Talk:Perl/Archive 5

message: Does anyone really think this was a good reversion? Audrey Tang told me about the things Fish contributed to Perl 6, and even if the author description needs to be changed, the "it doesn't say anything interesting" complaint in the edit summary doesn't say much. Looks like a well written critique to me. -Barry- 06:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... the link I mention above that was reverted was a pro-Perl link, but the diff page made it look like it's from the con section. I was thinking about the con link with all the sections, which looked impressive. I added the pro link mainly to balance things out. -Barry- 03:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: -Barry-, honestly I'm not sure that it's possible at this point to distinguish the value of your individual edits on this page as opposed to your overall campaign to modify the article to suit a personal sense of the worth of the language. The impact of your advocacy of other languages; attempts to portray Perl in a negative light; add flawed data to the page; your refusal to accept the feedback of other editors; and so on are becoming highly disruptive. You have been pushing your point long enough. Please stop, and consider contributing to articles about which you can be more neutral. Thanks. -Harmil 22:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooo...that sounds really bad. Maybe you should be more specific and post that in the relevant thread so we could really get into whether my edits are bad. You probably already know about those threads, so I guess you just want to change the subject and bash me some more. Based on prior discussions, the odds are I still think my edits are good for the article. If there's something in particular that you think I shouldn't have changed, you're not making that clear, but I'm really not interested in reading your POV any more. I don't like associating with biased hypocrites. I honestly don't remember what you've said on this talk page, but I'm referring to this, on my talk page, which I responded to. -Barry- 22:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we've been over those points many times before, I'm just going to assume this is trolling on your part. You have exceeded even my ability to assume any shred of good faith. Restore that faith if you wish, but otherwise, I'll just continue to review edits to Perl from all editors. -Harmil 16:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinion section links

message: Where's the index on the talk page? -Barry- 08:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hex had tried to use footnotes earlier and that removed the table of contents for some reason. I've changed the <ref> tags to parentheses. Imroy 08:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It was a straight C&P of material out of the main article which included footnote links. I don't know why it broke the TOC. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Same problem with the main article. -Barry- 08:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I went back through the history until the TOC reappeared, and checked the diff. The only thing that stood out was the <ref> tags. When I removed them the TOC showed up again. Weird. Imroy 11:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was on #wikipedia on IRC and it was a known issue today. It's been resolved. -Barry- 11:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This might explain it in more detail. Jude (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the index on the talk page? 

message: I'm the new mediator for Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-23 Perl.  I've created a page at Talk:Perl Mediation to separate the mediation from the rest of this.  jbolden1517Talk 15:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation