User talk:SqlPac

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] WP:Database

I have a hard time understanding the scope of this project. A seperate section of "Scope" with some example articles would help to start this off. Aquarius • talk 17:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, do you have an example page I can look at as a guide? Thanks again!SqlPac 19:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The best place to start is the WikiProject Council/Guide. RichardF 00:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard, I have that page bookmarked and have read through it. I was actually asking Aquarius for a sample page that shows an example of what he's looking for - like a particular project as a demo. Thanks again! SqlPac 00:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. How about these examples - WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject Computer science, WikiProject Electronics, WikiProject Energy development, WikiProject Mathematics? RichardF 00:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I'll check them out! Again, much appreciated! SqlPac 01:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Database

Hi, SqlPac.

Here are some tips on making a portal.

Feasibility: Put a portal design/review checklist in a sandbox somewhere and start to fill it out. This looks like a "messy" topic, so you should really work on the categories and topic articles it covers before you actually start it. List the "top 10" articles, biographies and pictures to highlight. Decide what other features the portal will include.

Content: The articles and pictures should be of reasonable quality and importance to be included. After you complete the checklist and decide to go, adding the content will be plug-and-chug.

Style: Decide on a color palette. I have some samples here and here. You need to decide how content will be updated - manual or automatic, scheduled or random. Yo also need to decide how to get and process nominations for new content - "formally" or "informally."

After you make most of these decisions, I can help set up the basic pages, if you like. Good luck! RichardF 00:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks RichardF, I'll start getting these together and contact you again when I have it together. I appreciate the help! SqlPac 00:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment on computer program

The Computer program article is in need of repair. Would you comment on any improvement suggestions? I joined the talk starting with the thread talk:computer program#Definition of a computer program. Timhowardriley 00:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your stimulating comments. I hope you can make time to participate some more. Timhowardriley 19:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll be back to add some info as soon as I get a chance to break out TAOCP :) SqlPac 19:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] about RfC

You are probably right, I should have abstain, but I must point out that you characterization: "rather than your assessment of his knowledge of math.", is not founded. please read the comments before accusing me of Ad Hominem fallacy. Tim said "my Business Communications professor said that a well written business report is written at the eighth-grade level. (That is, the sentences are structured simply enough for an eighth-grader to parse.) So, assume that an eighth-grader is writing a report on computer programs. Explain to this eighth-grade student why a computer program is a collection (a gathering, like eggs in a basket) of instructions (which defies intuition), and not a sequence of instructions (which is confirmed by intuition)." (emphasis is mine)

My remark about eight grader Math was in relation to that hypothetical eight-grader. It was NOT, in any way, a characterization of Tim itself. - Shmget 21:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize then. See my comments on your talk page. If you have any info. you can share with young Tim, I'm sure he would appreciate it greatly. Thanks.SqlPac 02:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Precise definitions needed

In answer to your question posted on my talk page:

Please point me at the precise definitions of Perl and PHP. There are plenty of imprecise ones around. Talking of precise definitions, what is the precise C or C++ definition of the expression (i=i++) (the behavior is specified to be undefined by the language standards, is undefined an acceptable answer for a language to be precisely defined?) Derek farn 21:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The precise definition of a PHP implementation is at [[1]].

My point is, is that this is not a precise definition. I know several people who have tried to create implementation from it and the document is silent on many issues. Derek farn 01:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

However, even the implementations your friends managed to come up with had precisely defined behaviors, even if they were not happy with those precisely defined behaviors; or if those precisely defined behaviors they achieved were not what they expected. The computer does what you tell it, which as you know might be different from what you want.

We agree that the behavior of implementations is precisely defined (ie, they will always do something). Given the source and enough time you can figure out what they will do (ok, there may be an uninitialised variable that might require some knowledge of external events). However, the definition we are talking about uses the phrase precisely defined programing language. It does not say precisely defined implementation of a programing language. In the case of (i=i++) the language definition does not contain sufficient information for me to be able to predict what an implementation will do. I have to run an implementation to find out what will happen and every time I run it something different could happen. The only language in widespread that comes close to precisely defining everything in all cases is Java, nearly every other language is not precisely defined (although their implementations will always do something). So if you want to use the phrase precisely defined you are either going to have to insert the word implementation, or you are going to have to restrict the languages in which programs can be written. Derek farn 10:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The precise definition of a Perl implementation is at [[2]]. The precise definition of a C++ implementation is at [[3]].

