|
== Archives ==
[[/Archive 1]]
==September 2006: getting back to normal==
A posting by "Ideogram" above, dated 6 September 2006, explains what has happened to this Wikipedia article in the last month. Finally he (I assume it's a "he") admits it: "I happen to have dealt with Dr. Meyer before, and so my store of patience was not as great. But you are all missing the point. No amount of patience would have been enough to deal with Meyer, because he wants his way and that's all he wants", and proceeds to call me "rude, arrogant, selfish, spoiled". Well, I am really sorry that he bears such grudges, but since I don't know who he is I can't discuss that previous case in which he "dealt" with me. In any case, whether he likes me or not should have no effect on an encyclopedia article. Is there a Wikipedia policy that says if you don't like someone who posts under his real name you should vandalize his contributions?
This seems to be what happened. A handful of people — "Ideogram", "Lulu", "Mikademus"... — had apparently decided to teach me a lesson. I think this is inappropriate, and I ask other people interested in this article to help make sure that they don't again let their passions override concern for the quality of the article.
:No one tried to "teach you a lesson", Bertrand. That's as far from the truth as is easy to imagine. The fact you would state such a thing, to me, suggests you are nowhere close to ready to work on this article that is far too close to your personal emotions. In point of fact, you owe a gigantic apology to Wikipedia editors collectively for your truly obnoxious and uncooperative behavior. I strongly, strongly recommend that you simply stay away from this article, and use your writing skills and intelligence to some better endeavor. [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|<span style="color:darkgreen;">LotLE</span>]]×[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|<span style="color:darkred; font-size:x-small;">talk</span>]] 00:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
::Would you please stop making these personal comments? This is not helping anyone. I had requested that my explanation be left as it is for coherence; I don't see why you can't be courteous and considerate.
::This is all exactly like Usenet in its heyday, but does it have to be that way? Finally, couldn't the discussion be about the best ways to describe Eiffel, rather than these irrelevant ad hominem attacks?
::It's really very sad to see such a great idea as Wikipedia be perverted that way. I'll stop commenting on this discussion page since it's obviously hopeless, but what a waste of time.
[[User:Bertrand Meyer|B-Meyer]] 01:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
So now to the heart of the matter. Eiffel is not just a programming language intended for talking to a machine but a vehicle to express and communicate models and designs clearly and convincingly. The concern for style and the attempt at elegance are at the core of the approach. This implies in particular devoting attention to matters that are not necessarily thought important in other technologies, such as the layout of program texts, the choice of names for classes and features (there are precise rules for when you should use a noun, a verb, an adjective), the wording of routine header comments (going so far as to say when you should end with a period and when not), and many other matters that others consider mundane. In this respect Eiffel tries to be in the line of the great programming methodologists of the seventies, who said that a good program should be beautiful too, like a castle or an adagio.
The basic font convention goes all the way back to Algol 60: keywords in boldface. I can't understand the motivation of the person who rewrote the "hello world" example to remove that convention. Where is it said that a Wikipedia article should violate the standard conventions of the subject matter? More fundamentally, I haven't seen a Wikipedia rule (which would be silly) stating that all programming languages should look the same. They don't. I am sure there is an article somewhere on the Swedish language, and that it retains the diacritical marks. The same applies to programming languages: each has its own personality.
Color, as some people have pointed out, is not as universally used in Eiffel publications, partly because of the constraints of print, and partly because it's a pain to prepare the text accordingly. It's less fundamental than the use of bold etc., but it's part of the recommended conventions all the same. Once again I see no Wikipedia rule that says you cannot use color if it's part of the subject matter. The only rule I have seen states the same as the ECMA Eiffel standard: you shouldn't use color as the only way to express a semantic difference. This is perfectly reasonable.
