Talk:V (programming language)/Archive 1

My edits continue to get reverted by Wukuendo who is repeatedly accusing me of editing in bad faith. Text that I wrote, various cleanup, and some reorganization have all been removed, usually restoring the state back to the previous version of the article.

Diff

For example:

• I removed this very poor quality source: "Want to learn and master V?" ^[1] That is a direct link to a promotional/company website, not a reliable source. This source was reinstated without change.

• I changed "It was mostly inspired by" to "It was inspired by" as this is more direct and encyclopedic and avoids a weasel word (MOS:WEASEL).

• I changed this sentence: "The goals of V include being easy to use and readability." to "The goals of V include readabilty, ease of use, and fast compile times." to match what was supported and described in the sources, and because fast compile times seem to be a major design constraint of V, and therefore certainly should be mentioned in the lead.

• I reworded this sentence: "Along with Alexander Medvednikov, the creator, its community has a large number of contributors from around the world" as it reads as promotional, to make it slightly less so, though this could also be removed altogether.

• I added a paragraph about the development of V: beginning "V is released and developed through GitHub," as this information is more relevant for the body of the article than the lead (MOS:LEAD).

• Regarding the performance of V, I added some details from the source: "As of January 2022, the compiler was about 1 MB and could compile an unspecified 1 million lines of code" (although the writing still is not the best, "unspecified" should probably be removed)

• I removed "(/ˈviː/, as in the letter v)" as in my opinion, this is self explanatory, though I do not feel strongly about this change (compare R (programming language) does not have it, D (programming language) does not have it, though C (programming language) does have something similar)

In all these cases, not only was my change or suggestion reverted -- what is worse, the changes do not seem to have been appreciated as constructive at all. For example, none of these suggestions have been addressed through some alternate mechanism (e.g. reword the offending sentence), and in the commit messages I repeatedly get accused of making the suggestion or change in bad faith. It is at the point that I really cannot continue to edit this page as any change I make will be reverted.

Comments and feedback would be appreciated!

@Wukuendo: I have been extremely patient with you. You do not own this article, nor do I. The point of this page is to improve the article, which I have repeatedly done and made suggestions for how to do.

Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that no one WP:OWNs this article and also would make the point that an article that passes articles for creation is not a finished work. There is plenty still to do here. Please don't revert good faith edits to the page without a specific reason for doing so. Where there is a specific concern, we can then discuss it here. In the meantime I have reverted back in some of Caleb's changes above. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Caleb's major rewrites, massive section hiding, not doing the work of finding sources, acting as a defacto-reviewer

* It is unfair and inappropriate to think that after conducting major rewrites and removing large portions of information on a article, that other editors are not allowed to make revisions. This would include attempts to block other editors from making changes (including the one that submitted the draft to be an article) or wholesale and disruptively reverting their changes.

* It is not compromise, to only seek to publish your own version of the article and only what you like. Additionally, reasons for each and every change made to an article should be given. Many of your initial and massive rewritings, arguably underminded or subverted the approval of Sohom Datta (who was the actual reviewer).

* The work of myself and previous editors have been completely removed or hidden, several times without explanation or justification, very shortly after the article was approved. To include sources and citations being completely removed, also without explanation or no consensus. If you look at the edit history, I have made a conspicuous effort to note changes and revisions, and give more detailed explanations for doing so. Where in many instances, this consideration was not done for myself or others. Much of that work, for unknown reasons, was just simply removed, hidden, or rewritten.

* Caleb was not among the editors who worked on the draft, including has found no sources to help the article. His massively rewritten version of the article was forcibly pushed over the original version approved by Sohom Datta, without giving explanations to be visible to the public. This in itself looks very inappropriate or disruptive, as such massive changes should have been individually explained and justified.

* Caleb, also your rewrites and information removal continually leaves the article in a visibly disorganized looking state. This includes those editors who choose to revert portions of what was done. Weird visible errors continually get reverted back, arguably lowering the quality of the article and making it look weird. This is an active article that the world can see.

* It does not at all look appropriate to continuously push the same misspellings, large vertical gaps in spacing for unknown reasons, knowingly adding wording that is not supported by the sources, presenting conflicting or missing information, hiding large portions of edits by other editors without explanation, etc... This includes hiding or removing information done by other editors, and making statements that they will get back to it an unknown time later. Looks much better to leave those sections of the article alone, if the editor doesn't have time to complete editing them, explain their work, or leave the article in an appropriate state for public viewing.

* Closely related to that, is not doing the work on finding sources, but acting as a new defacto reviewer over Sohom Datta and the other editors who are or have worked on the article. This includes appearing to re-adjudicate as if the article is under a new review process for their unknown reasons.