The Standard for C++ can be found at [4]. And no it is not a precise definition. Derek farn 01:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That is the ISO/IEC standard. Where do I buy a copy of the ISO brand non-precisely defined C++ compiler? The fact that the ISO/IEC standard does not specify X, Y, or Z does not mean that implementers put a "Perform Random Instruction" machine-level instruction in your code whenever they hit something that ISO, or whomever, says is undefined.

A precisely-defined computer language is not the same thing as a generic definition for all implementations of that language. As you alluded to, the expression (i=i++) has a specific definition for each implementation of the language.

No (i=i++) can have a different definition every time a compiler encounters it in the source. It is undefined behavior and an implementation can do what ever it likes. Implementation defined behavior varies between compilers and there are restrictions on what the set of possible behaviors. Derek farn 01:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The definition of the precisely-defined means that the compiler will do something, and that that something is defined. It might not be defined by ISO/IEC, but it should be implementation-defined. Based on this, I suppose since ISO/IEC did not define (i=i++), it means that when I write my C++ compiler I am free to have randomly perform any variety of instructions when this is encountered. For instance:

(i=i++) --> Reboot computer
(i=i++) --> Format hard drive
(i=i++) --> Print 9,836,231Z to the screen
(i=i++) --> Send an email message to a random person

Even if your answer is yes, ISO/IEC leaves me wide open to perform all of these tasks in any random order whenever (i=i++) is encountered, I submit that that in itself constitutes a precise definition of (i=i++). Simply put, the precise definition for my implementation of C++ would be: randomly perform one of the tasks listed whenever (i=i++) is encountered.

Therefore, no matter how many times I use (i=i++) in Visual C++ 7.1, I can expect a precisely defined set of rules to kick in, which will operate in exactly the same way every single time. No matter how many times I use (i=i++) in Turbo C++, I can expect a precisely defined set of rules to kick in, which will operate in exactly the same way every single time. Further, the fact that you used the ++ operator indicates that it is a precisely-defined operator. The fact that you used the = operator indicates that it is precisely-defined. The parentheses appear to be part of the language as well, and we could probably locate where they are defined in the language as well.

You have shown no undefined behavior; only behavior that is implementation-defined. Further, even if a specific implementation of C++ threw a compile-time exception when it encountered (i=i++), it is part of the precise definition.

You could not effectively program in a computer language that was not precisely defined. A computer language that was not precisely defined would have no way to know what your intent was; it therefore could not carry out your instructions.

Finally, Dr. Knuth's TAOCP has been the subject of nearly 40 years of intensive peer review and academic scrutiny. The fact that TAOCP has been named one of the 12 greatest scientific monographs of the past 100 years aside, if you want to challenge his definition of computer program, I'd recommend brining some heavier firepower than not all implementations of a specific language follow the ANSI standard; therefore none of them are precisely defined by anyone.

TAOCP is a great work of applied mathematics. However, Knuth's definition is specific to his interests. He is also using terms in a very specific way which is different from might be regarded 'common' usage in computing (eg, the definition of common usage for the term method now has a strong OO flavor to it which did not exist 15 years ago). Derek farn 01:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

TAOCP is widely accepted in the field of computing, and has undergone nearly 4 decades of academic scrutiny. I'm sure if his definitions were problematic they would have been brought to his attention at some time before the 3rd edition, 18th printing. Perhaps you should submit your disagreement with Knuth as a bug, and claim your $2.56 from him?

