for sure! Thank goodness the world has realised this in the case of female genital mutilation and is working hard to outlaw the practice - let's just hope that as a society we can see the light in the case of the hundreds of millions of little boys whom their parents have so brutally mutilated in the name of some barbaric tradition.

SteveBaker (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your excellent and complete answer. I myself am uncircumcised and I often am teased about it in the shower room, because an overwhelming number of my male counterparts are circumcised (actually now that I think about it, I'm the only one in my entire class of 200 people to be uncircumcised!). I wanted some scientific evidence to support that circumcision is a horrendous practice which is not only unnecesary, but perhaps even barbaric and definitely a bad choice. Thanks again. 71.98.19.53 (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, good luck with that one. If you proved your point - you'd be even less well accepted. There is no win/win situation here and if you're outnumbered 200:1 - you might just be better off ignoring their comments and maintaining a quiet air of superiority. It's a very, very sad situation. But for chrissakes don't take it personally. SteveBaker (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha I rarely take anyone's comments personally; most of the teasing came from my friends and was good-natured (for the most part). I've successfully made them think I'm less of a freak ;). I'm by no means ashamed of my natural penis, on the contrary, I'm quite proud of my intact situation. But thanks again for the info. --71.98.13.3 (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Just an update, I still come on wikipedia, I have not lapsed! Please keep me adopted, I am just in a period where it is very hectic in high school. By the way, I was recently accepted to the University of Virginia!! Thought you should know, take it easy. talk to you later. --Niyant (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Congratulations! I've heard that the University of Virginia is a really nice place. What subjects are you taking?

I've been taking a bit of Wikibreak - things were getting a bit too serious, Wikipedia was starting to eat too many of my free hours and I'm in the process of relocating my family down to Austin, Texas - so we're trying to simultaneously buy one house and sell another - which is plenty stressful enough without needing Wikipedia grief piled on top! But anytime you need help or wiki-advice, I'm here. SteveBaker (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks SteveBaker, I plan to go to medical school. So besides the life sciences, I hope to concentrate in Public Policy. --Niyant (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)