User talk:Wukuendo

Welcome!

Hello, Wukuendo, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see:

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page and how to develop articles
Help pages
Tutorials
Article wizard for creating new articles
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! --VViking_TalkEdits 14:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a very unpleasant experience from you. Here you said write on your talk page, but then at your talk page, you are threatening and say don't write on it. In regards to accusations of advertisement and conflict of interest, please give proof, not just continually accusing and from very beginning. Where in the draft is there advertising? Draft:V (programming language) If specific explanation written, refer to public fact about it, or give link to verify then becomes accusation of promotion or advertisement? You don't like that language? This is too odd. In influenced by of Oberon-2, you say provide source, but no source given for Go or Nim. This looks like bias. Vlang documentation and other sources show it's influenced by Oberon. Often, for expediency, people just put Oberon. However, more specifically and technically, it is Oberon-2. The distinction is clarified by Robert Griesemer, here- Robert Griesemer and Oberon-2 (From 17:00). Vlang and Go both use Oberon-2 style method syntax. Wukuendo (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Your recent editing history at List of programming languages by type shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't start an edit war, not here for drama, and using limited free time to do this. You started making changes immediately and right behind me, so was not aware. When I did become aware of the changes, then I left you a message and the link that goes to the draft page. If the policy is the draft page doesn't count, then will abide. Wukuendo (talk) 10:02, March 13 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Yes, that is the policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate, if you could provide link and line, as to policy. Unless we are waiting for a consensus by other parties, then afterwards, would like to confirm the policy. Wukuendo (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already pointed you to some of the policies. Per WP:NLIST any list article must have specific inclusion criteria, where notability is the most common criterion. This list has that criterion: This is a list of notable programming languages. My emphasis. Notability of the subject is demonstrated by having a page in mainspace. An additional policy is WP:ONUS, which states that where any addition to an article is disputed, the onus is on the editor asserting the content to gain consensus for the material to be included before re-inserting it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the helpfulness is appreciated. Wukuendo (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would like guidance on Draft:V_(programming_language). Have checked many other programming language pages. Many don't have books about them and less information than this draft page, but they made article and have no accusations of advertising or promotion. Don't see where accusation of advertising or promotion coming from. Looks catch-22, if clear explanation given about language or link to verify, then accused of advertising or promoting and no specifics given. Wukuendo (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, okay, I will take a longer look at it tonight. What we really need to demonstrate notability is secondary sources about the language. Who is using it? But yes, will take a look. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Trying to understand better. Wukuendo (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:V (programming language) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:V (programming language). Thanks! SWinxy (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SWinxy! I left comments on your talk page and that of the other reviewer, Tutwakhamoe. After making the changes recommended by Tutwakhamoe, who rejected an earlier draft (prior to resubmittal), he then claimed on his talk to not know enough about the field of computer science to made such decisions and is leaving it up to other reviewers (which is unknown when).

The Draft:V_(programming_language) reflects the recommendations of yourself and all other reviewers that have left comments (to include on its Talk page). To include using the approved articles of languages in a similar category as reference. Hoping that you will look into it or give more helpful suggestions. Thank you for your time and consideration.Wukuendo (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: V (programming language) has been accepted

V (programming language), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sohom (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Just a quick note about something else regarding your edits: you are marking them all as minor. Any edit that adds substantive material or could be controversial at all should not be marked as minor. As a general rule, you are much safer ignoring the "minor edit" checkbox altogether. It is not really necessary but can cause problems if you mark all your edits as minor. Take care. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you mean, but sometimes or relatively, it could be a judgement call. Will look at that more carefully.Wukuendo (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a minor edit. Please do not mark edits that are not uncontroversial as minor edits. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Will be more careful and observe the more experienced editors more closely. Wukuendo (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial talk page messages like this also shouldn't be marked as minor. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing V (programming language) for a period of 72 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Daniel Case (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wukuendo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This appeal is being respectfully submitted and as a matter of public record.

1) First instance in report

Wukuendo comment to Caleb: "Please stop engaging in destructive edits and vandalism. The rewriting is out the scope of any tags. Caleb stop refusing to list issues on your talk page or V's talk page (per Wikipedia recommendations)."