Hope that helps. SqlPac 23:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Derek farn, just to get past this hurdle so we can stop arguing style and improve the actual substance of the article, and to avoid an edit war, I would be willing to post an RfC to the Computer Science WikiProject and abide by a consensus reached there as to the validity of Knuth's definition. Just let me know if that would be acceptable to you. SqlPac 23:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Knuth's definition is valid in the domain in which he works. I think it is poorly worded in the sense of how people outside Knuth's mathematical domain will interpret it. Derek farn 01:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the mathematical domain argument is not very convincing. Firstly, his work is widely accepted as thorough and accurate in the field of computing. Secondly he goes to great lengths to define algorithms and computational methods, which are the basis of his definition. Apart from someone thinking that a precisely-defined language is one in which implementation-defined behaviors (intended or not) are considered to be imprecise. I'll submit this to Computer Science WikiProject under an RfC and see if there is consensus among the people there or not. SqlPac 02:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MS SQL Server articles

Thanks for the offer, but I'm not familiar with SQL server. I'm more a DB2 and SQL-standard person. --Stolze 15:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm open for other things and working on other articles - if I find the time. Just search for "Knut Stolze" and you'll find the information how to get in touch with me. ;) --Stolze 11:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the IBM email address is correct. --Stolze 23:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Tupac

I was just fixing up some of the citation titles. --Jennica 04:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Null, indeed

If you missed my comment on the Null article before the FAR was archived... it's here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Null (SQL)

My comment kind of nailed the spirit of what was going to happen here if not the facts: they've closed the nom and it's apparently the nomination's fault that all you received was two vague "opposes" and no specific criticisms.

The FAC Director said on his talk page: "Yes, AzaToth is correct - I accidentally put it on the promotion list when I meant to put it on the failed list. Raul654 01:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC) On second thought, I think I probably would have left that listed for a little while longer. Since it's over with now, just treat it as a failed FAC nom regardless. Raul654 01:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)"

Yeah, whatever, it's just your first exposure to the FAC process (I assume?) that's been corrupted. Hope you appreciate a bit of support, because what I see here is a user finding his or her way around Wikipedia and being treated strikingly indifferently in terms of due process, friendliness and all that. Sorry for making a point out of your case though. Best of luck, –Outriggr § 02:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Outriggr, thanks for the kind words. This is definitely my last exposure to the FAC process. I'm definitely not going to be wasting too much of my time here trying to do anything. Maybe these self-appointed bureaucrats don't realize it, but everytime they corner honest contributors with a pile of rules and offer no help whatsoever, they contradict the self-proclaimed lofty core principles of Wikipedia. They also force honest contributors to make a choice. On top of all the time and effort spent trying to get an article to that level and attempting to get it through the existing processes, is it really worth even one extra minute's worth of hassle? I can honestly say, for me, no it's absolutely not. I'm definitely going to take a nice break from trying to improve any content on this thing for a while. This whole process is far more draining than it should be, and the people here, for the most part, are extremely unhelpful. In fact, I would call most of them a hindrance. SqlPac 04:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Well, I hope I didn't give you any negative impressions tbat you wouldn't have formed yourself. I just commented here because I often lament how rare it is that anybody shows support for the minority in bureaucratic issues or debates on Wikipedia—unless there is a political gain in it for them. Ugh, I could keep writing junk, but I'm trying to retire. :)

Naw, no negative impressions added. I already had a bureaucratic run-in with the "stub sorters" a while back. They basically went off on me about adding a stub because I stepped on someone's toes, but when I told them "fine, just remove it and we're back to square 1", they decided "hey, we could actually use this stub!" The only thing that really bothered me about that whole [[WP:FARce]] was that no one was interested in the actual article. No one could give me a solid reason it shouldn't be an FA. No one could give me suggestions to make it better. No one even bothered to go "out on a limb" and support any of the previous reviewers' objections. No one actually read it. Well, at this point, all I'm feeling is F**k 'em. I really enjoyed adding content to Wikipedia, particularly in my area of expertise (which is sorely lacking quality content here). But everyday these people make me feel less and less like I actually want to contribute anything here. Hell, I'll probably just channel my writing into another book or two and make some more money off it. It's honestly a lot less of a hassle dealing with my publisher - one dictator 2,000 miles away - than with Wikipedia where I run into 2,000 Wiktators one mouse-click away. Thanks. SqlPac 05:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Another aside... you sometimes hear that there is "lots of computer-related content" on Wikipedia, which is then attributed to the user demographic. But it's so not true... unless they mean video games, of course. Well, I'd like to see you build those CompSci articles, but who am I to say so at this point.

P.S. You should try my fantabulous contribution to computer science, the article page article assessment script, for your WikiProject Databases! –Outriggr § 05:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I was actually in the process of trying to get the Databases project up and running, and it falls under the scope of CompSci. I was very underwhelmed by the quality of technical content, and I've said so a few times now. One problem is that there's no plan for Database-related content. It's just a lot of "throw up a stub and move on" type stuff. So I'm in the process of trying to tag what I consider the most important database-related articles and recruiting subject-matter experts to expand, expand, expand. Even highly visible articles like Database and Database management system need tons of work. My goal now is just to get content up to GA, although people do like recognition for their hard work, which is where I thought FA might fit in. Anyway anything special I need to do to add WikiProject Databases to your assessment script? Thanks. SqlPac 05:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've now added the {{Wikiproject Database}} template to the script, if you're interested. –Outriggr § 04:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Outriggr, thanks. I've installed the script, but haven't had a chance to really play with it yet. Any tips? Thanks :) ~~BTW, did you mean {{Wikiproject Databases}}?~~ Never mind, you're right :) Sorry SqlPac 13:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant {{WikiProject Database}}... see my original link for the monobook.js installation code. –Outriggr § 05:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I installed the script, am playing around with it now. I'll check out your site for the docs. Thanks! SqlPac 22:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize with your frustration at bureaucracy. In real life, I've had a document rejected because a margin wasn't right. On one page. I'm sorry about this and understand why you might not want to deal with FAC now, but I hope sooner or later you bring this or another article to FAC. There are not many compsci featured articles. Gimmetrow 08:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. But no thanks. Meet the FAckers SqlPac 12:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Be afraid!

Mahahaaaaahahaha! This is even better than Wikipedia:Follow all rules. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Null (SQL) FA mishap

I hope this hasn't entirely embittered you to FAC. Raul processes a lot of articles and this got lost in the shuffle. FWIW, you're at the top of Google with the page, which is ultimately more important than an FA star. Let me know if you resubmit it at some point. Marskell 18:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I won't be resubmitting this or anything else to FA again. Thanks, but no thanks. SqlPac 00:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

First, I want to apologize for the Null mishap. It was entirely my mistake. I do my best to avoid them, but I'm only human. As Marskell said, I hope this hasn't embittered you, and I hope you'll reconsider your decision not to submit it. Raul654 14:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really bothered by the mistaken promotion. I understand, things happen. I am completely and utterly insulted by how the "fix" was handled. Your FA process is obviously broken and I have better ways to spend my time. If, and when, you fix your FA process I might consider taking part in it in the future. For now I've no interest in dealing with a nightmarish broken bureaucratic process, especially one I'm not being paid to deal with. Thanks, but no thanks. SqlPac 15:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] THANKS

		The Original Barnstar
		Yeah, I know, section headers are to be initial caps only. Sorry, but this must be shouted. Thank you very much for launching WikiProject Databases!

LOL, thanks JD. That's the nicest thing anyone's said to me since I've been contributing to this thing. Appreciate it :) SqlPac 23:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:No fa.png

Thanks for uploading Image:No fa.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MFD

I nominated some of your userboxes for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SqlPac. Yechiel Man 15:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Database stubs

Cat:Database stubs was deleted because of this SFD. "Upmerge" means that we keep the template and point it to a parent cat, say Cat:Computer science stubs instead of its own category. However, since there is a WikiProject involved, and there are more than the requisite 30 stubs, I don't see any problems with the category now. Thanks for the heads up. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Userboxes

I'm not sure what you meant by your message to me. Having stayed off-wiki for two days and seen others' comments, I have withdrawn the nomination, so you can keep your userboxes. I apologize for overreacting to the "no bureaucrats" userbox. Please do not start a frivolous nomination of the Boston Red Sox userbox; instead, let's move on. Best regards. Yechiel Man 18:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm sorry...

