335:
252:"? 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).
265:"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
243:"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
125:
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).
256:
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
128:
I am myself generally allergic to the PR-like tone found in some
Knowledge (XXG) 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.
48:
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. Von Wowern defined polymathy as "knowledge of various matters, drawn from
124:
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
247:
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
120:
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
277:, 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
361:
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.
194:
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.
175:
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
365:
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.
285:
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
302:
154:
99:
89:
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.
39:
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.
281:", 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.
306:
158:
257:
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
358:
49:
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". "
347:
135:
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.
132:
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.
182:
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
289:
weight compared to other aspects or the language, merely the weight it deserves. Perhaps this could be achieved with less text, however.
103:
351:
141:, as I am not logged in. (I think I did create a Knowledge (XXG) account in the past, but have lost its details.)
121:"Apocalypse"), including the confusing name change. Currently, the history section is simply very hard to follow.
17:
371:
298:
150:
191:
199:
71:
57:
221:"The thorough and long-winded design process ended up taking until 2015" This could have been used
169:"The thorough and long-winded design process ended up taking until 2015" This could have been used
367:
342:
326:
183:
226:
I cannot even guess what point you were trying to make here, as your comment seems truncated.
375:
310:
206:
162:
107:
78:
61:
235:
you haven't commented on this at all. (Perhaps somehow part of the previous comment???)
248:
established) term, their use remains irritating or seems esoteric ("a term which means
67:
53:
197:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Raku_(programming_language)&oldid=938810273
42:
Please define "original research or novel". And SSRN does not count as an outlet?
261:
in this now historical context. (But I can see that would lead to other bumps.)
139:
95:
113:
Raku (programming language): edits in the
History section on 1 and 2 Feb 2020
217:
Still, I hope it is not undue to ask for clarification on these points:
186:
to that part, we don't put emphasis on things, we simply describe them.
230:"call for user proposals for changes, which were to be submitted as"
172:"call for user proposals for changes, which were to be submitted as"
45:
I believe the way it was done is the best format for wikipedia.
179:
The page is about the language, not about the creators of it.
346:
is suitable for inclusion in
Knowledge (XXG) according to
138:
I would be thankful if you replied to my E-mail address
340:
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article
273:
kind of user, and that all those proposals were indeed
196:
292:
That been said, I will proceed as you have suggested.
239:Also let me explain (resp. object to) two things:
359:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/CCG Systems
52:which was edited by me with the same spirit...
8:
296:
148:
348:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines
317:Inadequate removal: Polymath in Academia.
303:2A02:810C:C840:213C:2E7A:C173:7128:B965
155:2A02:810C:C840:213C:2E7A:C173:7128:B965
100:2600:1017:B82E:E4E6:451A:F881:8C5C:460A
85:Ronald Braunstein, conductor - updates
7:
70:Click on the links in the message.
214:I will do as you have suggested.
24:
357:The article will be discussed at
333:
211:Thank you for your swift reply!
190:It might be worth asking at the
31:how did you get this email from
1:
376:19:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
311:17:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
207:14:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
163:14:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
108:22:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
79:17:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
62:17:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
35:About polymathy in academia
391:
350:or whether it should be
18:User talk:LakesideMiners
295:Best regards, Florian
269:kind of proposals by
117:Dear LakesideMiners,
92:Why did this happen?
147:Florian v. Savigny
321:My first message:
313:
301:comment added by
165:
153:comment added by
382:
337:
336:
279:by the community
245:newly introduced
203:
75:
390:
389:
385:
384:
383:
381:
380:
379:
338:
334:
331:
319:
201:
115:
87:
73:
37:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
388:
386:
332:
330:
325:Nomination of
323:
318:
315:
288:
283:
282:
280:
260:
254:
253:
251:
246:
238:
232:
231:
223:
222:
202:LakesideMiners
188:
187:
180:
177:
173:
170:
114:
111:
86:
83:
82:
81:
74:LakesideMiners
36:
33:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
387:
378:
377:
373:
369:
368:Cardiffbear88
363:
360:
355:
353:
349:
345:
344:
328:
324:
322:
316:
314:
312:
308:
304:
300:
293:
290:
286:
278:
276:
272:
268:
264:
263:
262:
258:
249:
244:
242:
241:
240:
236:
229:
228:
227:
220:
219:
218:
215:
212:
209:
208:
205:
204:
198:
193:
185:
181:
178:
174:
171:
168:
167:
166:
164:
160:
156:
152:
145:
142:
140:
136:
133:
130:
126:
122:
118:
112:
110:
109:
105:
101:
97:
96:
93:
90:
84:
80:
77:
76:
69:
66:
65:
64:
63:
59:
55:
50:
46:
43:
40:
34:
32:
26:
19:
364:
356:
341:
339:
329:for deletion
320:
297:— Preceding
294:
291:
284:
274:
270:
266:
255:
237:
233:
224:
216:
213:
210:
200:
189:
184:Undue weight
149:— Preceding
146:
143:
137:
134:
131:
127:
123:
119:
116:
98:
94:
91:
88:
72:
51:
47:
44:
41:
38:
30:
343:CCG Systems
327:CCG Systems
192:WP:TEAHOUSE
144:Sincerely,
275:considered
250:revealing
68:MikeAraki
54:MikeAraki
299:unsigned
151:unsigned
352:deleted
234:--: -->
225:--: -->
287:undue
176:blah"
16:<
372:talk
307:talk
259:only
159:talk
104:talk
58:talk
271:any
267:any
374:)
354:.
309:)
161:)
106:)
60:)
27:hi
370:(
305:(
157:(
102:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.