In the instance of the first accusation of reverting, my impression was that Caleb was committing an act of vandalism, because of the extent of rewriting and hiding of sections. To include changing the meaning of sentences and misattribution of sources. He gained no consensus for his actions or reverts.

In retrospect, I perhaps should have reported it as vandalism, but thought that and was trying to verify if Caleb could be reasoned with. Caleb also didn't have any history of edits or comments made on V's talk prior to it becoming an article and until the series of incidents.

2) Second instance in report

Wukuendo comment to Caleb: Please stop making bad faith and destructive changes without arbitration. Allow this to be handled by dispute resolution.

I was seeking to get these issues addressed on V's talk DRN. The initiative of these actions were taken by me, not the other party.

3) Third instance in report

Wukuendo edit history comment: ""V" can be mistook for roman numeral V (number 5). Placed by a different editor, who was not me. 2) Placing primary sources into the article (to vlang.io), against recommendations of previous reviewer. 3) "beta", is not of precedence to other languages articles (see Zig or Red for starters), 4) Your misspelling of words (readability), 5) Your "fast compile times" (not in those sources). 6) Actions look to be disruptive and to re-adjudicate over the reviewer that promoted draft to article."

In the 3rd instance, it should be clear that these are edits to Caleb's version and not reverts to a version perceived to be mine. Caleb's version had multiple issues. To include misattribution and misspellings. The DRN case was not properly file. I was thinking of resubmitting to DRN or to Vandalism, but other editors had stepped in, including the reviewer that approved the article. I had conferred with the reviewer, including to ask about his opinion on how the article looked at present, on his and V's talk. There was active debate at V's talk, so the context of what I was doing were edits and giving explanations. However, I was in error with marking them as minor.

4) Fourth instance in report

Wukuendo edit history comment: ""Beta", is not used in other language articles surveyed. See Zig and Red articles for starters and as advised. 2) The usage of "beta" looks to be unfair targeting of the V language, where a different standard is being applied. 3) The infobox shows the version of the language. 4) "Beta" is attempted to be used redundantly and multiple times without justification. 5) The term "continuous development" already being used.

In the 4th instance, these are edits to Caleb's version. In this case, edits to Caleb's version were being reverted, as if other editors were not allowed to make changes to them. In this case I could have filed at DRN or Edit warring, but thought it would be resolved on V's talk.

5) Fifth instance in report

Wukuendo edit history comment: ""Beta" is unneeded and looks like a prejudicial or unfair double standard is being applied. 2) See other languages in beta such as Zig and Red for starters. 3) Version of language in infobox. 4) Please use talk if want to discuss further."

In the 5th case, a dispute around the usage of "beta" had occurred. This is not a reversion to any earlier version of the article. To also clarify, I don't lay claim to the article, but have stated and I'm stating here that it belongs to all the editors who have or choose to work on it. These are edits of Caleb's rewritten version and of which other editors were doing the same, however, my edits were being reverted. At that time, it was my opinion there was no consensus or precedence over using beta in the lead.

Additionally, and I'm requesting to have it looked at (were at the time it appeared to be repeated violations of 3RR and vandalism) that requests were made to Caleb to stop and seek consensus on V's talk. The term vandalism is used, in the context that at that time these were major and arguably disruptive changes. This was the initiation of the dispute, and prior to what 0xDeadbeef reported. These were actions without consensus:

Changing tags without first seeking to clarifying specifics that are being objected to with editors (drive-by tagging)
Rewriting, where meaning of statements are changed in comparison to sources.
Rewording
Removal of sources
Hiding of sections
Instructing other editors on how information is to be displayed for his apparent approval. For instance, prose is to be used instead of bulleted lists (despite that style being used extensively on Wikipedia and elsewhere).

Please note, that it appears you have to be careful when looking at the edit history. Caleb was changing both his tags and content of the article at the same time, in succession.

Related to this, is that 0xDeadbeef is giving the appearance that any edits by myself or other editors on Caleb's rewritten version is to revert (even a word, spelling, or misquote), where changes he and what appears as selected editors are allowed to make changes and revert at will. Actions taken by 0xDeadbeef can be interpreted as a way to remove the freedom of other editors to make changes. An example is below, the revert of another editor who is not me, but is being blamed on me.