...as this is four days late and rehashing an old issue. You wrote on User talk:Raul654: "Obviously that excludes the FACkers I dealt with previously, who were not interested in listening to anything I had to say. I brought all these issues up -- and more -- during the FAR process. And all were summarily ignored." This is a misrepresentation, at least of this FACker. In response to the mistake, I added a thread to the talk page, which you seemed to find helpful at the time (and did improve the article), and stopped by your talk with a note above. The page was left on FAR because we genuinely needed Raul's comment. It's a bureaucratic process? Yes, FA is. There's fifteen hundred of them, and one needs to appear on the Mainpage every day. But in this case it's not fair to disparage people who commented, some of whom honestly felt bad and were trying to work it out. Marskell 20:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Marskell, I pointed out previously that you did provide constructive and helpful comments in other posts. I apologize for not pointing it out again on User talk:Raul654. I'll go back and add it in. AFAIK you were the only person who provided any constructive or helpful comments during that farcical process, and I truly appreciate your help. Unfortunately this is not just a bureaucratic process, as I pointed out on User:Raul654, it's a *broken* bureaucratic process. Thanks. SqlPac 16:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Supermajority'

Hi, I thought I'd just follow up your comment at [{WP:DRV]] regarding ALF (programming language. Please take a few moments to read Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus vs. supermajority before making silly comments about 'superdupermajority' as supermajority is something discussed in the policy and is a term that even has its own page. Thanks, Localzuk^(talk) 13:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That post was designed to do two things:

Point out that 83% is in fact larger than 66%
Give focus to those people who can't respond to serious posts (like my other post providing additional verifiable, attributable, reliable sources and demonstrating notability of the subject matter)

You're not on the list of people who responded to my other, more serious post, are you? SqlPac 19:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you could very easily have provided both of those points without belittling my comment in a childish manner. How does behaving in such a manner help improve a discussion? It doesn't. It simply makes people think that you are being big headed or rude.

I didn't respond to your post, as I cannot confirm exactly what those references are. If they are simply using ALF as an example of that type of language, in a list along with others, then my comments elsewhere stand. If not, I simply don't have the information to respond to it...

PS. When responding to a comment, it is best to use the same response on both talk pages - otherwise I could have simply missed this comment, which I may add is again of an inappropriate tone and lacks assuming good faith.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to grab a cup of tea and go relax somewhere. I'm not too interested in what does or does not offend you. Not my problem. Good bye. SqlPac 22:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not on about 'posting to both pages'. I'm on about the fact that you post 2 different things in response to the same thing. And you should care what offends others - as it is policy to be civil, and being offensive simply because you think it will make people do something is not helping create a positive working environment - which is the point of all my comments to you.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

LMMFAO. Civil like you, Mr. "Please keep the personal opinions about what should be generally here to yourselves, they are inappropriate." Leave me alone Localzuk, I don't like bureaucrats. Especially bureaucrats who can't practice what they preach. Good bye. SqlPac 23:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This is my final comment on the matter - you seem to be majourly missing my meaning here. You stated Comment 83% in favour of overturning deletion consistutes a superdupermajority. - which is, to put it bluntly, a piss-take of my mentioning of supermajority with no other purpose than to belittle me. You then go on to say You're not on the list of people who responded to my other, more serious post, are you? which, again, is designed to belittle. That is what I find offensive, nothing else. Your other arguments have been concise and well thought out. And now, to add to the list you have now gone on and called me a bureaucrat - which, I can only assume, you are doing as some form of slur rather than in reference to following process.

My comment about personal opinion is perfectly in line with policy in order to try and keep things on topic. Making wide ranging comments about the suitability of pop-culture related articles and academic articles for inclusion on the site is in no way on topic for the discussion and I was simply pointing that out.

I have not once said that you have cited Hanus - that is evident from the DRV page. I have pointed out that your coming in and supporting the flawed argument of another editor is flawed due to the original argument simply being based on the fact that the website exists it seems - that is why I pointed out that Hanus is not a suitable source for notability, being the creator.

