Talk:V (programming language)

Advert template

Just saw the edit summary: "Where is the content written like an advertisement?" Well here is a meaningless marketing like statement for a start:

Translating DOOM from C to V and building it takes less than a second.

building it on what hardware? compared to what? what secondary sources benchmark this? I haven't read all this page yet, but statements like that do sound rather "advert like". Thank you for your attempts to improve the article though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree – things like "it does this so fast!" or "it does this in this really unique and revolutionary way that deserves an expansive mention!" are largely subjective and do not belong in an encyclopedic article.

I, too, though, commend you for attempting to improve the draft. You're getting somewhere. LVDP01 (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Sirfurboy for the input. I can see your perspective, but aren't the 2nd and 3rd statements offering proof of the statement above it? Each link, is placed to verify the validity of the statement. Thus it seems like we are caught in a circular catch-22. The section is C translation. Simply stating that, offers no context to the reader. The statements below are expanding on what that means in respect to features of the V language. Thus, "V can translate your entire C project and offer you the safety, simplicity, and compilation speed-up (via modules)." But now is that statement merely a claim or a fact? Therefore the next statement and link are proof of the claim, "Translating DOOM from C to V and building it takes less than a second." Furthermore, V is not selling anything by this. There is no product. That it can quickly translate a C program to V, is a proven statement, that is backed up by visual proof.

Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly fine with us removing statements to not look like advertising or promotional content, or rewording statements with flowery sales-like language. But worried that removal of key explanatory statements, can lead to the next editor taking a position that statements are mere claims without merit or proof.

"What secondary sources benchmark this?" A primary source was used to show visual proof, along with secondary sources, in the context of capability to translate C projects to V. As is it can be interpreted that you are objecting to speed or type of hardware, the statement was removed. The statement of fact, on the capability of the language to do such a translation remains.

LVDP01, thank you for giving input as well. You mentioned a few things. "it does this so fast!" or "it does this in this really unique and revolutionary way that deserves an expansive mention!". I'm trying to narrow down actual specifics, so that we can come to a consensus as to what language is objectionable or acceptable. Can you please refer to specific lines in the draft that you might object to and give an explanation. Would greatly appreciate it.

Based on the comments you both have made so far, anything that could reasonably give an appearance of being written like an advertisement or promotional has been removed. Additional secondary sources have been added.

Wukuendo (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

So for secondary sourcing, what I would like to see is someone who has objectively compared like for like compilation between, say, a C compiler and code compiled in V. I did look last night and found a 2019 article, which is a bit dated for this subject, which did give some figures, but they too appeared to be just quoting the documentation which says "V compiles between ≈100k and 1.2 million lines of code per second per CPU core (without hardware optimization)." Again, no comparison with other languages nor details about the CPU core. There are benchmarks out there. for instance,[1], but these are WP:PRIMARY and really not very clear to a reader. They are independent, so that is something, but isn't there a paper somewhere, or at least a trade press article, where someone has put V through its paces to see how it performs? If not, then maybe just say that optimising speed is a design goal, and leave it at that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, as this airing out can lead to progress and demonstrate to everyone what is going, from what appears as a months long standstill. In the context to the original objection, concerning C2V speed of translating a C project, that was removed to accommodate the point made. My concern about what appears to be a new objection, is over fairness, and creating an additional barrier that is not based on the draft document nor is a standard other programming languages on Wikipedia are being held to.

Example, in checking the Zig Wikipedia (done to compare what might be acceptable), it has such statements as, "Zig is intended to improve code safety." Nim Wikipedia has, "Nim was created to be a language as fast as C". There was no secondary sources or references given nor were these statements challenged. I can not find any requirement nor examples on Wikipedia, that a programming language must provide a speed comparison between itself and other languages. I don't know where we would be going with V vs other language, as beyond the original context of objections that were supposedly based on advertisement-like statements.

"V compiles between ≈100k and 1.2 million lines of code per second per CPU core (without hardware optimization)." This statement does not exist in the draft document, but appears to be an attempt to challenge the validity of claims on an external website. That seems like it would be outside the scope of the present discussion and the issue of if statements being made are advertisements.

Related to this line of objections, are statements like, "it does this so fast!" or "it does this in this really unique and revolutionary way that deserves an expansive mention!" These also don't exist in the draft document, but appears to show a particular kind of reaction. I can't edit or objectively address, what does not actually exist in the draft. However, I did remove language from the draft, based on the sentiment of what may cause such an reaction.

"I would like to see is someone who has objectively compared like for like compilation between, say, a C compiler and code compiled in V". There are a few things going on here. The benchmark link to, has nothing to do with how fast V can compile itself, but rather is a speed comparison between languages, based on various tasks. Of which, there are many other such sites, Kostya Benchmarks. Additionally, the performance shown and scores of languages constantly change depending on week or month, compiler used (which get updated), algorithms used, quality of code submitted, varying number of submissions (some languages have several versus just one), and being optimized for the task.

The draft statements are showing that V can compile to C. If we search for additional information outside of the scope of what's presented in the draft, V can use various C compilers. V can compile to C, then use various C compilers to create executables. Speed would be indistinguishable, between V or C source code, relative to the algorithms used or adding of any additional features (like optional GC). "V's main backend compiles to human readable C", is a statement of fact about what the language does and provide. The references are for validating that statement and features of the language.

"If not, then maybe just say that optimizing speed is a design goal". I removed the original statement entirely, which was "DOOM from C to V and building it takes less than a second". Some form of it could be put back later, but if this is to ever move beyond a draft (after all these months), probably for the best that it's removed.

Wukuendo (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

"V compiles between ≈100k and 1.2 million lines of code per second per CPU core (without hardware optimization)." "Again, no comparison with other languages nor details about the CPU core."

Actually, V's website does give details about CPU (refer to fast compilation section). "V compiles ≈110k (Clang backend) and ≈500k (x64 and tcc backends) lines of code per second. (Intel i5-7500, SM0256L SSD, no optimization)" Differences in CPU, OS, compiler/backend, version of V, and year of test may give different results. Didn't address this statement particularly, as not in the draft itself. However, adding the additional information and context, as mentioned here and checked on it.

For clarification, "V is written in V and compiles itself in under a second.", was addressed as mentioned in the draft. This is referred to by secondary sources (Marcos Oliveira and Navule Rao) and demonstrated visually on two different videos. An older video from March 2021 (Building V from source in 0.3 seconds) and a newer video from a demonstration for IBM (...presentation of V's features at IBM).

Wukuendo (talk) 08:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

List of changes

@Wukuendo:, to answer your question, there are specific requested changes and specified problems annotated throughout the body of the article. If you disagree with any specific change, please comment. I will request WP:3O.

I'm looking through the proposed changes made by Caleb. Give me a bit of time to evaluate all the rewrites and to make counters. Would like about 24 hours. Will then list Caleb's and my counters or points of disagreement for evaluation by all.

Wukuendo (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

If the point is to compromise in good faith, after reviewing, my proposal is for the following (per Caleb's tags):

A) A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.

As Caleb and myself claim there is no COI, then this tag should be removed. It is creating controversy that has nothing to do with the particulars of the article.

B) This article needs additional citations for verification

Most of this need for additional citations comes from Caleb's rewording and rewriting significant parts of the article. I will go into detail about why this is so, in an additional post after this. I propose that Caleb allow me to revert to the original, prior to his changes. Then allow me to compare his changes to the original, and do a merge. Then we can debate how far to keep going on V's talk page, after the 1st edition of the merge. In this way, it would be a true compromise.

C) This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

The solution to revert to the original, then allow me to merge changes, would work here too. After the first merge, we can debate what is acceptable on V's talk. Which would be what this tag is recommending.