[1]

Note: That IP is not me. I have always made edits to this article, with this account, and worked with other editors within the framework of Wikipedia's system. To include this very process.

Wukunendo comment made to Caleb prior to his reverts: "Please stop engaging in edit wars. Read your talk page. Be specific in V's talk page or reply to your talk page. Do not violate the three-revert rule" (changes are after this request and without any consensus).

15:19, 4 November 2023‎ Caleb Stanford talk contribs‎ 16,578 bytes −2‎ heading undo Tags: Reverted 2017 wikitext editor
15:19, 4 November 2023‎ Caleb Stanford talk contribs‎ 16,580 bytes −323‎ rm exercism links undo Tags: Reverted 2017 wikitext editor
15:08, 4 November 2023‎ Caleb Stanford talk contribs‎ 16,903 bytes +23‎ →‎Features: e undo Tags: Reverted 2017 wikitext editor
15:07, 4 November 2023‎ Caleb Stanford talk contribs‎ 16,880 bytes +132‎ →‎Features: c/e and major cleanup undo Tags: Reverted 2017 wikitext editor
14:59, 4 November 2023‎ Caleb Stanford talk contribs‎ 16,748 bytes +38‎ fixes undo Tags: Reverted 2017 wikitext editor
14:58, 4 November 2023‎ Caleb Stanford talk contribs‎ 16,710 bytes −1,583‎ →‎Syntax: template:unreferenced section, remove library examples undo Tags: Reverted 2017 wikitext editor
14:56, 4 November 2023‎ Caleb Stanford talk contribs‎ 18,293 bytes +165‎ clarify undo Tags: Reverted 2017 wikitext editor
14:52, 4 November 2023‎ Caleb Stanford talk contribs‎ 18,128 bytes +297‎ c/e and fixes undo Tags: Reverted 2017 wikitext editor
14:40, 4 November 2023‎ Caleb Stanford talk contribs‎ 17,831 bytes +95‎ clarify template undo Tag: Reverted

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 07:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Those comments about me show significant failure to assume good faith. This diff was me reverting your earlier edit, and not reverting the IP's edit. This is the IP's edit. Undos don't just revert the last edit, and hopefully you see that now, but using that to suggest I'm targeting you and trying to remove you from the project is ridiculous. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The larger context of my point is that myself and other editors are allowed to do same, as what you and Caleb have done. Simply requesting a fair process for all editors, that doesn't have the appearance of punitive actions or bias. If other editors make such changes, will they be considered reverts and punitive actions be requested or imposed?

These are the recent edits of Deadbeef (asking that other editors be allowed to do the same to any article):

Wukuendo (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Those comments about me show significant failure to assume good faith."

In order to clarify what was done, was the reason I came to your talk page. I assumed it would be easily possible for you to tell if that was the case, since you are very heavily involved now in the V article as an editor. I didn't assume anything, because in that context it could have been a mistake. My concern was that IP would be assumed to be me, be labeled as making more reverts, and then have even more punitive actions taken against me or the article.

"Undos don't just revert the last edit, and hopefully you see that now"

It was a misunderstanding about the situation based on how the diff, that I used, had looked. I can make mistakes and for that I apologize.

"to suggest I'm targeting you and trying to remove you from the project is ridiculous"

When I look at the editors newly involved in this dispute and editing the V article, they have clear information about their activities with Rust, discussing it, and with Rust's article on Wikipedia. This association is in both your and Caleb's profiles. This is not an accusation of COI, intentional bias, or not assuming good faith because I know and use a number of programming languages. I'm stating about what I clearly see in people's public Wikipedia profiles.

As an administrator you wield a great deal of power over everyone on Wikipedia. Your actions set the example. It was my hope to see things handled in a fair and equitable process with editors and when compared to other programming language articles. As in, we or Wikipedia treat V and all editors, the same as are treated when dealing with Zig, Crystal, Red, or Rust. The standard, appearance, or processes being applied by senior editors or administrators would be the same for everyone and all articles. Wukuendo (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why editing the Rust article has anything to do with editing the V article. If you have any edits/suggestions that you have for the other articles, feel free to make an edit or use the talk page. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why just editing the V article would have all the scrutiny and controversy. This clearly wasn't the case when it was a draft or not anything I've seen on the other programming language articles. And as a draft, the editors worked out compromises with each other. The edit and talk history makes that very clear and obvious.