* In regards to the Exercism site. First, Caleb has removed several sources without explanation. They just disappeared from public view or the current version, and he gave no sources in return, despite making rewrites which should need sources. In fact, appears to be demanding that the previous editor provide sources for his own rewrites. These judgements look unfair, as if above other editors. I previously explained reasons for using the source, including doing so in this talk. To be clear, after reviewing my explanation (please refer to other section of this talk), if the consensus among editors (or at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) is to remove the link than will do so. And have shown willingness to replace sources (with good reasons to), as did so with one mentioned earlier in this talk.

Wukuendo (talk) 08:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

0xDeadbeef: This edit removes my two previous edits without comment. was this an accidental reversion? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

yes, that was accidental. Restored here. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Diff Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Caleb appears to be omitting his reverts of Wukuendo, hiding and removing the work of other editors, his large scale rewrites of the article, etc...

Editors are free to check the V article history. Caleb, on the V article (as a significant experienced editor of the Rust article) has done: 1) Entire reverts on V without explanations. 2) Placed multiple accusatory tags without first seeking to talk or deescalate with other editors. 3) Rewrites without providing any sources or any public explanation. 4) Removed sources without public explanation. 5) Hidden large sections of other editor's work without public explanation. 6) Repeatedly left the V article arguably looking wrecked and in a disorganized state multiple times. 7) Appears intent to block any revisions to his rewritings of the V article by other editors.

The version of the V article you are presently looking at is Caleb's rewritten version, forcibly pushed over the original V article that had been just approved by Sohom Datta (actual original reviewer). Sections that were not rewritten by Caleb were hidden from the public, without explanation. Changes being done, are to his rewritten version, which he appears not to want to compromise about or block from edits. I ask other editors to consider these points and actions as well.

The definition of "revert", doesn't mean other editors are not allowed to make edits or changes to the article. To "unhide" a section of an article, that was hidden without public explanation or marked to be worked on some undisclosed time in the future, should not be characterized the same as a revert. That includes refusing compromise with other editors, so that one's own rewritings are the only version ever allowed. Wukuendo (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Wukendo, you are a new editor, and here in good faith to build this page. As a new editor, you get plenty of leeway as you learn about Wikipedia, but one very important policy here that you need to be aware of is one called WP:ONUS, which states that when information is removed from a page, the onus is on the editor wanting to include the information to gain a consensus before putting it back. You can't just keep re-adding the information, without getting that consensus. That will just create a back and forth, known as edit warring. Eventually it will lead to trouble. Caleb Stanford is also here in good faith. You may not agree with what he is doing, but he is doing it for a reason. We need to discuss the contested edits here and reach an agreement. Until agreement is reached, contested edits should be left out of the page. They can easily be found and re-added if consensus is reached. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Unfairness, bias, or corrupt process?

"...when information is removed from a page, the onus is on the editor wanting to include the information to gain a consensus before putting it back."

Then by your own admission, what was taking place in the recent saga initiated by Caleb's series of edits and tags were unfair or a corrupted process. Caleb did no such thing as first gain consensus here on this talk or the talk page of anyone else before implementing his rewrites, removing of numerous sources, hiding the work by other editors on V's page, or reverts.

Are you saying that the information of myself and the other editors who worked on the page (to include finding all of its sources) until it was promoted from draft to article by the actual reviewer (Sohom), should be restored? Then have each and every change discussed on the talk?

Or are you saying that editors who have been at Wikipedia longer are allowed to pick and choose what they want in an article or who they want to block making edits? Information and edits made by me, were reverted and re-added without consensus on this talk page.

Examples (way more examples of this than these three):

1) "beta"

Was removed, and then re-added by you. It was objected to, because this is not done on other programming articles on Wikipedia. For example the Zig programming language, Red programming language, and others are still in beta. The term is not smeared all over their articles, which can look like bias or attempting to prejudice readers, by comparison with other articles.

There was no consensus here about that individual change. You simply implemented it, and appear to be trying to block anyone from changing it back. In fact comments in V's edit history appeared to be ignored. It was mentioned in the edit history that the term "continuously being developed" (which was removed without consensus too) and the version number of the language on the infobox should suffice.

If you and Caleb feel strongly that programming languages in beta should have the term applied in the lead of their articles, then why be so intensely focused just on the V article and not edit those of Zig, Red, and numerous other languages?

I invite other editors to go check out those articles (Zig and Red) as well, then give their comparative opinions.

