User talk:Highlandsun

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Antique Rose 23:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

LMDB revised article
No, sorry, you can't get away with that "Politics" section. Wikipedia's internal processes aren't good subjects for articles unless they have been picked up and discussed externally; whether or not the nominator has a COI does not decide the outcome of an AfD; most importantly, your assertion that "This action appears to have been a pre-emptive attempt to stifle BerkeleyDB competitors" is pure, unsourced original research. The references you give say nothing about the deletion of the Wikipedia article. What you could legitimately say, citing those references, is that the BerkelyDB license change has stirred interest in LMDB as an alternative. Otherwise, the "Second strike with Lightning" is a good addition, and on that basis I wouls consider re-listing it for another pass at AfD. (There is an appeal process at WP:Deletion review, but that is really intended for disagreeing with the close of an AfD, and where an improved article is brought back, DRV is likely to say "Relist"). If you cn find any more substantial discussion of LMDB (see WP:42) it would improve its chances. JohnCD (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply John. No, I don't actually intend to keep the Politics section. I simply used it to collect the various links on the recent events. There's a lot of work going on around LMDB now, at least 12 LMDB wrappers for various other languages, all written by independent 3rd parties. http://symas.com/mdb/ lists them. This Ayende Rahien blog is quite influential in the C/C# programming sphere and spent 2 months reviewing the LMDB code in a series of articles. http://ayende.com/blog/tags/reviews - I count 12 LMDB articles in this review series.

This LWN.net article summarizing the fallout from the BDB license change http://lwn.net/Articles/557820/ also points out the significance of LMDB as a BDB replacement http://lwn.net/Articles/558154/ since there are no other packages with the noted features all in one place. The other significant point in that 558154 posting is that 10% of the software packages that depend on BDB already support LMDB (and actually that list has grown since that message was posted.) It should be pretty clear that LMDB's usage is accelerating and that it has already had an impact on the software world.

Meanwhile, your disregarding the COI seems ill-advised. While it's true that "all articles should stand on their own merits" the fact remains that there are a lot of garbage articles out there going unmolested, and the only reason this article received negative attention was because an Oracle employee drew that negative attention to it. Otherwise, the article would have flown under the radar and naturally grown over the past few months and its quality would naturally have improved. Instead, with the deletion controversy, LMDB users have been reluctant to contribute to the article. Highlandsun (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)