Wukuendo (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@GünniX:, I'm sorry, I think I discarded your revision, Wikipedia wouldn't let me revert one edit alone. Would it be possible to re-run WPCleaner bot or tell me how I can run it? Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Caleb Stanford:, here is the Wikipedia:WPCleaner page, which explains how to install and run WPCleaner. I don't re-run WPCleaner now, because I'm not sure, how many reverts will follow. --GünniX (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Wukuendo's view on how the escalating series of events got to this point

This is to be clear that everyone knows how I view this situation.

Caleb's Tags:

1. “This article contains text that is written in a promotional tone.”

This was Caleb's original tag. No information was provided as an action item to look at or evaluate on our talk or V's talk. Instead of progressing through this like a senior editor on Wikipedia, more tags were added without utilizing talk.

2. A) This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. B) The neutrality of this article is disputed. C) This article needs additional citations for verification.

Caleb then adds a group of more tags without specifying what his issues are utilizing talk. I put a message on his talk to elaborate on his issues, but they were not specified. The increase in tags and refusing to clarify on talk appears punitive or escalatory, without interest to resolve issues. Each of these tags need time to address, but there appeared an unwillingness to communicate and cooperate.

3. A) This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. B) A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. C) This article needs additional citations for verification.

With the new series of tags by Caleb, what these specific issues are, were not clearly clarified or discussed before the placement of the tags. Initially the article was claimed to be promotional or advertisements, but no evidence was provided about that. The accusations in the tags continued to change and escalate without allowing time to refute or address them. The rewrites continued, without heeding requests to stop and discuss.

Exercism is a free site that was removed as a reference or appears to have been objected to. It requires no money and is for learning multiple other languages besides V (it is not a V site). The Exercism site debatably helps to demonstrate the notability of the V language, as being among the languages taught. It also provides secondary source information about V. The Exercism website is not associated with me in anyway nor with V's site or lead developers to my knowledge. The site was removed without consensus or debate. Caleb has apparently placed himself in position over the reviewer who promoted the draft to article and previous editors, to remove what they already reviewed. If Exercsim can be arbitrarily removed, then why not any other site or book that has V as its subject matter.

4. "This article needs additional citations for verification."

Caleb continues to change the wording, while his tags are asking for citations on them versus the original. The original wording was, "The foremost goal of V is to be easy to use" He instead changed it to, "The goals of V include readability and fast compile time." He then adds that a citation is needed to verify the statement he changed it to.

I don't know how to exactly quantify this behavior. It's not for me to decide. It's one thing to say the citation is in error, it's another to change the original wording, and then have a tag on the article or request for more citations and as if the onus is on someone else to provide it. I don't know what is going on with changing the wording or for what purpose. This is why I asked to stop engaging in rewrites and edit wars.

The citations of 9 and 11 (old numbering) have the term "easy to use". In the case of citation 10, it uses the term "simple" for V. However, it was redirected from the original site and then put behind a paywall at medium, which no longer shows the entire article. A duplicate of the article, in its entirety, exists at this link- "https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/vlang-automation-scripting-jader-oliveira" I'm for changing the link or citation.

Caleb again continues rewording the original, which was arguably much more clear, to the confusing version he made below (Performance) without explanation. Then keeps stating new sources are needed, and because of the tags he placed on the article, it comes across as the responsibility of other editors to provide them.

Caleb is arguably injecting confusion, with unnecessary information, changing meanings, merging distinct points, and insinuating things like V is no longer as fast as previous versions. A person who is not a programmer or familiar with V, in my opinion, would be even more confused about the point of Caleb's rewording and rewrite.

Caleb's version:

“Performance

At the time of 0.1.24, V was found to be as fast as C.[20][21][22] The language also supports a foreign function interface for interoperability with C.[23][24][25]

Allocations are minimized by the language,[26][better source needed] which also supports serialization without runtime reflection[20]. Native binaries compiled with no dependencies[8][27] “

Original version (which itself a rewrite requested by previous reviewer):

“Performance

• Fast like C (human-readable C compiled by backend)[20][21][22][23]
  • Added features for safety, if desired, can be disabled or bypassed for greater performance
• C interop[24][25][26][27]
• Allocations kept to minimal[28]
• Serialization with no runtime reflection[20]
• Native binaries compiled with no dependencies[7][29]”

5. Caleb again unnecessarily scrambles the original wording, which arguably creates confusion and further separates his version from what was just approved by the reviewer that promoted it from a draft. Appears to be mixing or removing sources, then gives the impression that more sources are needed to validate wording he himself added. The original statement below, was just about exactly quoted from their sources, where Caleb's new version wants more sources.

Caleb's version:

“Compilation time

"The V compiler is written in itself. As of January 2022, the compiler was about 1 MB and could compile an unspecified 1 million lines of code in less than a second, according to a blog post.[28][15][better source needed]”

Original version:

“Fast build

"V is written in itself and can compile within a second.[30][15][23]”

6. Related to this, Caleb goes to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science, to complain about the article and me, instead of resolving what his issues are. The previous editors and myself are also not responsible nor were part of his new rewritten version of the article. The accusations of COI and his comments there, cast unnecessary aspersions, completely separate from any particulars in the article that is claimed should be addressed.

7. A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (November 2023)

I want to clearly state this for the record. I am not involved in the development of V, not a contributing developer for the V project, not involved in the V toolchain, nor any organization run by V developers. I am not paid by any V organization nor any persons associated with it. That it has even come to this, is amazing to me, by itself.

Wukuendo (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Caleb's reverts in question:

For historical purposes and for public viewing:

Wukunendo comment made to Caleb prior to his reverts: "Please stop engaging in edit wars. Read your talk page. Be specific in V's talk page or reply to your talk page. Do not violate the three-revert rule" (changes are after this request and without any consensus).

1. 4 November 2023‎ Caleb Stanford talk contribs‎ 16,578 bytes −2‎ heading undo Tags:
2. 4 November 2023‎ Caleb Stanford talk contribs‎ 16,580 bytes −323‎ rm exercism links undo Tags:
3. 4 November 2023‎ Caleb Stanford talk contribs‎ 16,903 bytes +23‎ →‎Features: e undo Tags:
4. 4 November 2023‎ Caleb Stanford talk contribs‎ 16,880 bytes +132‎ →‎Features: c/e and major cleanup undo Tags:
5. 4 November 2023‎ Caleb Stanford talk contribs‎ 16,748 bytes +38‎ fixes undo Tags:
6. 4 November 2023‎ Caleb Stanford talk contribs‎ 16,710 bytes −1,583‎ →‎Syntax: template:unreferenced section, remove library examples undo Tags:
7. 14:56, 4 November 2023‎ Caleb Stanford talk contribs‎ 18,293 bytes +165‎ clarify undo Tags
8. 14:52, 4 November 2023‎ Caleb Stanford talk contribs‎ 18,128 bytes +297‎ c/e and fixes undo Tags:
9. 14:40, 4 November 2023‎ Caleb Stanford talk contribs‎ 17,831 bytes +95‎ clarify template undo Tag:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]
6. [7]
7. [8]
8. [9]
9. [10]

Wukuendo (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

3O request

This is a new article recently created through AfC. I felt that the article reads as a COI/promotion in several places, and I spent about 2 hours of work cleaning up the article and annotating places for specific improvements, mostly with respect to the references (for example, there are a lot of Blog/Medium references that still need to be addressed). @Wukuendo: disagrees with these changes and feels that the article is NPOV and better as it was before.