Seriously, you seem to be specifically finding fault with everything I have said - with no good reason.

Also, the entire AFD was based on the article being about a non-notable language. Arguments about whether or not it should be included just because a random editor was taught it in 'Tech' or because it is mentioned in a list on some obscure niche paper do not show notability. I have repeatedly tried to point this out, to no avail as people are either simply ignoring me, or they don't understand how much of a niche topic this is, and how few references in the real world it actually gets.

Finally, I will ask you to stop calling me a wikilawyer - unless you have some valid reason to do so. I have a valid belief that the subject of the article in question is not notable enough to have its own article. I have discussed policy only a couple of times, with most of my discussion on the issue being about the lack of third party sources citing the subject matter. The rest of my conversation seems to have been with you, regarding your civility - which requires mention of policy, as well as my reasoning why civility is important. I have not been uncivil, you have.-Localzuk^(talk) 00:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[[Assume good faith. For someone who's quick to tell others that their "comments are inappropriate", you seem to be very easily offended. As far as the WikiLawyering, trying to use technicalities ("66% supermajority", etc.) to justify actions based on bureaucratic policy is the definition. When you engage in such conduct you should be prepared for people to consider you a defender of the bureaucracy. Whether or not you consider an article a "niche" article really is of no concern. What's unknown, or "niche", to you might be very notable outside of your personal daily experience. It's thinking like that which thoroughly slants the content of Wikipedia towards pop culture articles about celebrities and TV shows instead of high-quality technical content.

You may well be right that the original AfD was about notability; however, some votes in the "66% supermajority" were based on other items, such as the lack of sources cited in the article; which, by itself is not an AfD offense. Perhaps you should eliminate those votes from your statistics and recalculate whether the vote was actually a supermajority, or more likely a simple majority. Either way, it's not consensus.

You talk about civility as if you are the king of it; but you, my friend, are not. You speak about things which have no bearing on the issue at hand, you tell people that their opinions are inappropriate, and you get upset when someone tells you that your comments are inappropriate; or that they do not really care that you are easily offended. There's a saying about people who live in glass houses, my friend. Particularly very thin, single pane glass houses. SqlPac 02:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to WikiProject recruitment for WikiProjects

SqlPac,

Would you be interested in trying to make your (proposed) WikiProject becoming a succes by actively involving yourself in a recruitment agency aimed at establishing an active base of participants for a WikiProject?--Daanschr 11:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, been offline for a while. Tell me more. Thanks. SqlPac (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The project has been inactive for a couple of months, due to a lack of participants. I have the impression that Wikipedia has collapsed and that it will be very hard to make intiatives like mine succesfull. I had two WikiProjects, intellectual debate (reading and discussing books on talk pages before edting an article) and historical atlas, which were unsuccesfull due to a lack of participants. So, i tried to start a project, aimed at increasing participance in WikiProjects, but ironically, it was unsuccesfull due to a lack of participance. At the moment, i am waiting for other initiatives of relatively large groups, who somehow share my ideas on how to make a collaboration of volunteers dedicated to knowledge succesfull. I think that structure is needed, where people are voluntarily willing to build up something together, thereby being willing to commit themselves to deadlines. Perhaps it is impossible, and people are only prepared to do something when money is involved (sorry, it sounds a bit pessimistic).Daanschr (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's too bad. I had to cut my involvement on Wikipedia down for several months due to other pressing personal matters. You left me the message during that time. I think it's a good idea, but I'm also pretty focused on my "area of expertise" so to speak. I would like to know how to get people motivated about topics. Right now (at least in the Databases project) it seems hit-or-miss, with a topic sitting stale for months at a time followed by a sudden brief flurry of activity. Then when these articles get right about to "B" grade, the activity just sort of stops... I've been trying to get people involved by posting little messages to the talk pages of articles currently in their "active" stage, indicating related articles that are in poor shape. I've also been asking people to please look at an article and give it a quick assessment (many database articles are unassessed). I'm hoping that as people see the poor shape of some of these articles they'll take an active interest in one or two of them. Do you have any other hints/tips to get people involved? Thanks. SqlPac (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to install some strucutre, so people promising eachother to edit within a certain timeschedule. What is important in human interaction is the social aspect. There needs to be fun, a way to speak about personal stuff. This has to be secret, like in via email or chat. People will hesitate to speak about personal stuff when it is publicised for eternity. A further point is that there must be a critical look at the activities that are being done. So, edit articles which interest people and also make measures to really turn articles in good shape. But, these are things that haven't been practised much in reality by me.

