User talk:Ideogram/Archive 1

Re: help
Hello again. I wish I could be more helpful but that article is well above me, I'm afraid. I don't know who is right and who is wrong with regards to the edits, so all I can comment on is the talk page discussion. These are some things I've observed over time. While everyone is encouraged to be bold in editing, the actual practice of being bold comes with a risk of alienating one or more editors. It's for you to decide whether a particular fight is worth fighting. For my part, sometimes I just shrug and tell myself I've got better ways of spending my time, but on other occasions I will continue to lead a discussion if I feel strongly enough about it. It is also common for individual users to assume "ownership" of an article. I can't tell if it's happened in this case, but it is usually accompanied by a resentment of any edits or differences in viewpoints and the need for a diplomatic approach is probably more important than usual, while the "be bold" principle may be counterproductive. I don't think you are in the wrong here and I see nothing that you should be reproached for, but I think that when you see that your edits are viewed as controversial it's a good idea to step back from them. Perhaps even remove yourself from editing for a day or two and then look back at what other editors make of the article during this time. I would focus on keeping the discussion to the point, avoid making any emotive comments, and - although it's very difficult - try not to take it personally. If your viewpoint is at odds with the general consensus, or even one particularly vocal opponent, it would be a good idea to support your viewpoint with some kind of authoritative reference rather than continuing on a mission that isn't being accepted. If you continue discussing the issue on the talk page and explain your viewpoint, you may or may not reach a consensus but there is little more you can do but try. I think it's a good idea to put something into your edit summaries although I can see that virtually nobody has been doing this on this particular article. Please don't let your experience of Wikipedia be soured by this episode. This is one article out of over a million, and one editor out of thousands. Rossrs 08:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

FP
I hope that your comment on the FP talk page about leaving wasn't an indication that you would leave Wikipedia altogether. While it might not be a bad idea to refrain from editing the FP article for a while (or at least stick to edits that add content or references), I'd hate to see you leave Wikipedia. Although there has obviously been some friction with regard to the FP article, I think it's notable that this is the first time in a while that the article has seen heavy editing. Several references have been added which were sorely needed. The article has been cleaned up in a number of different ways. All of that was motivated by your intervention. --Allan McInnes (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Allan McInnes here. I have not been happy with many particulars of your edits to FP, but I recognize that you are an intelligent, well-informed and articulate contributor that would be good to have at Wikipedia.


 * But I do think that whatever articles you work on, you should temper the "be bold" idea quite a bit (moreover, the generic advice applies equally to all sides of any disagreement). On any given article, start small and non-contentious, and work your way up from there.  When editors on a particular article see a history of good contributions by you, they are much more likely to want to follow you in the direction you are going.  But when your first (or nearly first) edit to an article that has been around, and fairly stable, for a long time is a major rewrite... well, you are almost guaranteed to encounter conflict (unless the topic is simply obscure enough to have few editors following it at all).


 * In terms of the FP topic, I do have a sense of the length it should be, and I have provided what I believe are good analogies in other articles (mostly object-oriented programming, which is a similar conceptual level and field of interest). I certainly do not feel generically that "longer is better"; but I do feel very strongly that "long enough" is much, much better than "much too short".  The meaning of "summary style" on WP is that readers can naturally "unfold" to reveal more information on whatever topic, or stop reading when they have learned enough to satisfy themselves.  The levels are arranged like:


 * The article lead. See WP:LEAD for some guidance here, but generally a few paragraphs that present a general sense of what the topic is about, and give a nod in the direction of what will be discussed in the full article.
 * The full article. Ideally this is arranged with clear TOC headings, so readers may jump to only a particular sub-topic if that's all they care about.  But also the linear flow of the article should read in some relatively logical sense so that readers can start at the top, and stop where they like without missing anything essential.  Depending on the type of topic, this order might be chronological, or from simple-to-complex, or from general-to-specific; it's hard to say exactly what principle should govern without getting into the specific topic.
 * Linked articles. For long topics, "See also" or "Main article" links might expand on some concept addressed briefly in section summaries.  But even if not that hierarchically organized, wikilinks let readers follow to related concepts.  Ideally, the sentences where those related concepts are mentioned give some vague sense of what they are, and why reader might want to know more.


 * This kind of organization leaves room for expansion of topics (in one or more articles) to a much fuller discussion, without disrupting reader's capability of getting a "quick take".


 * In terms of social dynamic, editors indeed contribute what they feel like contributing. No one is paid for this.  So that leads to a typical course of article development, and a right way and wrong way to proceed on that course.  In the abstract, for a given topic, the concepts A, B, C, D, E and F might be related to that general concept, and each might be equally topical.  But the first few editors who come along might know more or find more interesting, A/B/C than they do the others.  So that's what they add.  And a few other editors might recognize the importance of E and F, but not spend a lot of work fleshing them out.  After a while, we get an article like:


 * Lead
 * A: Lots of discussion
 * B: Lots of discussion
 * C: Lots of discussion
 * E: brief mention
 * F: brief mention


 * D is entirely ignored and E/F are given slightly short shrift. At this point, sometimes editors come along and complain about POV and lack of balance.  In some cases, these editors delete or radically reduce the discussions of A/B/C that prior editors put a lot of work into (and conflict ensues).  These new editors—often new to WP as a whole, sometimes just to that one article—misunderstand WP social process, often out of a well-meaning sense of "purity" of article balance.  But the new editors are wrong here.