:I can pretty much guarantee that if you blithely ignore consensus and start deleting other editors work with an attitude that you know better, and they don't matter, you ''will'' get yourself in trouble again... probably blocked from Wikipedia. If you wish to find a consensus about this really quite minor issue of what font conventions are used, '''discuss it first'''. Your above comments are a good start, despite their tone. But before implementing something that will clearly violate consensus, please conduct a discussion, perhaps a quick poll to gauge sentiment.
::This is pretty unbelievable. It's my work that was edited out by others. Please stop this personal campaign, it serves no useful purpose. [[User:Bertrand Meyer|B-Meyer]] 01:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
:My evaluation of the matter is that at least 90% of editors are pretty strongly opposed to using non-standard fonts in the body text to illustate code: i.e. anything other than <nowiki><code></nowiki> around the samples. My impression is also that a slim majority is also against using non-standard fonts in block code samples, but this sentiment is weaker. My own opinion leans against using the non-standard stuff anywhere, for a number of reasons; but understanding Wikipedia, I yield to consensus if it is demonstrated.
:And please: don't play some pedantic game of pretending "non-standard" means something different that what it does: we're referring to the "Wikipedia (in-house) style guide" That guide has not entirely been stated anywhere, but it is reflected by the loose consensus and habit of editors of all the articles that are more-or-less similar to this one (i.e. programming language articles and the like). [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|<span style="color:darkgreen;">LotLE</span>]]×[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|<span style="color:darkred;font-size:x-small;">talk</span>]] 00:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It's also reasonable to have differences of opinions on such fairly small topics. In fact issues of this kind arise all the time in the world of classical publishing. Authors have their preferences, and journal editors have "house styles" to apply. So you end up in a constructive discussion intended to produce the best possible result. You don't angrily cancel the other person's last edits and start shouting at him.
I think this has to stop and that the sole goal should be to produce a good article on the language (the current state, even after my additions, is still far from ideal). So in the next few minutes I will reinstate the contributions that I had previously withdrawn (extended with several new sections), taking the risk that those who have disfigured them before will try again; I just hope that common sense and the search for the best will prevail. I do have a few requests:
:You '''need to''' immediately stop the shennanigans about claiming you failed to read the GFDL during your past 50 contributions, and '''immediately stop''' claiming a right to withdraw and resubmit contributions at your personal whimsy. Otherwise, anything you might contribute is FAR WORSE than useless. That's a first step. But frankly, a better first step is to just '''not work on this article'''. If it gets to be a problem again, I'll almost certainly try to get an administrator to act on the [[WP:AUTO]] violation that is clearly involved. [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|<span style="color:darkgreen;">LotLE</span>]]×[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|<span style="color:darkred;font-size:x-small;">talk</span>]] 00:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
* If you don't like the color convention please don't go on a wild editing campaign to remove it, or start an edit war etc. If you really feel strongly about the issue please discuss it on this page and wait for some reasonable consensus to emerge among people of good will. (Talking about consensus, someone had suggested that the code blocks be in color, but not the short extracts in the main text. If all that's desired is to find a compromise this could be it, but I still don't like this solution because it will look strange: ''x'' in the text will not immediately be seen as referring to <code><font color="blue">''x''</font></code> in the code extract above or below.)
* Please give due consideration to any editors who know and practice Eiffel. This is really only a page about a programming language and it doesn't need to become a battlefield about Wikipedia principles. Substance should prevail.
* There is still a lot to add and improve in this article; please help. In particular my additions have not had enough proofreading; there must be typos and inauspicious phrasings.
* I don't think I have cancelled any edit of substance made recently, but if I inadvertently have please accept my apologies and fix the problem.
The present section will have to be moved elsewhere (in fact it would be good if the whole discussion were eventually removed from this page, which should be devoted to talking about how best to describe the language) but I would really appreciate if you left it as it is, since it explains my view as completely as I could express it, and used a separate section for any further discussion of this topic.
[[User:Bertrand Meyer|B-Meyer]] 00:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
==Requested move==
| 