Content deleted Content added
→Remove Heap Structs section: Reply |
→Response to claims: Reply Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply |
||
| (61 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 698:
::::::::::::::{{tl|copyvio}}{{tl|Copyvio/bottom}} which will hide the content from view and since you keep accusing me of vandalism you should understand that removing this template all constitutes as avoidant vandalism. [[User:Jan200101|Jan200101]] ([[User talk:Jan200101|talk]]) 07:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I've marked sections that I could directly match to the documentation as copyvio and reported it [[Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2025_July_15]] [[User:Jan200101|Jan200101]] ([[User talk:Jan200101|talk]]) 16:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::The Copyright clerk has made the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2025_July_15?markasread=338948454&markasreadwiki=enwiki#15_July_2025 determination] that, "{{tq|'''the snippets of code are too short and too functional'''}} to be considered a copyright violation. As it stands, there is {{tq|'''no copyright infringement'''}}". This will also be placed in a separate section of the article's talk, not to instigate, but to guide future editors.[[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 22:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
== References could strongly be improved ==
Line 759 ⟶ 760:
:Per Wikipedia, {{tq|"Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used with appropriate care to verify some of the article's content"}}. In this case, the article goes the extra step, to only be used for and in the {{tq|further reading}} section. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 00:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
== Decision Concerning Copyright Challenge ==
Per copyright clerk, 24 August 2025, the article has {{tq|'''no copyright infrignment'''}}. Code examples used in the article are also "too short and too functional to be considered a copyright violation". Original statement can be read [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2025_July_15?markasread=338948454&markasreadwiki=enwiki#15_July_2025 here]. Additionally, the license statement placed under references by the copyright clerk should not be removed, unless under their [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems advisement or direction]. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 10:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
== Valid Criticism is NEVER Vandalism ==
Please, [[Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith| assume good faith]]!
Wukuendo has repeatedly tried to assert that criticism against the language is vandalism, which is not the case! This is very clearly an attempt at white-washing the image of the language.
I have tried to add a maximally unbiased critique of the language, as inspired by the [[Java (programming language)]] article, citing very popular articles by developers. Vlang, like any project, has its own fair share of problems with the language and community, as has been noted by not only just one source, but multiple.
I ensured that my paragraph cited not only one source, but rather various. I ensured that the paragraph also highlighted that the project is still in beta, and thus it is natural to have some problems.
User '''Wukuendo''' in specific has repeatedly tried to highlight any critique against the language as "'''vandalism'''" and "'''scandalmongering'''", when it is merely a lens into the reality of the language. They have repeatedly tried to "warn" me that I will be ''blocked'' from Wikipedia for this alleged vandalism. When asked on how this is vandalism, they have not responded.
I don't want to throw any accusations against anyone, but rejecting any valid criticism of a project as vandalism is very suspicious of [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|conflict of interest]]. They do not [[Wikipedia:Ownership of content|own]] this article. Stop trying to edit-war! [[User:MapleTheColor|MapleTheColor]] ([[User talk:MapleTheColor|talk]]) 06:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:To be more specific:
:# They have accused me of vandalism: Which is clearly wrong! This is not a case of vandalism, I am merely adding unbiased content to an article
:# They have accused me of adding original research: I have not added any of my own original research. I have only cited verifiable and legitimate research performed by others.
:# They have accused me of citing anonymous bloggers: All authors of the articles I have cited used their own name, and neither are they "unknown"! These articles have been shared hundreds of times across many different forums.
:Who else but developers would critique a programming language? [[User:MapleTheColor|MapleTheColor]] ([[User talk:MapleTheColor|talk]]) 07:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:MapleTheColor|MapleTheColor]] @[[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] If the criticism is written by recognised experts (with relevant degrees, professions, who had been published in RS), then their attributed opinion can be included in the article, even if that opinion is self-published. [[WP:SPS]]: {{tq|Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.}} [[User:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier;color:#D73A49"><b>TurboSuperA+</b></span>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier-New"><sub>[talk]</sub></span>]] 14:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::The three blog posts by Xe Iaso from [[Anubis_(software)]] fame should more than qualify as reliable research by a professional but the other two cited sources from mawfig and n-skvortsov-1997 appear to be from unremarkable users with private github profiles (potentially related to them being from russia? Unsure what github is doing) and blogs that only consist of their Vlang review.
