|This page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past with the comment:
This article was deleted through the proposed deletion process. That deletion has been contested, and the article has been restored. Further attempts at deleting this article should be made through articles for deletion or the criteria for speedy deletion if the article meets any speedy deletion criteria except the recreation of deleted material criterion.
Referring to a person after the first time: Mr. Warnock, Bryan, Warnock, Bryan Warnock?
In "one can consider the Dilemma to be whether", the article was changed to say "dilemma" instead of "Dilemma" on Nov 21 2005. This is wrong, since the sentence is specifically about Warnock's Dilemma, and not just any dilemma. It should therefore still be Dilemma. -- Manuzhai
The sentence works fine either way, IMHO -- the meaning is subtly different with the uncapitalized "dilemma" (the phrase "the dilemma" then simply refers back to the dilemma under discussion, Warnock's Dilemma). In any case, the phrase "Mr. Warnock originally described the dilemma" should probably be consistent. -- kindall, who made the changes on Nov 2-3 before finally getting around to signing up for an account
Same meaning, written differently?
Aren't #3 and #5 somewhat the same? If nobody replies to it, you can't know why they didn't.
No, they arent. #3 means "not read", #5 means "read, but not interested". In fact you cant know the reason in any of the 5 cases and thats all the dilemma is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Dilemma Seen on AOL
I have seen this type of dilemma on AOL Message Boards. I am the only one posted, and no one else comments including for multi-billion dollar corporations such as Electronic Arts. I saw the true answer one day on a nation political issue involving President Bush, Jr., and there were so many posts that the Message Board counter had overrun. People really do look, but most people do not post, unless it really gets to their feelings.
Dilemma of Two
Traditionally, a dilemma by definition has exactly two choices
I will remove "by definition" there, because "dilemma" is not used here as an artificial word referring to a formal definition. Rather, in this case, definition follows usage. It is only by etymology that "dilemma" refers to "two".
Warnock's Dilemma is a two-option dilemma. (1) Should the poster wait some more before following-up (and risk additional delay in getting a response), or (2) should the poster follow up immediately (and risk criticism for being impatient, irrelevant, beating dead horses, etc.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Expanding Hofstadter's law
Hi there - sorry for intruding. This is a great article on a small nugget of jargon. Perhaps some editors could help expand the stub on Hofstadter's law, which is quite popular among programmers and deserves a longer article. Ideas and citations welcome. -- JFG 03:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that post was to a perl5 mailing list and not a perl6 mailing list.
- The post's Subject was regarding an RFC, which is how the Perl 6 design team itemized ideas (proposals, really) for change, during the beginning stages of design. In addition, the last post on that list explains that the list is being closed, and its successor is "perl6-meta". So I do think its a perl 6 list, after all. Was it discussed on perl 5 lists, as well? (And is it important which version of perl the list was intended for? The article might as well just say "Perl mailing list", in my opinion.) Infinoid 20:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Somebody put unverified and original research tags on this page. Since they didnt explain why and since I dont agree I have removed them. If anybody feels this was incorrect then please explain why before you re-add them. Demerphq 19:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I've removed this section of text which has been around for 5 or 6 years:
There are other reasons one might not comment besides the ones Warnock enumerated. For example, perhaps writing a good reply would require doing research that the reader lacks the time to undertake. Perhaps one has a mild interest in the topic raised but doesn't feel qualified to comment. Or perhaps an overly insightful reply would commit one to additional work (common on software development lists, where the people who display the most knowledge about a feature often find themselves volunteered to implement it) but the reader doesn't want to get involved.
It can probably be safely assumed in most situations that not everyone who does not reply to a posting refrains for the same reason, as a literal reading of Warnock's original list might imply. Indeed, Warnock's original description goes on to explain, "Most of the time, there's not even a group consensus on the reason."
My reason is that it's OR - a list of extra possibilities which have been made up (in the Wikipedia sense) by an editor and not (at the moment) supported by sources. Its sort of equivalent to (sorry about this but I'm a lawyer) a judge finding a paticular way in a case for reasons A,B & C and the wikipedia article saying "he could have also found this way for reasons X,Y & Z".
Since this page may well be an example of a Warnock anyway, could anyone who reads this and approves or who takes a look for some sources please say so, as it's not really an area I would know how to research. Bob House 884 (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)