Earlier discussion between us at: User talk:Caleb Stanford

For reference, here are permalinks to two versions of the article:

• version by Wukuendo

• version by me

Please suggest which is better or which edits to include from both, and how to proceed to resolve this dispute.

Thank you, Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I am declining this 3O request as you and Wukuendo haven't had any interactions on the talk page here. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Voorts: Sorry, I forgot to link: our earlier discussion is at User talk:Caleb Stanford. Thank you for posting here. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I can take a look. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe the situation is that the intent is to make destructive edits in bad faith as a result of having a conflict of interest because of an affiliation with and being a contributor to the Rust programming language. As a consequence, this might need to be elevated. Wukuendo (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any bad faith editing here. @Caleb Stanford has already denied a conflict of interest. Escalating things might not go as you think they will. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I have also made it clear of my belief that I have no conflict of interest.

Also, I didn't agree to this arbitration. You appear to be oddly and immediately siding with Caleb, to allow for no measure of compromise, and to completely capitulate to whatever he would like to do. In fact, even while we are doing this discussion, Caleb has returned to rewriting and making changes without any compromise or agreement.

It has also not been lost on me, that Caleb has been on Wikipedia for a quite a long time, and would possibly have friends or be familiar with many people here. This is why that I have suggested that it would be better for it to be elevated. The threat to me that escalating things may not go as well as I think, does not create fear. I'm a firm believer in fairness and justice. I much rather have it fully escalated, and let the cards fall as they may. It is my hope that what is the right thing to do will win out. Wukuendo (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

This isn't an arbitration; this is me providing a third opinion, and only one editor needs to invoke the process (see WP:3O). My opinion was provided as a starting point for further conversation, not as an edict or means to cut off discussion. Indeed, I would encourage both you and @Caleb Stanford to engage in a civil resolution of this dispute.

As an aside, please assume good faith. Immediately (and repeatedly) accusing people who disagree with you of having a conflict of interest or some improper motive is not productive. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Content and edit dispute about the state and neutrality of the article):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on V (programming language) and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

In my opinion, Caleb Stanford's version of the article has removed a significant amount of adverty language and removed wikivoice where appropriate. For example, from the lead of Wukuendo's version, the following is quite promotional: "The foremost goal of V is to be easy to use,[9][10][11] and at the same time, to enforce a safe coding style through elimination of ambiguity." I also believe that it was appropriate to remove much of the information from the features section, per WP:NOTDB. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Wukuendo. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm for rewrites in good faith, where an even standard is fairly applied across the board for all programming languages. Case in point, look at the articles of say Zig, Crystal, or Red (to name a few). By comparison, I'm quite curious of your opinion.

The V article went through a very long and arguably contentious process of accusation of promotional or advertisement-like language. The issue with Caleb's rewriting, outside the affiliation with Rust, is it appears the language used is purposefully disparaging and insulting. Without having the issue resolved or any agreement, there is already an attempt to bypass all the other editors and reviewers that came before. Wukuendo (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

As I already mentioned, I am not affiliated with Rust. Which part of the language is "disparaging and insulting"? Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Voorts: thank you for the third opinion. Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

As a semi-involved user (the acceptor of the AFC draft), I prefer Caleb's rewrite of the article, especially in the context of the removal of the promotionally worded "Features" section. That being said, the "History" section starting with "According to the developers" is unecessary, since I don't think it is required in this context since I would assume the reader to be aware that the personal project claim would be attributed to the developers. (We would not for example, say "According to Dennis Ritchie, the development of the C language was closely tied to the development of Unix")

Regarding the COI issue, I don't think being passionate about a specific programming language constitutes a conflict of interest (similar to how ones personal political affiliations should not consitute a conflict of interest) and both parties should drop claims of having a COI with the specific programming language articles.

Finally coming to the topic of sourcing, I do think, we can do better by using references from the books about learning vlang rather than magazine/blog articles which honestly should not be hard to do if eithier @Caleb Stanford or @Wukuendo were to get hold of the books mentioned in the bibliography. The content that is unreferenced seems mostly to be about the syntax of the language, and should not be hard to source using the books mentioned :) Sohom (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Sohom for your guidance and I highly value your opinion about this issue. In regards to the rewritten history section, I will not contest or object to it. There are other primary sources, where the creator of V stated why he created the language (...presentation of V's features at IBM). A previous reviewer objected to it being used, so was not added as source, but it also supports the claim by the developer referenced.

In regards to the removal of parts of the features section, I do object to aspects of this for multiple reasons. Removal about various features of V is doing a disservice to readers, who will now know less about it. I would be less inclined to object, if it was a just a matter of a rewrite, but I find the outright removal of V's safety and memory management features as very odd. By the way and for clarity, the feature section was not initially created by me, but was created by previous editors.

That V provides various safety and memory management features are facts about the language, and arguably shouldn't be viewed as promotional. All languages (including Rust), have features (like safety or memory management) in which others can find controversial or object to. As an editor, I believe it was the job to report what the language does, without passing judgement or bias. Despite what programming language that one personally uses. Sources could also be provided for the below (from original article and so others know what's being referred to):

Safety

* Usage of bounds checking

* Usage of Option/Result

* Mandatory checking of errors

* No usage of values that are undefined

* No shadowing of variables

* No usage of null (unless in unsafe code)

* No usage of global variables (unless enabled via flag)

* Variables are immutable by default

* Structs are immutable by default

* Function args are immutable by default

* Sum types can be used

* Generics can be used

Memory management options

* Allocations handled by an optional GC, that is the default, which can be disabled

* Manual memory management (-gc none)

* Autofree (-autofree), handles most objects via free call insertion

** Remaining percentage freed by GC

* Arena allocation with (-prealloc)

A matter that I feel should also be brought up, is the V article appears be under very intense scrutiny in comparison to many other programming language articles. There appears to be a higher standard that the V article must meet, which many other programming language articles don't, which gives the impression of unfairness. Please do check the articles for such languages as Zig, Crystal, or Red. Would be interested in comparative opinions. This includes their use of magazine and site articles as sources. Some other programming language articles have no books written on them to be used as a reference.

On the matter of sourcing. If an editor rewords or rewrites a section, the onus should arguably be on them to provide sources for what they did, else leave the section as is. It should be that sources are needed for what existed, not for an altered rewritten version by the newer editor. It is unfair to other editors, to not do the work, of providing sources and references to rewrites. Perhaps to include giving the impression that the article is being contested. Wukuendo (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Lists of features do not belong in articles per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Comparing this to other articles is not useful because those articles might also not be following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. (In any event, I don't see a list of features in any of the three articles you've shared.)

Regarding this claim: On the matter of sourcing. If an editor rewords or rewrites a section, the onus should arguably be on them to provide sources for what they did, else leave the section as is. Per Wikipedia policy, the burden is on the person adding or restoring information to an article, not removing it. We are not required to keep information in an article because another editor likes it. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Information wasn't purely removed (I'm talking all instances), as information by the newer editor (in different sections) was added to the article that didn't exist previously.

I was referring to those languages, as a matter of comparison about fairness, not just that particular section. In regards to that, Zig has an "Other Features" section. Rust has a "Syntax and features" section.

"We are not required to keep information in an article because another editor likes it." The argument I was making was more along the lines of informing readers about the subject. Removal of large quantities of information can change the quality of an article. Wukuendo (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

"Lists of..." Voorts, I'm unsure about your interpretation in regards to lists (as in bulleted lists) or features. Including if referring to using such lists specifically or having a section called features. Furthermore, upon more research, bulleted lists (like what was used in the previous V article) are used very extensively and pervasively on Wikipedia. I would like other editors to weigh in. Please see the articles on the older languages of C and Modula-2. In their articles, they use bulleted lists multiple times and more extensively than how it was used in the previous V article before it was removed by Caleb. The C article's "Overview" section and others. Modula-2 article: Superset, Dialects, Derivatives...

