User talk:Steve p

Perl mediation
What do you want me to do? I tried mediating, at your side's request the members of your side didn't honor the agreement and attacked me personally. You yourself was the only person who made any real attempt at mediation (which I appreciate BTW). The guy who asked for it has made no attempt to cooperate. I'd need administrative assistance if I'm going to do anything here. So far I haven't found an administrator who cares about the Perl page enough to save it. This case is far too murky to go to arbitration at this point. I think you should start a page where people discuss what they want to do. But when I read the RFC it doesn't seem to be getting through your side's head that 2 neutral people have looked at the evidence and by in large have found that 60/40 it favors Barry over the pro Perl group. So what is it you want to have happen? I'm not personally an admin and the admins are turning me down on enforcement. I can mediate but only if 3-4 or people from your side indicate a willingness to actually cooperate. Otherwise its a waste of time. You can respond here I'll monitor the page. jbolden1517Talk 02:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that several people have been out of line. The best scenario may be that a few get either mentoring or probation.  I'm going to try to contact some of the other editors out of band to get some agreement from them.  Based on previous statements and lack of any statements to the contrary, Swmcd seems to be alright with the current compromise offer.  So, I need at least one more, but two or three would be better.  My hope is to build a consensus that reasonable critiques that are verifyable, not self-published, and from a reliable source should be added.  This is as much to protect the page from inappropriate pro-Perl linking as much as anti-Perl linking.  My concern, as I said here, is that the other side seems unwilling to compromise at all, and the ability to antagonize is tremendous.  It will be very difficult to keep things together with the expected antaginization.
 * If you have problems, questions, or concerns with the compromise offer or my answers regarding the popularity of Perl, please let me know. I'd be glad to address them here if you prefer.  Steve p 03:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think its a good compromise on one issue. And it seems like Barry agrees with the inclusion of the quote.  So I think you may be able to strike a compromise with him.  Will the other editors honor it?
 * And even if so the problem this is one out of 50 issues that Barry has raised over the last several months. More importantly there are a lot of areas where the article is really lacking in discussing what is important about Perl and I think that's because you focused what is defensible rather than what is important.  For example Larry Wall's single biggest innovative features where:
 * including regexes as a primitive data type in a full featured and thus allowing regexes in programs did not manipulate "files"
 * contexts
 * Contexts are barely mentioned and the section on regexs doesn't include influence. Hell they are part of Java now and Perl regexes are the "standard".  You guys have trouble writing these sorts of sections because the group dynamics are bad.  I'd like to fix them but what I need is agreement to participate in mediation and honor the agreements from the mediator (including when I rule in Barry's favor).  If you think they are willing to buy into that then go ahead.
 * jbolden1517Talk 12:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Barry's concerns do not necessarily mean that his changes are the right changes to make. His repeated insistance on including unencyclopedic sources is disturbing, and I belive that holding to a higher standard will bring in more of the Perl editors.  I agree that some of his changes were good.  I also agree, as you pointed out yourself, some were made to antagonize.  Paraphrasing what Larry Wall said to Barry on IRC, some people are unhappy unless they're unhappy.  I am still amazed at how insightful Larry can be.  Steve p 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I found an admin you are going to get the help you asked for. jbolden1517Talk 13:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by contexts (its sort of an overloaded term in Perl)? Scalar context vs. List context? Context-sensative matching with \G? Steve p 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I meant contexts in the scalar vs. array sense though actually there are (if memory serves) 6 of them: scalar, array, bool, void, interpolative, (missing one). Keep up the good work on the mediation, btw.  jbolden1517Talk  13:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually scalar, list, Boolean, void, string, and numeric. There's also "don't care" but the perlglossary won't even go into that one. I should have something written up on Boolean shortly.  Steve p 19:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you sure that interpolative isn't one of them? jbolden1517Talk  20:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * From perlglossary.pod...

The surroundings, or environment. The context given by the surrounding code determines what kind of data a particular expression is expected to return. The three primary contexts are list context, scalar context, and void context. Scalar context is sometimes subdivided into Boolean context, numeric context, string context, and void context. There's also a "don't care" scalar context (which is dealt with in Programming Perl,  Third Edition, Chapter 2, "Bits and Pieces" if you care).

