This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Cybercobra, Thank you for your attention to my contribution. I want to discuss with you how to restore the meaning of my contributions in a way that satisfies wikipedia's policies. You made two edits that altered the meaning of what I wrote:
2010-04-23T21:58:11 (→Criticism: we're not quoting anyone) removed the words "also exhibits paranoia, but"
2010-04-24T16:48:51 (→Canonical Objection: NPOV) removed the words "Here is an example of one phrasal of the allegation:" and un-block-quoted a passage
The first of those edits eliminates the connection I drew between Ada/Java and Python. How do you suggest I restore the emphasis on that connection?
The second edit takes an example of something that is of low truth value, and presents it in the main article text as if it was of high truth value, thus dis-informing the reader. How do you suggest I return the article to a state of high truth value?
2. I understand and appreciate your advice to change the phrasing. But since the result of such a rephrasal would be redundant, I deleted what once was the block quote, i.e. "Expression-orientation can be confusing...this branch is never executed...often confused with...". The article is fine without it. --Keith Cascio (talk) 004:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)