User talk:Caleb Stanford

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Hi Caleb,

The V article (and as a draft) was vetted by numerous editors over a long period of time to not be promotional or advertisement-like. In comparison to the articles of many other programming languages on Wikipedia, it is arguably very much not so and care was taken to make sure it was not so. Do read V's talk page and history, to get a better understanding. To avoid getting into edit wars or issues with vandalizing articles for any arbitrary reasons, it would be much more constructive to specifically point out what any grievances are on our talk pages or V's. It would be better for editors to come to an understanding or consensus. Wukuendo (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wukuendo, of course and not a problem, I will be more clear about the needed improvements. May I ask what is your connection to Vlang? Caleb Stanford (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caleb, you didn't list any needed improvements. More specifically, it should be a list of what specifically is promotional or advertisement-like. Do you have some ulterior motive for sparking a confrontation? You appear to be going outside of the original context, and into a confrontation direction. And may I ask what is your connection to Rust? Wukuendo (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were many examples, so rather than list all of them I edited to improve or note them where present. You may ask, but you did not answer the question. I am not involved in the development of Rust, the Rust toolchain, or the Rust foundation. Caleb Stanford (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved in the development of V, the V toolchain, or in any V organization. I am not paid by any V organization or any persons associated with it.

Additionally, "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Also avoid over-tagging...".

You have resorted to multiple changing tags, as the first move. And appear to be avoiding specifically resolving the issue, in what looks like vandalism. There are no list of issues here on your page and in this exchange. There is nothing you have listed here about the article that can be discussed. This is why I asked about your affiliation with Rust, which may create an conflict of interest and motivation for what is happening here. Wukuendo (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please request WP:3O if you continue to disagree. You can link the request on the V talk page. Caleb Stanford (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is to note that you appear intent on vandalizing the article. You did not list any specifics for anything from the previous template, and put up a new template, in what appears to be an attempt to justify violating the three-revert rule. Even with the new template, you are not giving any specifics, which is required. This comes across as Drive-by tagging. Does this behavior have anything to do with any affiliation you may have with Rust? Wukuendo (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving you more information on why I removed and objected to "fast compile times" as one of the (primary) goals of the V programming language. If you look at their documentation, they make statements such as, "The language promotes writing simple and clear code with minimal abstraction."

The article you refer to is showing that V is capable of fast compile times, but not that it was a goal or purpose of the language. I'm of the opinion that it's more suitable as a source for readability, because of statements like, "V has a simpler, more readable syntax". Detail clarification of what those goals are for the language were elaborated on by its creator in YouTube videos. "Simple and readable... provide the performance of C..." He does also mention "fast compile times" later in the video, but the problem with that was previous reviewers and editors objected to it being used as a source and any YouTube videos by the V project, though it might be time to reconsider. Oddly, the V draft appeared to be put under greater restrictions and arguably a different set of rules than what other programming language articles demonstrate (who reference their own site(s) and videos repeatedly). My issue is more about using that particular source for "fast compile times". If anything, it would arguably be better to put maintainability there (as referred to on their website and other sources) or use a different source for "fast compile times".

Anyway, the reason for coming here is that we are probably in agreement with the lead and history sections, minus that particular goal. Not sure if it's really worth getting into passionate epic internet battles over it. Also, in re-reading V's talk, it looks more like a brawl between me and you. Maybe it's time for us to give deescalation or diplomacy a try. Wukuendo (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take this discussion to the V Talk page rather than here. Thanks, Caleb Stanford (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pharos (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering why you reverted the order of the adoption section. I hoped that ordering the operating systems in terms of their reliance in rust, with native first, would appear more logical. I placed r9 in the middle, whilst based on a legacy design still more "native" than win or linux because it rewrites the kernel in one fell swoop.

It might also be worth commenting that native systems expect to take advantage of the benefits of rust in a way that legacy systems cannot. Squizzler (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Squizzler:, thanks for the talk page message and sorry for the partial revert! I'm not sure I like the paragraph organization based on "projects exist both to create entirely new operating systems in Rust and to integrate Rust components into established systems." I'm not familiar with r9 but your edit suggests it could be arguably placed in either category, and it's not clear that's the most relevant dimension to group projects by. The other thing is that I would like to have the Rust for Linux and Windows mentions first, following the principle of ordering by most notable to least notable. Beyond that my intention was just to tighten the writing, I like the mention of r9! Thanks, Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken your point regarding brevity and run with it! My suggested amendment takes away dates and other filler on Windows, Android and Linux implementation (I don't think the lay reader needs to know what kernel version enabled rust or how many lines of rust code in windows - there are references and Linux links to rust-on-linux for those who want to know more). Also added mention of Fuchsia. Edit - I posted the draft here but decided to save it on page so to avoid cluttering your own talk page with refs!

The edit looks OK to me. Please take this discussion to the Rust talk page going forward. Caleb Stanford (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Constant-recursive sequence you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dedhert.Jr -- Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for signing up for the review! Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Constant-recursive sequence you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Constant-recursive sequence for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dedhert.Jr -- Dedhert.Jr (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Substance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Under the Skin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Substance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Symbolism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]