User talk:DBSand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Moved your draft article to your userspace[edit]

Hey, DBSand, I saw that you're reworking a copy of the LR parser article. I hope you don't mind, but since it looks like you're still working on it (and it's duplicationg the purpose of the LR parser article proper), I've moved it to your userspace here: User:DBSand/LR parser/Rewrite. That way, you can still work on it and get feedback, and when you're done, you can just move the content to the page. Thanks! Writ Keeper 19:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You've now made it impossible for the main (original) article to refer to its proposed replacement.
I'm trying to begin the social process of having users and editors of LR parser evaluate the replacement article, and removing myself as a sole author of it. What are the community expectations, about them being invited to edit freely in a userspace article? I don't aim to do a permanent fork of the article, but do intend that it get accepted as worthwhile replacement after some weeks of visibility and joint work. Isn't that best done within the main Wikipedia space? DBSand (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, they totally can edit your userspace draft, it's up to you. The thing about it being in mainspace is that it'll come up in reader searches, which I feel isn't really good for something that's still in a draft state, especially when there's an article about it already in mainspace. And I don't think it's a good idea for a mainspace article to refer to a draft, except perhaps in a header at the top of the page, like the maintenance tags. And anyway, it's still possible to link to the draft even when it's in your userspace: just make a link that reads [[User:DBSand/LR parser/Rewrite]]. But an admin has deleted the redirects that were left over, so you should be able to move it back if you want to; I'm not too sure where policy is on this, so I'd say go for it if you really want. Sorry if I've caused you any inconvenience! Writ Keeper 19:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
A thought occurs: the best solution would probably be to move it as a subpage of the talk page, i.e. moving it to Talk:LR parser/Rewrite. That way, it's not in anyone's userspace, but it still isn't in mainspace either. Maybe try that? Writ Keeper 19:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
It really is not a problem that the draft is in user space. It is perfectly acceptable for other editors to work on a draft in user space if the user does not object. You can link to the draft in user space from the article talk page. The problem with a forked article worked on by multiple editors is that it can cause a licencing problem when it comes time to merge it back in (no matter where the draft is located). It is necessary for copyrignt licencing purposes to keep a record of who contributed what to any given article. This is the main purpose of the article history. If only a single editor has worked on the draft, it can be pasted into the article and the history will attribute the entire edit to that one person. If multiple people have worked on a draft, and it is a new article, it should be MOVEed to mainspace, which ensures its history goes with it. In the case of an existing article, a draft with multiple editors, ideally, needs to be history merged, for which you will need an administrator. This process can be troublesome, see WP:HISTMERGE, and if the article in mainspace has been edited over the same period may become impossible. In those cases the draft text is pasted in with a link placed in the edit summary to the source of the draft so the history can be found. This is a far from ideal solution. For instance print reusers of Wikipedia generally take the list of contributers (which they are obliged to publish by the terms of the licence) from the article history by an automated process. This will miss any contributions pasted in from a draft. Use of the {{copied}} template is strongly advised and the draft must be permanently kept.
It is far preferable that the article is worked on in situ in mainspace if at all possible. This is a much less troublesome way forward. SpinningSpark 23:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
So one option is to stick the new article underneath talk:LR parse in main space. Can develop collaboratively. Might still have change history there, although all change history may disappear when the article is later moved into non-talk space? The new article would remain invisible to readers and search engine.
A second option, suggested twice by a co-editor, is to append the old article to the end of the new article for awhile, until all merge issues are resolved. Is slightly ugly in short run, but gives equal treatment for readers and search engine, to the original and new content, and shows the need for further merge work in a very clear way. This method involves less Wikipedia magic than the first option. Preserves all history, all collaborations. Sounds good! DBSand (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that about sums it up, couldn't put it better myself. Except the article talk page is not in mainspace, it is in talkspace. The spacename is that part of the pagename in front of the colon. SpinningSpark 08:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

June 2012[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not replace pages with blank content, as you did with this edit to Stack automaton, as this is confusing to readers. The page's content has been restored for now. If there is a problem with the page, it should be edited or reverted to a previous version if possible; if you think the page should be removed entirely, see further information. Thank you. Cst17 (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Stack automaton[edit]

Is there another page that Stack automaton can refer to? It is best not to leave a page blank. There is Nested stack automaton. Otherwise the page probably should be deleted. BTW: someone restored the Stack automaton redirect. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops, fixed spelling and link Jim1138 (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all of your hard work on atomotons! Jim1138 (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I've now reversed the redirect of Stack automaton to link to a stubby definition within deterministic pushdown automaton, in lieu of having its own stand-alone article someday. Jim, thanks for the ref to nested stack automaton. I've added a link to it from [[deterministic pushdown automaton]. Do you happen to know what languages are accepted by a (non nested) stack automaton? DBSand (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not familiar with that area. Though, I may have unknowingly written something like that in C... Thanks again. Jim1138 (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)