User talk:LakesideMiners/Archive 5

hi

how did you get this email from

About polymathy in academia

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Polymath. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions.

Please define "original research or novel". And SSRN does not count as an outlet?

I believe the way it was done is the best format for wikipedia.

Why is this differet from: " In Western Europe, the first work to use polymathy in its title (De Polymathia tractatio: integri operis de studiis veterum) was published in 1603 by Johann von Wowern (de), a Hamburg philosopher.[5][6][7] Von Wowern defined polymathy as "knowledge of various matters, drawn from all kinds of studies [...] ranging freely through all the fields of the disciplines, as far as the human mind, with unwearied industry, is able to pursue them".[5] "

which was edited by me with the same spirit... MikeAraki (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MikeAraki Click on the links in the message. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Braunstein, conductor - updates

My husband is conductor Ronald Braunstein. He asked a friend to update his wikipedia page and when they tried to do the edits he requested, they received a message from you with a denial.

Why did this happen?

Caroline@me2orchestra.org

2600:1017:B82E:E4E6:451A:F881:8C5C:460A (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raku (programming language): edits in the History section on 1 and 2 Feb 2020

Dear LakesideMiners,

I acknowledge that I tend to view Raku favourably, but my aim was to do justice to it, not advertise it. I generally strive hard to relate things in a matter-of-fact and two-sided way. I wanted to make the history of Perl 6/Raku more understandable to outsiders (e.g. the use of terms such as "Apocalypse"), including the confusing name change. Currently, the history section is simply very hard to follow.

Also, I would like to bring it to your attention that is has taken me hours and hours to edit this section, that I have carefully sought and included references, and read and re-read the passages numerous times. And I have added a second session today because I was still not satisfied. As far as I can see, you have simply undone all my changes and reverted the text to the slightly incoherent state it had before I started. To learn that all my work has been relegated to the digital garbage bin with (supposedly) one click would be very frustrating to me indeed (and make me think many times over whether I should venture to do this again).

I am myself generally allergic to the PR-like tone found in some Wikipedia articles (and also if found anywhere else, for that matter) and try to avoid it. If I have indeed been unbalanced, this was unintentional. At the very least, I cannot imagine that all of my changes were somehow biased.

Thus, could you perhaps try and list which of my changes were not neutral? I am perfectly prepared to consider such criticism and act upon it.

Second, are my changes recoverable at all? As I have said, they are the product of several hours of work. I have also not kept copies on my hard disk.

I would be thankful if you replied to my E-mail address f.savigny@mailbox.org, as I am not logged in. (I think I did create a Wikipedia account in the past, but have lost its details.)

Sincerely,

Florian v. Savigny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810C:C840:213C:2E7A:C173:7128:B965 (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The thorough and long-winded design process ended up taking until 2015" This could have been used
"call for user proposals for changes, which were to be submitted as"
Overly excessive explaining of different terms, its not needed to say where the term came from, just what it means, e.g. "Is a term that means blah blah blah" is better then "Is a term of blah blah blah origin that means blah blah blah"
The page is about the language, not about the creators of it.
In your edit summary you said "emphasized a bit the fact of how much work Larry took upon himself to learn what users wanted" that would give Undue weight to that part, we don't put emphasis on things, we simply describe them.

It might be worth asking at the WP:TEAHOUSE as well, they know WAY more about the stuff behind all of this. Feel free to reinsate the your edits, and you can ask someone there to take a look at them, happy editing! (oh and here is a link to how the page was before I reverted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raku_(programming_language)&oldid=938810273 LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your swift reply!

I will do as you have suggested.

Still, I hope it is not undue to ask for clarification on these points:

"The thorough and long-winded design process ended up taking until 2015" This could have been used

--> I cannot even guess what point you were trying to make here, as your comment seems truncated.

"call for user proposals for changes, which were to be submitted as"

--> you haven't commented on this at all. (Perhaps somehow part of the previous comment???)

Also let me explain (resp. object to) two things:

"its not needed to say where the term came from, just what it means": Of course this is true for established technical terms. But the terms in question (Apocalypse, Synopsis, Exegesis) are from a field completely unrelated to, and never used in, computer science or general language: they only have a generally agreed meaning in Christian theology. They are thus metaphors newly introduced by Larry Wall (and not likely to be adopted by anybody else), and thus, this use is understandable as such only to people who know about Wall's habit of jokingly using such metaphors (a Perl 5 function is called "bless", for example). If only explained as if it were simply some technical (but established) term, their use remains irritating or seems esoteric ("a term which means revealing"? Huh? In computer science?), when in fact it is only humourous and metaphorical. And while you rightly object that "The page is about the language, not about the creators of it." (and I would agree that in principle, relating such details might appear confabulating), this use is simply easiest to explain when referring to Wall's habit (without also speculating on his motivation for doing so).

My point was thus to make reading less impeded, even if this required a bit more text. More is less (or: longer is faster), in a special case such as this one. If the explanations are indeed "excessive" (or even "overly excessive", as you have put it), my recommendation would be to simply not mention the terms Apocalypse, Synopsis and Exegesis at all, because they are not absolutely indispensable for sketching the Perl 6/Raku design process, and used in this sense only in this now historical context. (But I can see that would lead to other bumps.)

"we don't put emphasis on things, we simply describe them": You are right. I think the terms of my comment were beside the point, and too personally sympathetic of Wall's efforts, which should clearly not be a reason to include something in an encyclopedia. The real point was the noteworthiness of the process as such: That the design process of (then) Perl 6 started out by inviting any kind of proposals by any kind of user, and that all those proposals were indeed considered, is, for all I can tell, definitely an unusual and notable, and also pretty central aspect of this language, and would e.g. deserve mentioning when one compares different computer languages. This becomes obvious not only from the sentence "Perl 6 is going to be designed by the community", but also from the 2000 source by Marc Jason Dominus that I cited, who feared at the time that nothing useful could result from "this mess" (of proposals), as he called it.

It's not that the preexisting text does not mention this, but I felt that the extent to which user input informed the design of (then) Perl 6 was simply not clear enough. I did not intend to give it undue weight compared to other aspects or the language, merely the weight it deserves. Perhaps this could be achieved with less text, however.

That been said, I will proceed as you have suggested.

Best regards, Florian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810C:C840:213C:2E7A:C173:7128:B965 (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inadequate removal: Polymath in Academia.

My first message:

Nomination of CCG Systems for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CCG Systems is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CCG Systems until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]