It would seem reasonable and fair, that what was done by Caleb and yourself on the V article should be able to be done by any editors on Zig, Crystal, Red, or Rust articles (for example) without any punitive actions being administered. If the standard is actually the same. It would be following the example set and shown.

There were no punitive actions taken. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the timing and your response of the appeal, the article then had multiple contradictory tags placed on it and a series of activity to remove content without consensus. From there, it went to a higher escalation of conflict by accusing me of violating the ban because of edits by other editors that seem to contradict some particular negative view by a select(ed) team of editors. It looks both abusive and punitive. It's not in the spirit of compromise or to elevate the quality of articles, but looks more like mistreatment and intimidation tactics.Wukuendo (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This appears escalatory by falsely accusing me of violating the temporary block which would then possibly create additional punitive actions or a ban, and for having an opposing view with what is being done to the article.

The draft of the article is the work of many editors before me (it's not my creation), and many editors have made positive contributions in an attempt to elevate its quality and be informative. Blaming any positive edits which are in contradiction or opposed to the mass deletion of content, excessive tagging, or arguably a certain view by a select(ed) team of editors, on me, is wrong. It comes across as a form of intimidation and abusing the process to eliminate opposition as oppose to compromise and positive contributions to elevate the quality of the article.

It appears to be an attempt to block any opposing or positive editing, from wherever and which one doesn't like, by wrapping it up as just or only me. Associating all IPs and opposing edits, on an opposing editor. As if other editors have never worked on or added to the draft and article. This comes across as an attempt to create a defacto ban of edits and on all IPs that don't agree with a particular personal view, and so that no compromise will ever be had. That looks plain wrong and abusive on so many levels.Wukuendo (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024 (Oberon-2)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You recently removed maintenance templates from Oberon-2. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Hi, sorry to reply with a template, but it saves typing. You should at least use an edit summary to address the issue when removing each of maintenance templates so that other editors can see your reasoning. They are not time-limited, so that's not a valid reason to remove any such. After checking, there still seems to be a dominance of primary sources so I've reverted that. Discussing of this is better placed on the article. Regards, and thanks for giving me a heads up. Widefox; talk 22:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The maintaining of tags that have existed for over 10 years looks very problematic. Not just for the article, but for Wikipedia too. It appears that the expectation is for other editors to make the changes to the article that are objected to, but that has never happened nor has any fruitful discussions happened on the Oberon-2 talk page to address it.

As it appears that the intent is to keep such tags on top of the Oberon-2 article, I will excuse myself, and leave it to yourself and the other more experienced editors who are invested in the quality of the article. I'm a fan of the Oberon-2 language, but not of other things. As just a suggestion, because of the years that have gone by with this issue and to avoid conflict, it looks like you should probably be the main person to work on the article to remove the tags.Wukuendo (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"it appears" .... please see WP:AGF. I think you should take that back ASAP, as it's a fundamental for how it works around here with other editors. OK?

I note that none of this is talking about the issues mentioned in the tags, it's best you do that on the article talk so others can join.

I repeat, do you have any connection with the topic? Do you have a WP:COI ? Also, see WP:OWN - none of us has exclusive editing rights. Widefox; talk 14:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what you mean by "take that back ASAP", as you did exactly that, which was to keep tags above the Oberon-2 article. As I don't want to be involved any further, which is a basic human right, I was politely letting you know. I'm not obligated to be connected to issues involving the Oberon-2 article. I'm thinking that yourself or any editors that saw the changes to the tag or read the history, can create the discussion in the talk. Furthermore, I believe yourself and those more invested in the article (with years of making contributions to it), are well equipped to discuss and find ways to resolve any issues on it.

As for the other part, I have no conflict of interest involving Oberon-2 or any parties connected to it. I simply seek no further involvement at this time, and think it better if yourself and those more invested in the article resolve its various issues. It is nothing more than that.Wukuendo (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for clearing that up.

I think I may have misread an "excuse" for a "recluse", at least I can't find it now.

Please read the links I gave you above. Regards, Widefox; talk 23:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]