::I also don't think that that talking about the chatroom bans is worthwhile since that is more about the character of the people moderating the community and less about the language. [[User:Jan200101|Jan200101]] ([[User talk:Jan200101|talk]]) 14:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::By mentioning the contentious material and authors in the talk, this might become more problematic, and was possibly avoidable (but who knows). As you clarified, 2 of the 3 do not qualify as SMEs. In the case of Xe Iaso: (1) appears to have been involved in a personal conflict or grudge over chat room ban (2) has made statements indicative of possible grudge or revenge motives (3) comments in blog and else where can be seen as libelous (4) appears to have conflict of interest as speaker to promote Golang (rival language). Additionally, such content looks to plunge the article into the middle of language wars and to generate scandal. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 15:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::# Xe Laso was not the one banned as far as I can tell? The source containing that mention was another author.
::::# Please specify which statements from the source, what "grudge or revenge motives"? Until you specify, this is pure projection.
::::# Again, please do not be vague. Specify what can be seen as libelous. Because until you do so, any criticism ever can be considered "libelous".
::::# Xe Laso is not associated with the Golang project. There is no conflict of interest.
::::# Merely having a section about criticism does not incite language wars, it merely responsibly provides additional information about the drawbacks of the language, as shown by other decades-old language articles with criticism sections.
::::[[User:MapleTheColor|MapleTheColor]] ([[User talk:MapleTheColor|talk]]) 15:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::# You are misstating or making false statements about the references that that you tried to force in. To say others are engaged in "pure projection" is ridiculous or something else. Xe Iaso stated, {{tq|on the reference that you gave}}, to have been blocked (banned). Even more, there appears to have been continual hostility, spanning over years that gets into grudge and revenge issues.
::::# Xe Iaso is a speaker that is {{tq|well known}} for promoting Golang, in addition to self interests. There is a very clear and continual association with Golang, at a public level.
::::# The issue was and is about {{tq|'''statements made'''}} that were {{tq|'''not'''}} in the references and problems with the references used. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 17:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::wait hold on, how is Golang a rival language? are you thinking of a competing language since have similarities?
::::Is this why you accused me of having a COI with Zig, to stop me from being able to work on this Article? [[User:Jan200101|Jan200101]] ([[User talk:Jan200101|talk]]) 16:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::Practically, Golang is at a much higher scale and not even near a "rival" language for V (Especially considering that V is in beta and has been for many, many years). I agree with your sentiment, though I believe you should take the Zig article discussion to a more appropriate place <3 [[User:MapleTheColor|MapleTheColor]] ([[User talk:MapleTheColor|talk]]) 16:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:MapleTheColor|MapleTheColor]] @[[User:Jan200101|Jan200101]] I looked into Iaso. She has [https://xeiaso.net/talks/ spoken at conferences] and tech publications interview and quote her.[https://www.heise.de/en/news/Like-peeing-in-the-sea-Poisoning-AI-does-not-help-10479432.html] [https://www.404media.co/the-open-source-software-saving-the-internet-from-ai-bot-scrapers/] [https://www.fudzilla.com/news/60755-ai-crawler-bots-turn-open-source-into-a-digital-warzone] [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/open-source-devs-fighting-ai-232739996.html] [https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/21/ai_crawler_traffic/] I would say that her opinion can be included with attribution, although we can always consult [[WP:RSN]].