I saw that the article cooperation drive has collapsed. I was active on it in early 2006, when 20 articles were nominated and lately there were only two. So, people are starting to lose interest in Wikipedia. Perhaps changing the approach would help. There is very little bookreading and discussing done on the talk pages. Reading books and discussing them doesn't have to be done by experts, because those who are new on a certain topic can learn a lot just by reading a couple of books, written by experts. The quality of articles would improve, because personal opinions become less important and persuing the facts more important and there will be more footnotes. What could stimulate people is that topics can be chosen, read and discussed for a while and afterwards new topics will be discussed which can be very different from the former. So, people learn by reading and discussing books and move on to new topics.

Here is another more recent project of mine: Wikipedia:WikiProject critical source examination. Erkan is a friend of mine. I am reading and discussing The Peloponnesian War of Thucydides on Wikiversity chat on a weekly basis.

I don't know very good how to stimulate participance to WikiProjects. The most important thing is to build up a group of people who are very enthusiastic about it. Maybe a more flexible group is better, a group that will pursue different kind of topics, which can handle topics which belong to several WikiProjects. The point is how to make the activities non-boring, so people want to stay.Daanschr (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Approaching people can be on several ways. It hardly works to ask for participance on project pages of Wikipedia. A solution can be Wikipedia Signpost, or several forums on the internet. There must be a clear plan up front before participants are sought for.Daanschr (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is something that i have tried to pursue for two years now, so i can ask a few people from several places who could be willing to join. I have been active on Citizendium for a month, i am active on Wikiversity and i started three projects on Wikipedia with the aim to improve articles. So, there is a good chance that we can start with a group. We just need a good plan.Daanschr (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you like to do with this project?Daanschr (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Daanschr, I'd like to lay the groundwork to help get the databases project going strong. We have some people on the project, but there's this huge stockpile of neglected articles and unsourced stubs out there. And it seems so hard to get people interested in helping with articles. Right now my plan with this project is to try to get writers out there to at least look at some of these neglected articles. I'm thinking if people see an article in bad shape, especially one that's closely related to another article they are editing currently or have an interest in, they might be more likely to try to improve it. I don't have any kind of real basis for that, just a gut feeling. I'm just not sure how to get people to view those articles - I was kind of hoping that mentioning an article that needed attention on the talk page of another article being edited might help. What do you think? SqlPac (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there are two reasons that cause this problem. One is that people don't like to do the work and second is that it is volunteer work. There are several options to improve the number of participants.

An important factor is supporting social bonding. The problem is however that Wikipedia is too large for it. Social bonding works with small groups not with a giant institution like Wikipedia. Perhaps social bonding can be stimulated by starting certain traditions. We could have local clubs of Wikipedia, who meet once a week for real, in a pub for instance, and who jointly are active on the internet with specific tasks appointed to such a group. A group should be based at a certain place, like New York or Amsterdam, so people will have little effort to meet eachother. Of course, those who live in remote places can't join in such group activity, so we can also have virtual groups, but these will most likely be of less quality. Another option related to social bonding is to chat with people on personal issues, but that probably already happens.

What can be done is to stimulate new activities. Reading and discussing books to improve articles or something else that i can't think of. The importance of book reading is that people can stay interested. Each book on a topic is different from another. There is more interest in details than when people don't read books before editing. Editing as a group effort becomes a bureaucratic practise if it is only about trying to shape an article to a certain format or arranging articles.

Certain specific articles can be taken into account, but that already happens in WikiProjects, which have a tendency to fail.

