Talk:Perl/Archive 4

message: Please -Barry-, stop editing this article to insert bias. I've placed an entry for this article on the RfC list. You've been quite clear in your convictions in your edit summaries , your talk page , and your refusal to remove material which has not only been disputed, but clearly demonstrated to be incorrect.  It is time to let it go. -Harmil 12:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A description might help. Your RfC entry is here, under Telecommunications and digital technology, but it just says "Talk:Perl 12:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You didn't sign it either. Read the Request for comment template on top of that page, particularly item 1 and 3. It says:
1. List newer entries on top, stating briefly and neutrally what the debate is about.
2. Provide a link to the relevant article's talk page.
3. Sign entries with the date only, by using five tildes: ~~~~~.
-Barry- 17:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The instructions for the RFC process is horrible. In one location it asks for the talk page link and date only (and gives an edit link), then on the page that you actually edit there are the guidelines you listed which don't match at all, but you never see those, unless you scroll up after the section edit. Doh! -Harmil 21:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: So the question remains, -Barry-: do you intend to keep modifying this article to suit your "anti-perl" (your words) sentiments, or will you yield to the request of three (so far) editors who have cited strong concerns with you edits? I'm going to do a bit of editing to demonstrate what I'm talking about. Of course, as a fellow editor, I invite you to revise my edits in ways that help Wikipedia to cover the language, but not to re-introduce bias. This is an article about a programming language, not your preferences. -Harmil 21:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There may or may not be an anti-Perl flavor to my edits, since I'm somewhat anti-Perl but try to be fair at the same time, but I still think my edits are accurate and improve the article. You initiated a RfC, so lets let that happen before removing large amounts of content from the section in question. We'll have a vote after that if you want. This isn't my article and I won't put my version back once enough people have been heard, preferably who aren't currently involved with Perl. -Barry- 22:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias being added

message: In this edit summary, Scarpia refers to a slide in this document that says "...and it sux..." His edit summary says "it's unclear what the slide in question means since it's a two word summary of something said in the talk. This doesn't pass the verifiability test, and is irrelevant anyway." I believe it's perfectly clear what the slide refers to. The slide before the "sux" slide says "Benchmark.pm comes with Perl..." and the slide after the "sux" slide continues the discussion of the module. It's perfectly clear that "...and it sux..." refers to Benchmark.pm.
Scarpia's edit summary says it's irrelevant anyway. When mentioning Benchmark.pm in a Benchmark section and mentioning the slides, how could it be irrelevant to say a slide says it's a bad module?
Scarpia edited the Benchmark section so it no longer mentions the slide that makes a negative reference to Benchmark.pm. He's only allowing mention of the slide that warns about benchmarks in general. Also note that he recently blatantly vandalized this article by reinserting previous vandalism (the paragraph on the lower right of that diff). Yet another case of clear bias.
I tried to compromise by not using the quote that contains "sux" and instead using "...[the slides] warn people about the limitations of benchmarks — particularly about the module Benchmark.pm". That should be reinserted into the article.
I believe Scarpia is Brian D Foy, so if he openly admits that and if he now believes something opposing what the slides say, or if he wants to clarify something or claim he didn't mean the slide text literally, he should speak up and his new opinion or clarification can be included in the article after the description of the slides. Though his saying he's Brian D Foy may not be enough for some of the editors here. Either way, the slide with the negative reference to Benchmark.pm should be mentioned. -Barry- 02:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias being added II

message: It's best for section to have at least two subsections. The Future section should have a Perl 5 and Perl 6 subsection. Perl 6 is already written. Perl 5 should be about the Perl 6 features that are expected to be ported to Perl 5, and stuff. -Barry- 07:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future of Perl 5 

message: There's some guideline about only linking the first instance of a term for which there's an article, but I rarely find that's a good idea, especially in a technical article in which people are trying to learn something complex. They shouldn't have to search the article for the first, linked, instance, assuming they even know it would be linked, and they shouldn't have to type it into the Wikipedia search box.
It can also look sloppy and inconsistent, like someone forgot to link the term. For example, at Control structures, C isn't linked, but right next to it Java is linked.
Maybe the talk page should have guidelines on top, explaining why every instance of any term that's linked should be linked, so the Wikicops will understand the reasoning--that usability is especially important for articles like this. -Barry- 07:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it's mentioned in the guides, but it's not usually a good idea to only link the first instance in a long article. It really should be "once per major section" or something similar. Imroy 07:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking more than first instance if a term 

message: I just noticed the Wikibook template in the references section, and now I'm wondering whether the references section is just for references used in writing this article or not. If so, I think the heading should something more clear than "References." If not some of the links in that section should be under External links. -Barry- 08:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References section