:::That said, looking at the [https://xeiaso.net/blog/vlang-update-2020-06-17/ cited post], there are other concerns. The post doesn't support the claims in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V_(programming_language)&diff=prev&oldid=1308956867 reverted edit]. I agree with you that the chatroom stuff isn't [[WP:DUE]]. She also doesn't write about "memory leaks", but says that memory management is a work in progress. The post was made 5 years and three months ago so the opinion/information is outdated, so I don't think that should be included either. [[User:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier;color:#D73A49"><b>TurboSuperA+</b></span>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier-New"><sub>[talk]</sub></span>]] 15:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::I agree that the content in the reverted edit is fairly poor but I believe that the source could be used to mention the critisim at launch due to false promises, however I wouldn't find if it was left out until newer information is published. [[User:Jan200101|Jan200101]] ([[User talk:Jan200101|talk]]) 16:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::Well, the [[Java (programming language)]] criticisms are 17-20 years old, so I believe that the inclusion of a criticism section citing Xe should still be considered for Vlang. :) [[User:MapleTheColor|MapleTheColor]] ([[User talk:MapleTheColor|talk]]) 16:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::TurboSuperA+ that is correct, however (and see my response below): (1) if the references are libelous and regardless if the author is an SME, the content is to be removed. (2) References were provided, that are clearly not SMEs. And one is an unknown person. (3) Statements and conclusions were given that were not in the references provided and fall under [[WP:OR]]. (4) references are contentious, disputable, and also appear to involve grudges over chat room bans. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 14:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|if the references are libelous}}
:::That applies to biographies of living persons, not articles about programming languages. [[User:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier;color:#D73A49"><b>TurboSuperA+</b></span>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier-New"><sub>[talk]</sub></span>]] 14:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::[[WP:Libel]] does not state it applies to only biographies, have not seen any interpretation specifying that, nor would libelous content be unconstrained in that way. Otherwise, libelous content about any person could be freely leveled all over Wikipedia. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 15:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::This is a fair look into the matter, and I am willing to remove citations from the other 2 authors (and thus accordingly change the content), and also remove the mention on chatroom moderation. [[User:MapleTheColor|MapleTheColor]] ([[User talk:MapleTheColor|talk]]) 15:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:{{block indent|em=1.6|1=<small>Notified: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science]]. [[User:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier;color:#D73A49"><b>TurboSuperA+</b></span>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier-New"><sub>[talk]</sub></span>]] 18:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)</small>}}<!-- Template:Notified -->
==== Response to claims ====
:Please do not engage in {{tq|'''false characterizations'''}} and {{tq|'''character assassination'''}} ([[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]). To "assume good faith", goes in both directions and applies to all editors. My intervention in this situation is about multiple violations of Wikipedia policy. Arguments that I'm making are about content and Wikipedia policy. Forcibly trying to include content or material that violates Wikipedia policies can be considered vandalism and/or disruptive editing. Applies for {{tq|'''both'''}} article statements and references used.
:# Wikipedia is not about adding libelous references, injecting personal conclusions not in references cited, scandal creation, grudges for being banned from chat rooms, or using articles for language [[flame wars]] or to promote [[cyberbulling]].
:# "It is a Wikipedia policy to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified". "Libelous material (otherwise known as defamation) is reasonably likely to damage a person or company's reputation and could expose Wikipedia to legal consequences" ([[WP:Libel]])
:# "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." ([[WP:OR]] and [[WP:SYNTH]])
:# "Do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." ([[WP:OR]] and [[WP:SYNTH]])
:# "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable" ([[WP:RS/SPS]])
:# "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article" ([[WP:Burden]]).[note-changed]
:# "(Subtle) Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection, including adding plausible misinformation to articles" ([[WP:SNEAKY]])
:# "Misinformation is incorrect or misleading information." "can include inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, or false information as well as selective or half-truths" ([[Misinformation]]).
:# "Promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping" ([[WP:NOTSCANDAL]]).
:# Point removed, per TurboSuperA+. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 18:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::Point ten applies to [[WP:BLP]]s. This article is not a BLP. [[User:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier;color:#D73A49"><b>TurboSuperA+</b></span>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier-New"><sub>[talk]</sub></span>]] 14:08, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::[[WP:ONUS]] also has similar language, and does not specify BLP. "Unsourced or poorly sourced material that is contentious, especially text that is negative, derogatory, or potentially damaging, should be removed immediately rather than tagged or moved to the talk page." Even under [[WP:Burden]], it states it as "You should also be aware of", where "also" implies {{tq|in addition to}} and not exclusively for. Though that may require the higher levels to decide or links to past interpretations. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 14:43, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::What you are doing now is called [[WP:WikiLawyering|WikiLawyering]]. Libel or [[defamation]] applies to legal persons, and to certain state symbols, institutions, and so on. But it does to apply to programming languages. The [[WP:TH|Teahouse]] is always open, you can ask over there. [[User:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier;color:#D73A49"><b>TurboSuperA+</b></span>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier-New"><sub>[talk]</sub></span>]] 15:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::Disagree with that assessment. At least one reference used, was not talking about a programming language in a general sense. Rather, that blog author had specified, talked about, and leveled insults using the person's name. Additionally, is was not the only reason for content removal. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 15:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::Consider taking a break from this article. Nearly half of all your edits are related to the V programming language. You need to trust that other editors are able to discern reliable sources from unreliable ones and what is due from what is not due. This is a collaborative project. Remember that [[WP:BRIE|being right is not enough]] and it is a fine line between [[WP:Stewardship|stewardship]] and [[WP:Ownership|ownership]]. I gave my opinion on the proposed edit and sources above and I have nothing more to add. [[User:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier;color:#D73A49"><b>TurboSuperA+</b></span>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier-New"><sub>[talk]</sub></span>]] 15:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::The other person in the dispute, has 95% of their comments and attention directed at the V programming language article. The appearance of where edits are focused can be due to back and forth conversations on a specific article, where otherwise, they would have concentrated on something else.