As I was looking at the Rust article, in addition to having a section called Syntax and features, it includes bulleted lists within that section and another section called Community. I'm finding it hard to understand why this would be objected to or removed from the V article on those grounds.

The dislike of bulleted lists, can come across as a matter of preference for displaying information, not that it is clearly disallowed by Wikipedia. The removal of large quantities of information about V (safety and memory management among them) without explanation or at least consulting previous or active editors about this choice on V's talk or their talk, comes across as at least quite odd. Instead of removal, it could have been left it alone, rewritten, or put in another section. Disallowing them in the V article, comparatively, looks unfair. Wukuendo (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

We could include a section about the safety features of the language as a heading iff it is discussed by other reliable media. However, it should not be in the form of a list but rather as a few sentences supported by the reliable source.

Sohom (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

There are sources for V's safety and memory management features. Including it being referenced by the books on it (definitely in "Getting Started with V Programming"). Wukuendo (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Elevated to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Let us please refrain from making major rewrites and continuing edit wars. I would like us to use dispute resolution. I'm very much willing to find common ground through a fair process. Wukuendo (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for being willing to find common ground. Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The request for dispute resolution was closed, as filed incorrectly. Important lesson learned for the future. It was suggested that I submit to other noticeboards or resubmit it, but will not, as things stand presently. It appears V's talk is now being used, per Wikipedia's recommendations, for discussing changes, rewrites, and to find compromises. Thank you to everyone participating. Wukuendo (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

COI

What is the COI concern here, please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Caleb Stanford asked @Wukuendo if he had a COI on Stanford's talk page. Wukuendo denied having one. Wukuendo also asked Stanford if he had a COI with Rust, and he denied having one. Wukuendo then again accused Stanford of having a COI with Rust on this talk page and myself of having some sort of relationship with Stanford (who I have never interacted with before), and I warned him not to do so.

It looks like Wukuendo has taken this to DRN and I hope that they can hash out their dispute there. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The tags were continually changing in a manner that they would be difficult to address. It could be argued that they were made to make the article look bad (to get it removed) or to unfairly discredit me (to get me removed from making edits). No attempts were made to resolve any of the issues before placing tags. This was done immediately, with no initial attempt to reach out or to compromise.

Then rewrites of the article were made, which were outside of the context of the tags, which appear as attempts to disparage the project and language. Requests to hold up on making major changes, until an agreement or consensus were reached by both parties were bypassed (tags and Caleb's sole changes were pushed anyway). It appeared the best course of actions was DRN, to try to inject some fairness and an equal standard (for programming language articles) into the situation. Wukuendo (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Wukuendo, nobody is attempting to undermine the article in an attempt to get it deleted or to discredit you. As I said before, please assume good faith. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Caleb Stanford, you are the one who place the COI template on the page. I am not sure if that is needed as everyone appears to have denied a COI, and I don't see any evidence of one. Just checking. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Sirfurboy, after more carefully reviewing evidence (which I will present today), it may go beyond that. The case can be presented that the rewrites equal vandalizing the article (editing the project in an intentionally disruptive or malicious manner), in a way that the article becomes unuseful to readers interested about V and that previous editors can not change it back or contest the changes, thus the tags and accusations. Conclusions will be left to the public and other editors to decide, as I'm just going to present the evidence of what I have. An editor would be hard pressed to address the massive rewriting, even without first defending themselves from the accusations made by the tags. It's why I believe higher level administrative action might be necessary. Wukuendo (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Please can we focus on content rather than editors and motive. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, I will try to focus on content. From my side, it was never an intent to create or escalate controversy, but to simply see articles about various languages. Wukuendo (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the COI tag should be removed (and now has been). Thanks, Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Continued reverts by Wukuendo

My edits continue to get reverted by Wukuendo who is repeatedly accusing me of editing in bad faith. Text that I wrote, various cleanup, and some reorganization have all been removed, usually restoring the state back to the previous version of the article.

Diff

For example:

• I removed this very poor quality source: "Want to learn and master V?" That is a direct link to a promotional/company website, not a reliable source. This source was reinstated without change.

• I changed "It was mostly inspired by" to "It was inspired by" as this is more direct and encyclopedic and avoids a weasel word (MOS:WEASEL).

• I changed this sentence: "The goals of V include being easy to use and readability." to "The goals of V include readabilty, ease of use, and fast compile times." to match what was supported and described in the sources, and because fast compile times seem to be a major design constraint of V, and therefore certainly should be mentioned in the lead.

• I reworded this sentence: "Along with Alexander Medvednikov, the creator, its community has a large number of contributors from around the world" as it reads as promotional, to make it slightly less so, though this could also be removed altogether.

• I added a paragraph about the development of V: beginning "V is released and developed through GitHub," as this information is more relevant for the body of the article than the lead (MOS:LEAD).

• Regarding the performance of V, I added some details from the source: "As of January 2022, the compiler was about 1 MB and could compile an unspecified 1 million lines of code" (although the writing still is not the best, "unspecified" should probably be removed)

• I removed "(/ˈviː/, as in the letter v)" as in my opinion, this is self explanatory, though I do not feel strongly about this change (compare R (programming language) does not have it, D (programming language) does not have it, though C (programming language) does have something similar)

In all these cases, not only was my change or suggestion reverted -- what is worse, the changes do not seem to have been appreciated as constructive at all. For example, none of these suggestions have been addressed through some alternate mechanism (e.g. reword the offending sentence), and in the commit messages I repeatedly get accused of making the suggestion or change in bad faith. It is at the point that I really cannot continue to edit this page as any change I make will be reverted.

Comments and feedback would be appreciated!

@Wukuendo: I have been extremely patient with you. You do not own this article, nor do I. The point of this page is to improve the article, which I have repeatedly done and made suggestions for how to do.

Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that no one WP:OWNs this article and also would make the point that an article that passes articles for creation is not a finished work. There is plenty still to do here. Please don't revert good faith edits to the page without a specific reason for doing so. Where there is a specific concern, we can then discuss it here. In the meantime I have reverted back in some of Caleb's changes above. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Caleb's major rewrites, massive section hiding, not doing the work of finding sources, acting as a defacto-reviewer

* It is unfair and inappropriate to think that after conducting major rewrites and removing large portions of information on a article, that other editors are not allowed to make revisions. This would include attempts to block other editors from making changes (including the one that submitted the draft to be an article) or wholesale and disruptively reverting their changes.

* It is not compromise, to only seek to publish your own version of the article and only what you like. Additionally, reasons for each and every change made to an article should be given. Many of your initial and massive rewritings, arguably underminded or subverted the approval of Sohom Datta (who was the actual reviewer).

* The work of myself and previous editors have been completely removed or hidden, several times without explanation or justification, very shortly after the article was approved. To include sources and citations being completely removed, also without explanation or no consensus. If you look at the edit history, I have made a conspicuous effort to note changes and revisions, and give more detailed explanations for doing so. Where in many instances, this consideration was not done for myself or others. Much of that work, for unknown reasons, was just simply removed, hidden, or rewritten.

* Caleb was not among the editors who worked on the draft, including has found no sources to help the article. His massively rewritten version of the article was forcibly pushed over the original version approved by Sohom Datta, without giving explanations to be visible to the public. This in itself looks very inappropriate or disruptive, as such massive changes should have been individually explained and justified.

* Caleb, also your rewrites and information removal continually leaves the article in a visibly disorganized looking state. This includes those editors who choose to revert portions of what was done. Weird visible errors continually get reverted back, arguably lowering the quality of the article and making it look weird. This is an active article that the world can see.

* It does not at all look appropriate to continuously push the same misspellings, large vertical gaps in spacing for unknown reasons, knowingly adding wording that is not supported by the sources, presenting conflicting or missing information, hiding large portions of edits by other editors without explanation, etc... This includes hiding or removing information done by other editors, and making statements that they will get back to it an unknown time later. Looks much better to leave those sections of the article alone, if the editor doesn't have time to complete editing them, explain their work, or leave the article in an appropriate state for public viewing.

* Closely related to that, is not doing the work on finding sources, but acting as a new defacto reviewer over Sohom Datta and the other editors who are or have worked on the article. This includes appearing to re-adjudicate as if the article is under a new review process for their unknown reasons.

* In regards to the Exercism site. First, Caleb has removed several sources without explanation. They just disappeared from public view or the current version, and he gave no sources in return, despite making rewrites which should need sources. In fact, appears to be demanding that the previous editor provide sources for his own rewrites. These judgements look unfair, as if above other editors. I previously explained reasons for using the source, including doing so in this talk. To be clear, after reviewing my explanation (please refer to other section of this talk), if the consensus among editors (or at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) is to remove the link than will do so. And have shown willingness to replace sources (with good reasons to), as did so with one mentioned earlier in this talk.

Wukuendo (talk) 08:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Exercism source

I am posting here the reason that Wukuendo (talk · contribs) gave for reinstating the very poor Exercism source (now for the third or fourth time) for review by other editors.

link to the source in question

better citation needed claim

1) This claim is being disputed, so please allow it to be resolved on talk before attempting to revert the work or eliminating sources of other editors without explanation or resolution.

2) The Exercism website is not associated with this editor in anyway nor with V's site or lead developers to my knowledge. It is a free site for learning many other programming languages, not just V. If Exercsim can be arbitrarily removed, then by similar logic, so can possibly any site or book that is referring to V as its subject matter or in it's title.

3) Website was seen by previous reviewer, who didn't object to it.

4) Exercism is notable enough to have article about it.Wukuendo (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Exercism says, in its about section:

We rely on open-source contributions.

There is limited editorial oversight, but they do say they have a top down team and a community too. That top-down team presumably provides some editorial oversight. I would think that any use of this source would require caution, but could be used in some cases. But, I then took a look at where it was used. It supported two statements. That V is fast and that V is written in itself and can compile within a second. And here is the thing: those statements are merely taken from V's own publicity. I have queried that "compile in a second" claim before (see "Advert template" section above). It is marketing hype and we don't appear to have any proper benchmarking claims being made here. Rather we have a run of references that all repeat the claim. They repeat the claim because V says this about itself. This is not careful use of the source. Whether that source can be used somewhere is moot. The statement that V can compile itself in a second needs excision and replacement with something objective. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Yet more reverts by Wukuendo

Diff Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Caleb appears to be omitting his reverts of Wukuendo, hiding and removing the work of other editors, his large scale rewrites of the article, etc...

Editors are free to check the V article history. Caleb, on the V article (as a significant experienced editor of the Rust article) has done: 1) Entire reverts on V without explanations. 2) Placed multiple accusatory tags without first seeking to talk or deescalate with other editors. 3) Rewrites without providing any sources or any public explanation. 4) Removed sources without public explanation. 5) Hidden large sections of other editor's work without public explanation. 6) Repeatedly left the V article arguably looking wrecked and in a disorganized state multiple times. 7) Appears intent to block any revisions to his rewritings of the V article by other editors.

The version of the V article you are presently looking at is Caleb's rewritten version, forcibly pushed over the original V article that had been just approved by Sohom Datta (actual original reviewer). Sections that were not rewritten by Caleb were hidden from the public, without explanation. Changes being done, are to his rewritten version, which he appears not to want to compromise about or block from edits. I ask other editors to consider these points and actions as well.

The definition of "revert", doesn't mean other editors are not allowed to make edits or changes to the article. To "unhide" a section of an article, that was hidden without public explanation or marked to be worked on some undisclosed time in the future, should not be characterized the same as a revert. That includes refusing compromise with other editors, so that one's own rewritings are the only version ever allowed. Wukuendo (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Wukendo, you are a new editor, and here in good faith to build this page. As a new editor, you get plenty of leeway as you learn about Wikipedia, but one very important policy here that you need to be aware of is one called WP:ONUS, which states that when information is removed from a page, the onus is on the editor wanting to include the information to gain a consensus before putting it back. You can't just keep re-adding the information, without getting that consensus. That will just create a back and forth, known as edit warring. Eventually it will lead to trouble. Caleb Stanford is also here in good faith. You may not agree with what he is doing, but he is doing it for a reason. We need to discuss the contested edits here and reach an agreement. Until agreement is reached, contested edits should be left out of the page. They can easily be found and re-added if consensus is reached. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Unfairness, bias, or corrupt process?

"...when information is removed from a page, the onus is on the editor wanting to include the information to gain a consensus before putting it back."

Then by your own admission, what was taking place in the recent saga initiated by Caleb's series of edits and tags were unfair or a corrupted process. Caleb did no such thing as first gain consensus here on this talk or the talk page of anyone else before implementing his rewrites, removing of numerous sources, hiding the work by other editors on V's page, or reverts.

Are you saying that the information of myself and the other editors who worked on the page (to include finding all of its sources) until it was promoted from draft to article by the actual reviewer (Sohom), should be restored? Then have each and every change discussed on the talk?

Or are you saying that editors who have been at Wikipedia longer are allowed to pick and choose what they want in an article or who they want to block making edits? Information and edits made by me, were reverted and re-added without consensus on this talk page.

Examples (way more examples of this than these three):

1) "beta"

Was removed, and then re-added by you. It was objected to, because this is not done on other programming articles on Wikipedia. For example the Zig programming language, Red programming language, and others are still in beta. The term is not smeared all over their articles, which can look like bias or attempting to prejudice readers, by comparison with other articles.

There was no consensus here about that individual change. You simply implemented it, and appear to be trying to block anyone from changing it back. In fact comments in V's edit history appeared to be ignored. It was mentioned in the edit history that the term "continuously being developed" (which was removed without consensus too) and the version number of the language on the infobox should suffice.

If you and Caleb feel strongly that programming languages in beta should have the term applied in the lead of their articles, then why be so intensely focused just on the V article and not edit those of Zig, Red, and numerous other languages?

I invite other editors to go check out those articles (Zig and Red) as well, then give their comparative opinions.

The main reason Zig and Red don't have this, I think, is that they don't have the word "beta" on their official websites. V's website literally has the word "beta" written on it. Please don't be combative about this and accuse editors of being biased. And I also don't understand the suggestion that it is smeared all over [the article], since the current version only has "beta" once. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Red puts that information in their infobox (please do check), which could be done in the case of V, instead of the lead. The point of emphasis is that other editors are not putting "beta" in the lead of the article. To not show bias or prejudicial treatment directed at only the V language, appears better to follow precedence. Wukuendo (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Just because other articles don't have this doesn't mean we shouldn't have this for every other article. IMO, now that you pointed out that Red is in alpha, I think it absolutely should have a sentence talking about it being in early development and in alpha stage. Suggesting that editors have bias or prejudice against V is not assuming good faith. Editors don't have enough time and energy to look at all the programming languages articles out there. If you do, then that's great. But some of us do not. I'm not willingly making an exception for V in my head, and I don't have something personal against V that affected how I think it should be written.