 * The thing to do isn't to kill the worthwhile stuff on A/B/C, it's to write more on D/E/F... if the new editor doesn't happen to know about D/E/F, it's just necessary to wait until someone who does (and has the time and inclination to work on it) shows an interest. The imperfect state of the article isn't some deep flaw of bias or POV, it's just the way that every WP article is... improvements happen with time and attention, but the intermediate result always has slightly imperfect balance.  And unless A is the politicized position that "D sucks!", balance doesn't demand an immediate "refuting position".  LotLE × talk  21:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying your position and expressing your appreciation for my involvement. You have given me much to think about.  Ideogram 21:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Scheme
Hello, I have fixed your peer review (and also added a bunch of suggestions), which is now located at Peer review/Scheme programming language/archive1. For future reference, the reason why it wasn't working before is because Wikipedia templates require exactly the same content as the page it is located; because the page was named Wikipedia:Peer review/Scheme programming language, not Wikipedia:Peer review/Scheme, it won't work. Thanks, AndyZ 00:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

unix article
The unix article seems pretty good at first glance, but I'm on my way out the door right now. There are definitely a couple awkard spots, though. A quick look made me wonder I've never looked at it before -- it's interesting stuff. I've put it on my watch list and plan to go through it later when I have a few minutes. Thanks for the pointer. -- Steven Fisher 23:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

PL etc.
Thanks for all your work on PL-related topics, and for your encouraging notes. It looks like you're pretty new to editing Wikipedia, and you're hitting that phase when you begin to butt heads with other users. Don't get discouraged, and don't let other users' behavior get you too riled up. Conflict is just an inherent part of the process, and you'll enjoy editing more if you make your peace with Wikipedia's fundamental madness. Keep your eye on the long run, not the minute-to-minute edits, because in the long run the output of all this anarchy usually ends up reasonable. Also, sometimes it helps to take a break and come back the next day ;). Happy editing.  k.lee 02:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry...
I won't let anyone stop me from editing. :) Since the exchange occurred, I've been off Wiki for most the evening, but I'll assuredly be back.  Right now, I'm doing a bit of research on PL definitions in the literature.   See you round... --EngineerScotty 04:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: CSCOTW programming language
In reply: - hey, sorry for not contributing right away. I am in the middle of an extremly busy month, and I didn't expect the article to become the CSCOTW immediatly, I will contribute as soon as possible, but that might not be until next week. My appologies. -- ZeWrestler  Talk 18:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Results (so far)
I've posted some brief results (I've been busy, so haven't had time to work on this much) on Talk:Programming language, but most of the PL texts I've checked (those available online, or which I own copies of) don't bother to define "programming language". :) I'll look around a bit more.  --EngineerScotty 16:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Perl mediation
The mediation is suspended as a result of the arb committee case. But the main page is: Talk:Perl_Mediation which leads to various subpages.

I am planning to help medcabal by mediating a case. Any pointers you can give me would be appreciated. Ideogram 08:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * User:jbolden1517/NotesOnMediation
 * and I'll be happy to comediate with you on your first one.
 * Keep replying here I'll monitor this page. jbolden1517Talk 11:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I found that page very helpful, thanks. I will let you know when I pick my first case(s).  Ideogram 11:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Background
I saw that you were interested in the Interview as well. Do you mind if you could reveal your academic and wikipedia background so that I could consider you as a candidate? -- Evanx  (tag?) 19:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have drawn up the Interview. If you would like to add other questions or provide additional insights, please feel free to do so. -- Evanx  (tag?) 01:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

medcabal
My first case was easy -- they resolved it before I got there. Ideogram 14:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2006-06-06 nostradamus needs to be closed. Let me know how. Ideogram 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Go to Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-06_nostradamus and fill in the details of the problem and the resolution.  Make sure to link to the people accepting the resolution or them telling you they accepted it.
 * 2) Post back on the talk page a link to your filing and give them a chance to object
 * 3) Go to Mediation_Cabal/Cases and
 * 4) move the nostradamus entry above the "in need of mediators line"
 * 5) mark the entry "self resolved"
 * 6) cross it out using the notation.  jbolden1517Talk  18:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Done! That felt good!  Ideogram 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've examined 2006-06-09 source documents, and I don't think we can help here. This is a disagreement a user has with policy, not another user. What is the proper way to dispose of this case? Ideogram 14:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