--- See top page 72 same book. jbolden1517Talk 16:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Steve I'm not saying this for my own benefit. I'm pretty sure you aren't going to believe me, but I don't know that there is anybody else who knows who you are. So I'm going to do it and them my conscience is clear.


 * Why, who are you? Ideogram 03:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I like you and I think you've tried really hard to work with the process. You don't want to be making random comments in an this phase of an RFAr. There is an evidence phase later. Assuming Pudgenet files a counter claim the stuff you are doing would go in the evidence phase. By putting it in when you are you are making yourself look like an idiot. (And I mean that in the kindest way possible). You'll notice I didn't provide any evidence (like the 50 statements that violate policy, or the links showing earlier involvement). Once the page gets locked this mistake is going to follow you around. (and you'll have to do the "I was new, I didn't know what an RFAr meant, I didn't mean to...." shuffle). I'll jump down from the soap box jbolden1517Talk 16:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * jbolden1517, regarding interpolative context, I'll have to look. That  would be a mistake in the core Perl documentation if it is missing.


 * OK good well it will be nice to resolving a real issue for the Perl article (what are the contexts) rather than stuff about stupid quotes. jbolden1517Talk 19:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Self-reverted, as I really didn't know what was involved, but frustration is also boiling over a bit. Steve p 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can understand you have every right to be frustrated. This is the first time I've seen something like this.  I wish I could say something encouraging but I really can't.  What should have taken two weeks is now going be derailed for three to six months and then we'll be back in the same place we were in late May.    jbolden1517Talk  19:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steve, I saw your request for opinions on the WikiProject Programming languages page. I appreciate that you seem to be one of the few voices of reason in this matter. I'll continue to monitor. Ideogram 03:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ideogram, thanks! I certainly appreciate the outside views on Perl, especially from someone who has worked on other programming language articles.  I'll take a look at the Scheme_programming_language and see if I can make any suggestions there.  Steve p 12:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding empty list being false
If perlsyn says that, it's a mistake. You can't have a list in a scalar context, ever. I'm pretty sure Larry wouldn't have written that, so it must've been some update by someone who doesn't understand the fine points of context. --Randal L. Schwartz 15:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC) (response to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARandalSchwartz&diff=58038054&oldid=43100775)


 * Your suspicions are confirmed. The following change seems to be at fault...

=head2 Truth and Falsehood -A false value is C, the number 0, the string C<'0'> and the -empty string C<"">. Note that unlike some languages, these are three -distinctly different values. A true value is everything which is not -false. +The number 0, the strings C<'0'> and C<"">, the empty list C<>, and an +explicit C are all false in a boolean context. Every other value +is true. -Note that while 0, 0.0 and C<'0'> are false, C<'0.0'> is true. +Note that while 0, 0.0 and C<'0'> are false, C<'0.0'> and C<'0e0'> are +true, but evaluate to 0 in a numeric context.


 * I'll look at re-wording a fix this evening. Steve p 16:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Perl Mediation
I see that the Perl mediation is now closed and that -Barry- has demanded the return of all of his edits and that the content dispute should be resolved by Arbitration Committee. This is rather disappointing. I'd hate to see the Perl page ruined due to the actions of two bad apples. Where can a new mediator be requested?


 * You are absolutely correct that the content dispute is not part of the case. I'm not sure where Barry and Pudgenet are getting the idea that this case is about content or about wikipedians with articles. This is as clear cuts a disciplinary case as they come.  Arbcom would argue (correctly) that there is no evidence that the content issues can't be solved via. mediation.  The previous mediation (by the mediator's own admission) was sabatoged due to non participation, bad faith acts and bad behavior.  I closed the case without any finding of fact regarding content.