Emergency efforts: Some pages can be willfully neglected due to a lack of participance to sort them. Unattended articles could get a new colour, more dark, to indicate that it is not of enough quality. The makers of these articles can than appeal to turn it into a normal article, thereby giving the responsibility for an article to the creator of it and not to someone who volunteers to improve articles.Daanschr (talk) 08:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Daanschr, Wikipedia is built on volunteer work, right? lol. Maybe a WikiProject to locate articles that are undergoing a flurry of activity and adding references to related articles that need attention? :) <g>

I like your ideas, but... I personally don't have time to try to "herd cats" offline :) I do live close to NYC, but like many other Wikipedians I honestly don't have a lot of time for offline social networking. I do think it would work wonders if something like that could be set up, but it seems like it would really be a full-time enterprise.

Reading and discussing books is good, and we get that to an extent on talk pages for these articles, since we're constantly scrutinizing references. Unfortunately that only occurs on the articles that are currently experiencing their "flurry" of activity at any given time. I've also tried picking articles at random to improve, hoping that it will show up on some interested people's watch lists.

I don't really understand the emergency efforts option. Not sure how "dark" you can make an article on "data marts" :) I have noticed that some articles that cross multiple WikiProjects seem to get a bit more attention. Like the data warehouse article, which is undergoing its flurry of activity now - it's in at least 2 projects. Don't know if that means anything or not. I think the main problem is that the articles we're taking on are just not sexy topics :( SqlPac (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In the experiences that i had on Wikipedia, there was hardly any book discussion, so it sounds good that it does occur. I have less experience than you, i think. I guess you are right about the topics. Most of them won't get much attention. I am especially interested in history, since i have studied history. There was very little activity going on on history related articles, but history has an enormous scope of articles. Perhaps the main fault is the whole strucure of an online encyclopedia. It is too large to be controlled. And if it gets smaller, than it becomes unknown.Daanschr (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Idea: focusing on knowledge instead of articles. Some WikiProjects can focus on reading and discussing certain books, or discussing a certain theme, of which multiple articles relate to. Sorting stubs and turning articles into the right format can be performed during the editing process. In a trial and error process, it could be discovered which kind of activities lead to growth in participance.Daanschr (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not all that experienced - I've been around here for a while, but I just recently started working with WikiProjects. The main thing about the database project is that it's sort of a dry topic. A lot of people find it interesting and useful, but it's very academic in nature. Not a lot of sex and drama to make it more appealing to a mass audience. While we do discuss books on the talk pages, they're mostly academic and reference books, and we're usually focusing on details about technical minutiae; not very exciting for the casual reader or writer.

I think trial-and-error is probably the only way to figure out what works... I was kind of hoping someone had already done the trial-and-error part, and figured out some things that work. Ah well, back to the grind :) Thanks. SqlPac (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The good thing about history is that it appeals to a wider public. That would be difficult with more technical subjects, or disciplines with a lot of 'academic language'.Daanschr (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Db_sql.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Db_sql.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 15:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CS Articles Assessment Question

Hi Alanbly, quick question. I saw you were on the Assessment Team for WP:CS, and I was wondering about assessment's for a sister project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Databases. We're sort of piggy-backing off the CS project, and I'm trying to figure out how assessments for A-class articles work. I was hoping you might help with some advice or links? Thanks! SqlPac (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I assess a lot more on the schools project but since I kind of created the assessment "department" at the CS project I suppose I'm a good one to ask. Basically, The A class is all of the articles that are already GA but are Better than that. To put it another way, it's the project's way of saying "We think this is close to FA." There are other takes on this and GA is not strictly required, but as A-class is supposed to be better than GA, we believed that community consensus was necessary. Adam McCormick (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for the info. Do you know if the CS project has guidelines for the community concerning what constitutes an "A-class" article? We're working on a few articles and I'd like to recommend some standards for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Databases project. Since we're really "borrowing heavily" from the CS project anyway, it seemed like a natural to first figure out how it's done over there. Thanks again! SqlPac (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The Article assessments are standard accross wikipedia and can be found here and that should be the standard. The CS project isn't really organized in how they assess. Adam McCormick (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks, I thought projects might have specific assessment guidelines. I'll check out the link you gave, appreciate it! SqlPac (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)