If anything, your insistence on oddly specific details such as keeping promotional language and removing valid criticism/shortcomings of the language had perhaps a larger effect than anything I feel about V itself. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I object to this incorrect characterization, edits I made were not done in bad faith nor to keep anything promotional. They were also done to treat the programming language fairly and to be consistent with other language articles on Wikipedia. Over and over I have made corrections and compromises with other editors and reviewers about any such appearance. That can be seen in the draft and article history, as well as the top of this very talk.

I volunteered, like the rest of the previous editors who were working on the draft, to elevate rejected drafts (pertaining to programming in my case) to be of higher quality so it could become an article. The intent was not to tear it down or get it removed, but to help elevate it. Which required doing the work of finding sources, making corrections, and many compromises with other editors. The versions of the draft and article, contain the work of many other editors before me.

And here is an example of what's going on and with the latest rewording:

V is released and developed through GitHub[16][7] and maintained by developers and contributors from the community.[5]

"...maintained by developers and contributors from the community" is a confusing misquote from the original source its attributed to.

"and maintained by an active community of developers and contributors", is arguably the correct wording to use and comes directly from sources.

Now, if I do an edit to make that change. It's not to revert, be promotional, nor inject any personal beliefs. It's simply to be honest, fair, and reflect what the sources are saying. Wukuendo (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

"Active" is quite subjective. I'd be interested if you could find examples of other programming languages having such subjective claims. IMO the first version is clearer (not ambiguous on what "active" really means) and more neutral. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 18:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Please do consider the following:

1) "Active" is not ambiguous, it means to be presently working on it. To not put the word in, can mean it's unknown if it is being worked on.

2) Misquoting of the source, can change the meaning and creates confusion, which can also be an ethical problem.

3) If the argument is that what other languages are doing takes precedence or can be a guide, than that can be used for arguing against putting "beta" in the lead.

4) Any changes or attempts to correct misquoting of sources should not be considered edit wars or reverts.

Wukuendo (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Earlier versions had "beta" in the article multiple times. The reason it was only put once in present versions, is because I corrected it and pointed that out a number of times. Wukuendo (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

2) "fast compile times"

This was removed and an edit history comment made objecting to the incorrect usage of the source. Which was changed from it's original location and purpose, to be re-applied to added wording by Caleb. That source should arguably be applied to "ease of use" and "readability".

No consensus was ever had about it on any talk page. The edit history comment ignored, and it was put back. Furthermore, if the point is to emphasize the primary goals of V, then arguably "fast compile times" should be switched to "maintainability". As primary goals of the language, that is supported by their website, documentation, books, and videos.

However, it doesn't seem like the opposing editors are putting in the research or work when it comes to finding supporting sources. Instead there is intense activity to rewrite, rearrange, remove, or block the previous editor or particular editors. The editing of articles should not be a one way exchange, where certain rules are attempted to be applied to some and not others. Wukuendo (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Any editor can make an initial bold edit without first gaining consensus. Wikipedia encourages bold editing. A revert that removes a bold addition can be taken as a challenge and thus the edit then needs a consensus. To one specific case you mention here: the language is in beta. That is verified and correct and pertinent too. Why wouldn't we mention that? In that case Caleb and I have both asserted the edit, and that is already a consensus of two against one. There is an optional process called WP:BRD, and if, when you wish to challenge material, you revert it and then discuss why that material should not be there, we will make better progress. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

And to note, you reverted the "beta" link again and despite this talk section and the above explanation. It is not good enough to say Zig etc. do not state this. So state it (with reference) on their pages. We don't pay attention to other pages over such things. The question is whether it is relevant here. So again, why wouldn't we say that the language is in beta? There is currently consensus to say this. Your continued reversion of that meets the definition of "edit warring". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, of the articles that I found talking about V, [11][12][13], all of them talk about V being in an early stage and in other words, experimental and in beta. The first one says Immaturity of the language, the second one says It’s also in a self-proclaimed alpha state, and though it’s already been used to build some interesting projects, is still at an early stage., and the third one says the V programming language is currently in alpha stage and is incomplete (two and three were probably before it officially became "beta"? Anyways I couldn't find any source that suggests V is mature enough so as to the official status of being beta shouldn't be included in the article) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Accidental revert

0xDeadbeef: This edit [14] removes my two previous edits without comment. was this an accidental reversion? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

yes, that was accidental. Restored here. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Compilation time

I have removed the compilation time section. I don't know what it is telling me, and it looks like marketing speak. The compiler is written in itself? Not really notable. Language compilers are often written in themself. The compiler can be compiled in under a second (or the "million lines of code a second" in the sources) is not benchmarked, and is not comparable to anything else. As V can compile to C, is it C code that it compiles in less than a second? If so, how long to then compile the C code to a native binary? Compilation time is the time it takes to go from source code to an executable. And then, of course, there is the issue that fast compilation might result in poorly optimised code. This needs something better with better sourcing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

And before the inevitable comparison comes up, note that the Rust section about compiling itself was specifically about the development history, (and in addition, sourced to a reliable interview article discussing said development history) and not as "features" of a programming language. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The point you bring up, arguably makes the case of bias or prejudicial treatment greater. For V, why not move it to another section such as history (as you or the other Rust editors did with that language) as oppose to remove it entirely or attempting to bypass what was already approved by the reviewer? This all looks really strange.

The source used for Rust compiling itself is here. It's not any stronger of a source or case than that of V. I'm kind of perplexed at what's going on here, particularly the intense focus. When I check the activity and past activity of languages promoted from draft to article, I don't see them having had so much activity.

Speaking of which, it appears Rust is allowed lots of references to primary sources (like their language document). This could be easily done in V's case, in terms of documentation or videos. But, editors and reviewers on the V draft were very insistent that this should not be done or allowed, yet it appears the standard is not equally applied. This is getting confusing. Wukuendo (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

their language document - did you mean the book titled "The Rust Programming Language"? That one is published through a publisher and a physical book. By all means we absolutely could include a brief mention of V bootstrapping itself on a section about history, but the section shouldn't be so bare as to only include every selling point of V, which would serve little encyclopedic value. The problem here is that almost all sources repeat the same selling points that V itself claims on its official website, which affects the reliability of these sources for those claims (they are less independent as they did not arrive at such claims as someone who has looked deeply into the language, and instead just repeating what has been said).

Look, we are all here to build an encyclopedia, and we'd be happy to correct any inconsistencies in editorial decisions. Let's focus on the content, instead of reaching conclusions about individuals' personal opinions. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

"The compiler is written in itself?"

1) The repeated removal of the section or contesting it on the grounds that someone personally doesn't understand the meaning appears inappropriate. It is not marketing speak. It is programming terminology well understood in computer science.

2) "V is not derived from any other programming language and is written in V itself and compiles itself in under 1 second." is an exact quote. It's from the book, "Getting Started with V Programming". The author of the book conducted extensive testing of the language.

3) As editors, we can only use information based on sources. It doesn't look appropriate to remove information based on personal beliefs or personal requests for benchmarking, as opposed to use what is stated in the sources. As was mentioned earlier in this talk, there are 2 video demonstrating V's ability to do as claimed. As these were primary sources, a previous reviewer objected to it's usage. However, as primary sources appeared to be allowed and are being placed in the lead ("beta[4]"), then perhaps other primary sources can be allowed like they are for other programming language article pages.

4) The rewording of the section title to compilation time from fast build was done by Caleb. He left that in, as would probably understand what it means.

5) To be clear, this terminology was not added by me, but by editors before me. So adding it back, is not about me.

6) As was mentioned by 0xDeadbeef, it is also in the Rust article (and likely other language articles). To remove it from the V article looks clearly unfair by comparison.