 * In terms of content fundamentally the problem is the Perl community will not accept the authority of the wikipedia community to govern the processes by which the Perl articles are edited. They believe that because they are authorities on Perl they are authorities on wikipedia.  Remember I mentioned 6 months when this first went to arbcom, I think that's an accurate estimate.  Seeing the guilty verdict combined with penalties might start to create a cultural transformation (i.e. there is still a belief by regular editors that Pudgenet's behavior was tolerable even admirable rather than criminal).  This is a problem because this "moral support" for disruption is going to occur the next time someone decides to derail the process, and thus things won't get better.  Also the noticable deterioration of the article that will occur/has occured in the coming months will have an impact.  It may or may not be enough.  There are many possible next steps:


 * A mediator with experience in working on articles where the editors are fundamentally hostile to wikipedia process (for example people from circumcision or Lyndon LaRouche). In all honesty I wasn't prepared for this.  I had assumed that people with years of internet experience would welcome dispute resolution and that the initial hostility was not indicative of their actual feelings.  I know three editors who might take the case who have this kind of experience.  Not sure they would consider saving the Perl article worth the effort, since its "techie stuff".


 * A blood in the streets admin. There are admins who block quickly and aggressively.  One warning followed by a block which lasts until there is an agreement to change behavior.  I think that might work.  Problem is that minor revert waring and light personal insults (no threat of violence, no legal threats, no racial content, no real world criminal behavior...) aren't really serious enough to attact their attention.  So for this kind of mediation to happen things would have to get worse.  And I don't know that they will.  Everyone on Perl has been in lots and lots of flame wars and they understand the difference between flaming on the net and doing it in real life.


 * A pagelock/edit protected system with no mediator. Basically what this means is the page remains the same for a long period of time.  Every change has to go through the "edit protected" process where it is word for word suggested and their is no disagreement for about 2 weeks.    If edit wars continue to break out this is what is likely to happen.  The nice thing is that after a few months of this the mediation process will seem far less heavy weight.  The idea of someone who can approve a change and do it instantly will seem wonderful.  It forces people to really listen to one another.  The downside is these battles seem to be able to move from Perl related article to Perl related article so this might not solve anything.


 * If you want to help the process along start a thread on Perl talk now that mediation has been closed regarding "next steps". Maybe you can get somewhere with them.

Also, you may also wish to correct the mention that Pudge identified -Barry- as Wassercrats. -Barry- has self-indentified himself on several occasions. Steve p 13:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. BTW what as the resolution on the 6 contexts?  I assume you found my reference.  jbolden1517Talk  14:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The scalar and list contexts are mentioned throughout the article, so that I feel fine with. I added a mention of boolean context to which Randal has made some additions and corrections.  Some of these changes may also have some effect on the existing Perl documentation.  I did find your reference to the interpolative context and am working though it as there seems to be some disagreement between Wikipedia, "Programming Perl", and the actual Perl documentation.   "Programming Perl" is likely more authoritative, but working with published copyrighted material so as to add it to either the Perl documentation or Wikipedia is a bit of a challange.  Right now, I'm working with the bits of mentions elsewhere throughout the existing documentation that I'm working on distilling into one authoritative location.  Void context also needs a better discussion, as well as the "Don't Care" context.  Steve p 16:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

where did I say anything like that
Can you tell me where I said you were called as a witness? The closest thing I said was that pudgenet was capable of calling witnesses and I listed other people who had testified. jbolden1517Talk 22:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a "Perl guy".


 * Thoughout all these procedings, there have several aspersions cast about the Perl community. People are only backing Pudge because he's a Perl guy.  People are attcking Barry because he's a Perl critic.  Let me be hypothetical for a minute.  Let's assume the Perl editors have in good faith removed various edits of Barry's because they are bad and that's why the Perl editors are fighting so hard to keep them out. Let's also assume that Barry was unpopular on PerlMonks not because he was a Perl critic, but instead due to his repeated incivility and personal attacks.   (I have to say that the node PostgreSQL, Emacs, and other groupieware was a classic.)  Now, let's take a look at Barry's first few named Wikipedia edits.     What a coincidence?  In his first few edits, he appears to be trying to provoke editors on Talk:Perl Monks.  Again, hypothetically speaking,  this seems to answer the "chicken or the egg" problem for this site.  A few days later, he begins on the Talk:Perl page where he sort of self-identifies himself again.   No one really takes the bait.  Barry makes a few more edits, but with little confict, he wanders away for several months.  May begins with a return of Barry to the Perl page with this edit  to promote PHP and Python on the Perl article.  The tactics have changed.  Make a provacative edit to Perl.  Wait for it to be reverted.  Go to Talk:Perl claiming the editors are pushing a POV.  In this case, it is quickly removed, and the following is added as a compromise.   After a few of his edits which he has now brought up in arbitration are removed, the war begins in earnest.  Hypothetically speaking, this seems a bit like a "campaign of harassment".