::::::Would like to add, that I respect all editors and their passion, even if we disagree. My involvement, is in regard to policy and doing what is right. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 16:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I have edited Wikipedia for years before making an account from my former accounts, and before that anonymously. The reason I made an account was while motivated by adding this section to this article, it was also motivated by me transitioning online from my old name. [[User:MapleTheColor|MapleTheColor]] ([[User talk:MapleTheColor|talk]]) 16:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::Though I assume no such thing from their end, I'd like them to be aware that such strong conservatism on the article's end makes it appear as though they are affiliated with the Vlang project (even if they're not.)
::::::[[User:MapleTheColor|MapleTheColor]] ([[User talk:MapleTheColor|talk]]) 15:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::I've already made a COI statement on this talk (further above). If anything, your attempts at pointing the fingers at others, calls into question what your motives are. Particularly based on the unreliable sources and original research that was attempted. Furthermore, you have made no COI clarifications. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 16:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I am in no way associated with any projects that rival or compete with Vlang and I can confidently state that there is no conflict of interest with my intention to include a criticism section. I am simply surprised by the opposition to the addition of a criticism section. It has already been discussed, and I agree, that only Xe's blogs shall remain. [[User:MapleTheColor|MapleTheColor]] ([[User talk:MapleTheColor|talk]]) 16:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::# Again, Having a criticism section is '''not''' an invitation to language wars. It is the responsible thing to do when such faults are well-documented by experts into the matter. For example, [[Java (programming language)]].
:::# A critique is not libelous, had I added text such as "The vlang is proven to be incompetent for tasks", that would be clearly libelous. However, the paragraph only remarks that the language has documented drawbacks that the reader, a possible user of the language, should be aware of.
:::# The paragraph drew ''no conclusions'', it only quoted the citations.
:::# Same as above
:::# As discussed earlier, it is agreed that only Xe Laso's articles should remain as the citation.
:::# This was not about a living person.
:::# This is not misinformation. If you're going to continue asserting it as such, I'd like you to specify on how it is.
:::# Again, this is not misinformation!
:::# This is not gossip, please do not infantilize the situation as such. This is a straightforward critique of the language.
:::[[User:MapleTheColor|MapleTheColor]] ([[User talk:MapleTheColor|talk]]) 15:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::Clarified this for you before, and I'm asking you again, stop with the continuous insults and attempted character assassination ([[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]). The issue is about the references you had and are attempting to use. Anonymous bloggers, unreliable sources, references arguably containing insults and libelous comments (referring to the language creator by name) and contentious content that can be considered misinformation. The problem with the references include Xe Iaso, over what look like grudges over chat room bans, a speaker that promotes rival languages, etc... The problems with Xe Iaso, was also noticed by TurboSuperA+, who typed that she should {{tq|'''not'''}} be used as a reference. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 17:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::Literally none of the message you're replying to has any insult to you and does not assassinate your character in any way.
:::::As noted by TurboSuperA+, the age of the articles is a downside of the citation. However, leading by other articles as an example, it shouldn't be that big of a problem and can still be considered for discussion in a separate topic. Xe Laso does also still remain a trustable source, and is an expert in the field. [[User:MapleTheColor|MapleTheColor]] ([[User talk:MapleTheColor|talk]]) 17:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::Could you please identify for us what statement(s) in the message you just replied to you consider to be an insult or character assassination?
:::::Be as specific as you can. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 22:32, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, if seen as replying late, as did not see this sooner. It was being claimed that I was trying to assert that criticism was vandalism, attempting to white-wash, and infantilize. That I was trying to do something other than what I explicitly stated, which was that statements in the article and references used were violating Wikipedia policy. If the references used passed policy and statements in the article came from them, then I would not intervene. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 02:10, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::But you literally did claim that criticism was vandalism?
::::::We’re all glad that you aren’t doing that any more, though. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 03:36, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
::::Java has existed for decades and has possibly hundreds of scholarly works critiquing every aspect of it. V barely meets GNG, and in my opinion, shouldn't have been kept. [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 01:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
| |||