7) This is to let those who are or will be viewing this article and talk, that I was banned from editing the article after being reported by 0xDeadbeef based on reverts (and where only my reverts and not those of others were put up here on talk). Consequently, if there is a consensus, it is up to other editors to revert it. I'm in the process of appealing this decision and clearing up various factual inaccuracies made against me. Wukuendo (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

You have only been banned for 72 hours. After that, you are free and welcome to edit the article once again. But you would be well advised to gain consensus on talk before reverting information into the article. The section I removed is [15]. I haven't removed it before that I recall, although I raised an issue with it on 13 March when this article was still a draft. Has someone else removed it previously? in any case WP:ONUS applies. We need consensus on what we can say on this. 0xDEADBEEF has suggested (and I agree) that mention of bootstrapping itself could certainly be placed in a history section. You could go ahead and try new text in the history section to the effect (omitting the "compiled in less than a second" claim). That would not be a revert, and would implement something for which we seem to have consensus. As for the build in less than a second, I have described my objections to that text and nothing here addresses those. In particular, you are wasting your time when referring to how other pages do it. Another page may do it another way, but that doesn't make the other page right to do so, even if the two are comparable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

And the next ban could/might be longer or forever. These kind of actions were already predicted and stated way before. This is why I'm making sure that those that read this later are clear and see what was happening here. It is not solely for you, but for others. I volunteered to simply help with research and add sources, not for anything else.

It is not appropriate to omit portions of quotes coming directly from sources or give what appear to be orders on what content they have to put into articles. That a person does not believe or understand information coming from a source, doesn't mean that others have the same bias and should feel constrained by someone else's personal beliefs. Keep in mind that the reviewers, previous editors, and even Caleb appeared to not take issue with the full statement.

I refer to other articles as a matter of fairness and objectivity, and have also passed a review process. If all others are wrong, then that would be a display of systematic problems at Wikipedia, which should then still be addressed. Wukuendo (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

next ban could/might be longer or forever - which is exactly why you need to use the talk page, and understand why restoring your preferred version repeatedly can be disruptive. Come on man, talk to us. It currently looks like we are raising and defending our own points, while reading and responding to your points, but you aren't responding to our points.

Assertions such as It is not appropriate to omit portions of quotes coming directly from sources or give what appear to be orders on what content they have to put into articles is exactly why this discussion is so hard. You are not acknowledging the probability that you and your values might not fully align with Wikipedia's goals. It's not helpful to make Wikipedia about a single person's opinion on what an encyclopaedia looks like, and that's why we work through forming consensus. What's important is what the collectively agreed-upon definition of what Wikipedia ought to look like.

I disagree with your assertion, since Wikipedia to me has never been only about repeating what sources say, word for word. For example, if a film critic says that a film is about love and death, then we'd happily add that to the article about the film. But if the film critic says that the film is one of the best films of all time, or a film that makes your blood boil, we can't just add those to the article, right? If we look at "compiles itself under a second", the foremost issue is, what encyclopedic value does that information provide? Does the reader now have a better understanding of what V is after reading that? I'd say very little. And then, we need to consider how reliable the sources are in relation to this claim. WP:RSCONTEXT: The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. That pretty much settles it. And I'll add, the fact that this quote is used over and over again in the sources suggests something about the reliability of the entire sources. I'd like to see a source that actually verified this claim with their hardware details published.

That a person does not believe or understand information coming from a source, doesn't mean that others have the same bias and should feel constrained by someone else's personal beliefs. Same goes the other way. Just because one person believes that the source is reliable for the claim doesn't mean we should actually include the claim.

This will probably be the last extended response. I'd like to see my points written here to actually be addressed before I'll engage further. I encourage you to switch focus on other ways we can make the article better, such as what other things we can cover about the language (maybe a criticism section? I've seen some sources about that, but I guess you wouldn't want it) (and also serious question, does anyone really care if it compiles itself under a second?)

Thanks Caleb and Sirfurboy for making improvements to this article and engaging in good-faith discussions. It's probably better to not respond until valid points are made since otherwise it'd be a lot of time spent on nothing. (and also, we'd still able to form consensus on editorial decisions) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 18:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The impression is given of the following:

• "we'd still able to form consensus on editorial decisions" Have formed a team where other editors are/can be/made to feel excluded.
• "It's probably better to not respond..." OK to not discuss with other editors, continue certain style of editing, which arguably degrades versus enhances or builds.
• Administrative actions taken on IPs or editors of opposing views or editing of certain version. Opposing edits labeled as reverts.

Wukuendo (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Removal of logrocket as source without consensus

0xDeadbeef removed this source from the article.

Also note the qualifications of Victor Jonah. "I am a Software Developer with over three years of experience working with JavaScript and its frameworks. I currently work as a remote software developer for a tech agency."

References

Removal of DEV as source without consensus

0xDeadbeef removed this source from the article.

Also note the qualifications of Vic Shóstak. "I'm a Software Engineer with over 13 years of practical experience, Open Source & Free Software Popularizer, UX Consultant & UI Designer."

References

Removal of nequalsonelifestyle as source without consensus

0xDeadbeef removed this source from the article.

Also note the qualifications of Hank Grabowski. "Biohacking" software developer.

References

Removal of Analytics India Magazine as source without consensus

Removal of this source from the article.

Per search[16] Analytics India Magazine (AIM) is often used or considered as a reliable source in many articles on Wikipedia.Wukuendo (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

References

0xDeadbeef series of edits/reverts/tags without discussion or consensus

Includes removal of sources, shown above.

1. 07:43, 11 November 2023‎ 0xDeadbeef talk contribs‎ 15,639 bytes +131‎ Added Tone, Overly detailed, and Unreliable sources (Note- placement of tags over article).
2. 07:41, 11 November 2023‎ 0xDeadbeef talk contribs‎ 15,508 bytes −19‎ →‎History: cleanup undo Tag: Visual edit
3. 07:40, 11 November 2023‎ 0xDeadbeef talk contribs‎ 15,527 bytes −80‎ →‎Features: rm the statement with the primary source previously removed undo Tag:
4. 07:39, 11 November 2023‎ 0xDeadbeef talk contribs‎ 15,607 bytes −779‎ rm, first source has no claims on the language's performance, second source is your usual "how to install x" article that isn't reliable (usually just copies information from others), and third source is self-published. undo Tag:
5. 07:34, 11 November 2023‎ 0xDeadbeef talk contribs‎ 16,386 bytes −182‎ →‎Performance: another self-published source undo Tag:
6. 07:34, 11 November 2023‎ 0xDeadbeef talk contribs‎ 16,568 bytes −233‎ →‎Performance: dev.to is a self-published source undo Tag:
7. 07:32, 11 November 2023‎ 0xDeadbeef talk contribs‎ 16,801 bytes −8‎ →‎Safety: another comparative undo Tag:
8. 07:31, 11 November 2023‎ 0xDeadbeef talk contribs‎ 16,809 bytes −9‎ →‎Safety: what does "stricter" even mean undo Tag:
9. 07:30, 11 November 2023‎ 0xDeadbeef talk contribs‎ 16,818 bytes −561‎ →‎History: not a reliable source, and "to not mess up git history" reads like fancruft. Who needs to know that V is named because it was already named as V in the file extension? undo Tag:
10. 07:22, 11 November 2023‎ 0xDeadbeef talk contribs‎ m 17,379 bytes 0‎ →‎History: position of originally undo Tag: 2017 wikitext editor

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [20]
5. [21]
6. [22]
7. [23]
8. [24]
9. [25]
10. [26]

I fail to see how any of this is useful for discussions on the talk page. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It's for public clarity, discussion, and comparative display as to how things are done and what goes on at Wikipedia for those that have or would even be bothered to volunteer any time and effort.