 * The Perl community I know is a group of talented and helpful people. They love working with Perl and know the good and the bad of the language.  Much like any other articles, edits made simply to provoke has lead to a strong reaction.  The Perl community is not full of a bunch of babies that can't stand any criticism of Perl.  There are some very prominent members of the community that are very critical of main features of Perl.  What we have on the Perl page is a case where people reacted strongly to blatant trolling.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Yet, we, the Perl community, are the criminals.  I really don't understand.   Steve p 03:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First off this isn't a response to the comments regarding witnesses. I would agree though that I have been throwing aspesions at the Perl community and they can't effectively answer in that form.   So I'll give you a chance.


 * There is one problem with your hypothetical. On 5 separate  occasions (involving 3 different "cops") a "cop" showed up to take down the complaint and possibly deal with Barry.  In all those instances the cop was attacked, not by Barry, but by the Perl community.  Yes I noticed Barry spray painting cars, but I noticed Pudge stabbing people.  Which crime is going to get addressed?  When asked to, Barry put down the spray can; Pudge started swinging his knife at the cops.  Earle tried to make sure the knife hit and the rest of the community cheered Pudge on.  That's is precisely the behavior of a criminal community.  That's what the marines are up against in Iraq.  You are like one of those law abiding moderate Sunnis that's offended that all Sunnis are getting blamed for blowing up Mosques full of Shiites, even though your cousin hid some of the guys who did it from the marines.  (And no I'm not arguing that insulting people on wikipedia is anywhere near the same magnitude systematic religious terrorism, its just a convenient news item which I'm sure you know about).
 * I don't know if Simetrical and Durin even know Perl. For me, in my entire life I have posted 0 times to perlmonks 0 times to useperl.  I doubt Earle and Pudge/Chris are old enough to remember my posts to comp.lang.perl.misc that were not the reason.  So what justifies the attacks?  You were able to follow the rules of mediation.  Why couldn't Scarpia, Harmil, Randal, Earle, Revragnarok?  Generally good wikipedians are horrified by people deliberately starting flame wars against administrators/mediators.  Why weren't they denounced in this case?
 * What Revragnok did in bring a case of harassment to the medcab was exactly the right thing to do. And that's a good example of what normal wikipedians do when they are bothered by trolling trolling.  What should have happened here was reasonable compliance with the mediator and then, Barry's behavioral problems either got fixed or you ended up with a finding of fact that Barry was uncooperative.  Either way a law abiding Perl community would have won.  After the finding of fact an RFC could have occurred (and would have been successful) and if there was still no change it would have been Barry not Pudge before arbcom.

Your message
To be honest, I'm trying to avoid further involvement in the arbitration. (you can reply here, I'll watchlist you) Ideogram 20:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) I appreciate you looking in on the Perl talk page.  Steve p 21:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just trying to help. I find the subject interesting.  Ideogram 21:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Final state highway naming conventions debate
Steve p, your participation is welcome in the State route naming conventions poll. Please give your input as to the process by 23:59 UTC on August 8.

Regards, Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Roads Newsletter Issue #1

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Roads Newsletter Issue #2

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

Apologies for the late delivery. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 3

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

Active user verification
Hello,. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:USRD, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/List. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list and off the respective road projects as well. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Roads Inactivity notification
You have been declared an inactive user and your name will be removed from the newsletter distribution and the projects you were a member of. '''If this is in error, please contact me on my talk page. Do not restore your name to the list. Regards, Rschen7754''' (talk - contribs) 21:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)