2006-06-11 Home Automation does not seem amenable to mediation. It is difficult to ascertain the facts in this case; while Mezuri has, according to the log, inserted his own commercial website twice, the links he has deleted were also commercial. It is not possible for me to determine which edits were made by the requestor, Nextec, as all previous relevant edits were made anonymously. If we accept this case, I presume the first step would be to ask Mezuri for clarification. Ideogram 15:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

2006-06-07 The Complete Peanuts: 1950 to 1952 Annotations  is also a case of a user disagreeing with policy and not another user. This case should probably be declined. Ideogram 16:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You can still do this case. You could still take it but there are enough chefs in the kitchen for now, jbolden1517Talk  18:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently medcabal does not need my help -- all of the cases I examined do not require mediation :-). Ideogram 16:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

2006-06-13 Greg Bravo (Gary Scott) looks like a case I could actually mediate. I'll wait for someone to tell me how to take a case before actually doing anything. Ideogram 17:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Same as Peanuts. jbolden1517Talk 18:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

jbolden1517Talk 03:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Clean up the talk page a little (create an archive)
 * 2) You only really have 2 IPs to worry about.  Try and get them to get account names: 152.163.100.68, 205.188.117.8.


 * I suspect all the anonymous edits were by Musicknight. If I don't hear from any more anonymous editors I will proceed.  Ideogram 06:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well then I"ll point they are both AOL IP addresses jbolden1517Talk 11:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have taken 2006-06-13 Red Hot Chili Peppers Ideogram 07:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC).

I have taken 2006-06-14 Antikythera mechanism. jbolden I know you recommended not taking cases involving admins but User:Kcordina said I would be fine. Ideogram 11:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have taken 2006-06-14 Karl Menninger. This should be enough for now :-). Ideogram 12:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Perl
Please stop the personal attacks. Pudge

I don't understand. You say this is not a personal attack, but deductive reasoning implies otherwise. You noted I was being civil, which necessarily implies that you believe that my being civil is noteworthy. If my being civil is noteworthy, it can only be because you believe I am normally not civil. So please explain to me how directly implying I am not normally not civil is not a personal attack. Pudge 14:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, asking me to not "talk" to you means nothing to me. You replied to me in the talk page; I responded appropriately. And if you write something in a discussion I feel I should reply to, I will do so, ignoring this request, because I have every right to respond to whom I wish in the talk pages. You can request this all you want, but it will go unheeded. Don't get angry with me; the fact is that you directly implied I am normally not civil in the Perl talk page, and unless you can come up with any argument how this is not a personal attack -- intentional or not -- I don't see why I shouldn't call you on it. Pudge 14:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation pointers
Hi. Looks like you're doing good work. A couple of comments, which are really just stylistic ones. I prefer to be more assertive in the way I work - "this case is in mediation, I am the mediator, this is what is going to happen", as opposed to "are you happy for me to do this". It's personal preference, but it limits the questions you're expecting people to answer, and gives you command over proceedings, rather than letting them guide you. On a similar vein, I noticed you said "I prefer people to go through me" - remember you're there to encourage the parties to talk to each other and realise they can get along and sort it out them selves, not to stand in between and interpret. Again, personal preference. Keep up the good work! Kcordina Talk 07:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Programming language
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. - CobaltBlueTony 23:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Adam. This is Fortheloveofhampsters. My Userpage (which I have not set up) indicates that I am being blocked. We were in the middle of mediating "Greg Bravo (Gary Scott) with user Musicknight. I know Musicknight has alleged that I have vandalized the site but I think that his definition of vandalism is that I reverted the site back to including a dispute tag earlier this week (after he had taken it off). Could you tell me what is going on? Thank you.--Fortheloveofhampsters 18:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a chat room
Idiogram, Wikipedia is not a chat room, a bulletin board, or a way to get a free education. The Programming language talk:programming language page contains many discussions between you and a small group of other people. The format and tone is similar to what might occur in a chat room or bulletin board. The volume of discussion is such that two archive pages have been created over a very short period of time, after several years of havinbg a single page. You clearly don't know much about programming languages and want to learn more. This is fine, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. You are making edits that are technically wrong, you don't like terms that are in general use (eg, source code vs. program text) and make edits that reflect your preferences rather than the general usage, then you throw tantrums when you are corrected.

Yes, I am doing my best to ignore you. Please go and read some books and learn something about a subject before you start editing Wikipedia articles. A short list of books I have found useful: "Programming language pragmatics" by Scott, "Code complete" by McConnell (first edition, the second went downhill), "Modern compiler design" by Grune et al, "Computer architecture a quantitative approach" by Hennessy et al. Derek farn 10:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The A...Z problem
I think that the problem here is that A's tactics are unacceptable but the title being complained of is also unacceptable POV. At this point Z. has accepted that the name could be changed to something less Orwellian. --Gorgonzilla 15:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Please stop singling out someone in a conflict when it takes two to tango. Do not shout, and do not again tell others not to respond to certain users. This is incivil. Thank you. 

has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!