And can other editors comparatively do and act as Caleb and yourself have done on the V article (without any discussion or consensus) to Zig, Crystal, Red, or perhaps the Rust articles. Wukuendo (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Starting multiple talk sections merely stating that references have been removed don't really help write the article. References support and verify statements. What is the information that a reader needs to know about V? And then, when we know that, we can reference it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Continuously stripping the article of information, context, and sources

Large quantities of information have and are being continuously stripped from the article, resulting in degradation, where the remaining section or sentence being left is nonsensical or doesn't convey usable meaning anymore.

The edit history shows it is being done by an iterative process, thus not so obvious (per each iteration) unless aware. However, it has reached the point where now it's very obvious, because there are places with a single floating sentence. Information, context, or sources are being removed versus productive adding or contributing. Wukuendo (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have concrete suggestions to improve the page or any specific objections to individual edits done by me? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Among the things that have been iteratively happening, based on the edit history:

• Sources matching statements have been scrambled or moved. Creating mismatches.

• Statements or sources are removed due to the resulting mismatches, and...

• Outright removal of statements, sources, or sections without debate or consensus.

• Direct quote of sources not good enough or putting direct quotes back into article subject to being considered reversion.

Tags placed which are contradictory to actions taken or creates impossible to resolve catch-22 situations:

• After already doing the removal of sources at will and without debate, for seemingly being unreliable or not liked, then keeping a tag stating there are unreliable sources. Tag and action are contradictory.

• After removing numerous statements in the article, so that there is only a sentence or the minimal amount of content, then keeping a tag stating the article contains "an excessive amount of intricate detail". This include after other editors and reviewers have already gone over the article. Tag and action are contradictory.

• Placing a tag on the article that is subject to opinion, without specifics, despite the previous editors and reviewers. Unresolvable catch-22

The appearance that any attempt to change the article, from a particular version, will result in IP ban or editor block.

Wukuendo (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

How iterative degradation editing is being done to this article

This is so it is clear to the public, by giving an example of the methodology. This is just one of many other examples.

The article, after only just recently being promoted from draft, had these source derived statements (one of several removed) in the performance section (in bullet list format):

Performance:

• Fast like C (human-readable C compiled by backend)[20][21][22][23]
  • Added features for safety, if desired, can be disabled or bypassed for greater performance
• C interop[24][25][26][27]
• Allocations kept to minimal[28]
• Serialization with no runtime reflection[20]
• Native binaries compiled with no dependencies[7][29]

This was then reduced to the degraded and out of context statement, under performance.

Performance:

V uses value types and string buffers to reduce memory allocations.[19][20][21]

This shows the removal of sources and statements. Even more, a tag was placed on the article (after significant source and statement removal), "article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail". As if the highly degraded statement, could be confused with providing excessive detail.

With this logic, only complete removal of the statement, section, and more sources would appear to be the next step in actions taken. Each iteration of removal, sets up the next possible justification of more content removal.

Statements derived from the sources are removed without explanation or discussion. And the degrading and removal style is considered credible editing, where edits by other editors who don't seem to be of a selected group, are labelled as reverts or actions taken to ban their IPs. The impression is given that pertinent and useful information, which are allowed or put into other programming articles (like Rust or Zig), is being purposefully removed from the V article.

Take for example the below statement, which was one of several attempts made to compromise with the degrading and removal of content from the article.

"V has demonstrated to be as fast as C; its backend is capable of compiling code to human-readable C."

The below source is visual proof, which is demonstrated by a secondary source, for the above.

34:13 of Learning Vlang, part 3 - Benchmarking it (V vs C).

34:41 "the V compiler just adding the production flag... this flag then suddenly V is faster than C at least as fast which is great" (note: that person is also not me either).

Other collaborating statements, directly from established sources. These sources are also not simply repeating anything from the primary site, they were testing V, then giving their assessments of it. Examples:

"V comes with performance as fast as C"

"V has Clang, GCC, or MSVC as its primary backend, depending on the OS, which allows it to compile to human-readable C. Having these compilers as the main backend allows V to have easy interoperability with C."

"V is as performant as C"

Wukuendo (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll ask again, do you have concrete suggestions to improve the page or any specific objections to individual edits done by me? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The question looks like it's being asked as if suggestions, compromises, or specifics were never/are not given. All while the tagging (continuous changing of tags), degradation, disruptive looking editing continues. New tags now placed, "Non-important content should likely be moved to another article or removed", are creating the appearance that more content should be removed. This, after yourself and what appear to be selected editors had already removed lots of relevant content without debate. And that content being removed, was already a compromise.

A very clear example of what was done: On 16:46, 10 November 2023‎, the article was already a compromise by the editors involved with Caleb's rewritten version. After already a contentious process (not even counting the draft period) to reach compromises with Caleb's rewritten version, you then came to the article.

You (0xDeadbeef) have made the last 23 of the last 30 edits (and counting), since Caleb's last edit. This has been intense, turbulent, and an odd sustained focus on this particular article. For unclear reasons, because it's not like research and editing on a draft for an upcoming review.

Of the remaining edits, 1 by Sirfurboy, who appears to be on your team of select editors based on such statements, "Thanks Caleb and Sirfurboy..." "we'd still able to form consensus on editorial decisions". 1 other was by a Wikipedia bot for cleanup type issues.

Of the 5 edits by other parties (making it very clear that none were me), it appears you tried/had the IPs banned and falsely accused me of being them. The attempts at editing made by the other 5 were:

1) "Native binaries can be compiled with no dependencies."

IP made an attempt to return the above statement supported from sources and considers you to have done a revert.

2) "The language also promotes safety and the elimination of ambiguity; for example, variable shadowing is not allowed; that is, declaring a variable with a name that is already used in a parent scope will cause a compilation error." Note: this was already a compromised reworded statement.

1st IP attempted to add the statements to the article, gave sources, then Sirfurboy removed it, and referred to it as a "Unexplained revert". Note: keep in mind that the above statements remained after Caleb's rewrite and as a compromise. They were removed without debate on talk.

3) "latest release version = 0.4.3"

4) "latest release version = 0.4.3"

2nd IP appears to have been just trying to update the latest release number. This was also reported by you, as it being me and to initiate a ban, "now there's..., also Serverius. 0xDeadbeef"

5) " statically typed compiled programming language" "currently in beta" "early"

3rd IP attempts edits and for "More encyclopedic tone", which refers to a previous tag that you placed on the article. You then revert their changes.

You were given multiple replies about degradation of the article and improving it. This includes being given proof of the validity of a statement that you removed, and you have not returned it. The situation looks like that if any positive editing is attempted, they may be in danger of a ban, block, or other possible actions (per history). I'm also not quite sure what the fixation is on degrading and disruptively removing content from this article is about, as the history would indicate it's not to be productive or enhance.

Previous attempts at compromise, were ignored, as demonstrated in V's recent edit history. Compromise statements placed in the article (from previous editors of conflicting opinions) were just simply removed without discussion, regardless of source. The move towards increasing degradation just continues. This is in addition to banning edits, editors, or IPs with opposing views. A very easy comparison of what is being done here, is to compare the articles and edit histories of Zig or Crystal to V.

Wukuendo (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Please, do you have any suggestions to improve the article? I'm seriously asking. Anything you want me to add? Write a sentence with a source that we can use, tell me where to put it. If you don't want to edit the article that's fine, but assuming malice is not cool. This wall of text gives me a lot of headaches, that's all. If you have a problem with me specifically or other editor's conduct, this talk page is not the place for it. Please, please, keep your comments on topic. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)