The main reason Zig and Red don't have this, I think, is that they don't have the word "beta" on their official websites. V's website literally has the word "beta" written on it. Please don't be combative about this and accuse editors of being biased. And I also don't understand the suggestion that it is smeared all over [the article], since the current version only has "beta" once. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Red puts that information in their infobox (please do check), which could be done in the case of V, instead of the lead. The point of emphasis is that other editors are not putting "beta" in the lead of the article. To not show bias or prejudicial treatment directed at only the V language, appears better to follow precedence. Wukuendo (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Just because other articles don't have this doesn't mean we shouldn't have this for every other article. IMO, now that you pointed out that Red is in alpha, I think it absolutely should have a sentence talking about it being in early development and in alpha stage. Suggesting that editors have bias or prejudice against V is not assuming good faith. Editors don't have enough time and energy to look at all the programming languages articles out there. If you do, then that's great. But some of us do not. I'm not willingly making an exception for V in my head, and I don't have something personal against V that affected how I think it should be written.

If anything, your insistence on oddly specific details such as keeping promotional language and removing valid criticism/shortcomings of the language had perhaps a larger effect than anything I feel about V itself. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I object to this incorrect characterization, edits I made were not done in bad faith nor to keep anything promotional. They were also done to treat the programming language fairly and to be consistent with other language articles on Wikipedia. Over and over I have made corrections and compromises with other editors and reviewers about any such appearance. That can be seen in the draft and article history, as well as the top of this very talk.

I volunteered, like the rest of the previous editors who were working on the draft, to elevate rejected drafts (pertaining to programming in my case) to be of higher quality so it could become an article. The intent was not to tear it down or get it removed, but to help elevate it. Which required doing the work of finding sources, making corrections, and many compromises with other editors. The versions of the draft and article, contain the work of many other editors before me.

And here is an example of what's going on and with the latest rewording:

V is released and developed through GitHub[16][7] and maintained by developers and contributors from the community.[5]

"...maintained by developers and contributors from the community" is a confusing misquote from the original source its attributed to.

"and maintained by an active community of developers and contributors", is arguably the correct wording to use and comes directly from sources.

Now, if I do an edit to make that change. It's not to revert, be promotional, nor inject any personal beliefs. It's simply to be honest, fair, and reflect what the sources are saying. Wukuendo (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

"Active" is quite subjective. I'd be interested if you could find examples of other programming languages having such subjective claims. IMO the first version is clearer (not ambiguous on what "active" really means) and more neutral. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 18:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Please do consider the following:

1) "Active" is not ambiguous, it means to be presently working on it. To not put the word in, can mean it's unknown if it is being worked on.

2) Misquoting of the source, can change the meaning and creates confusion, which can also be an ethical problem.

3) If the argument is that what other languages are doing takes precedence or can be a guide, than that can be used for arguing against putting "beta" in the lead.

4) Any changes or attempts to correct misquoting of sources should not be considered edit wars or reverts.

Wukuendo (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Earlier versions had "beta" in the article multiple times. The reason it was only put once in present versions, is because I corrected it and pointed that out a number of times. Wukuendo (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

2) "fast compile times"

This was removed and an edit history comment made objecting to the incorrect usage of the source. Which was changed from it's original location and purpose, to be re-applied to added wording by Caleb. That source should arguably be applied to "ease of use" and "readability".

No consensus was ever had about it on any talk page. The edit history comment ignored, and it was put back. Furthermore, if the point is to emphasize the primary goals of V, then arguably "fast compile times" should be switched to "maintainability". As primary goals of the language, that is supported by their website, documentation, books, and videos.

However, it doesn't seem like the opposing editors are putting in the research or work when it comes to finding supporting sources. Instead there is intense activity to rewrite, rearrange, remove, or block the previous editor or particular editors. The editing of articles should not be a one way exchange, where certain rules are attempted to be applied to some and not others. Wukuendo (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Any editor can make an initial bold edit without first gaining consensus. Wikipedia encourages bold editing. A revert that removes a bold addition can be taken as a challenge and thus the edit then needs a consensus. To one specific case you mention here: the language is in beta. That is verified and correct and pertinent too. Why wouldn't we mention that? In that case Caleb and I have both asserted the edit, and that is already a consensus of two against one. There is an optional process called WP:BRD, and if, when you wish to challenge material, you revert it and then discuss why that material should not be there, we will make better progress. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

And to note, you reverted the "beta" link again and despite this talk section and the above explanation. It is not good enough to say Zig etc. do not state this. So state it (with reference) on their pages. We don't pay attention to other pages over such things. The question is whether it is relevant here. So again, why wouldn't we say that the language is in beta? There is currently consensus to say this. Your continued reversion of that meets the definition of "edit warring". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, of the articles that I found talking about V, , all of them talk about V being in an early stage and in other words, experimental and in beta. The first one says Immaturity of the language, the second one says It’s also in a self-proclaimed alpha state, and though it’s already been used to build some interesting projects, is still at an early stage., and the third one says the V programming language is currently in alpha stage and is incomplete (two and three were probably before it officially became "beta"? Anyways I couldn't find any source that suggests V is mature enough so as to the official status of being beta shouldn't be included in the article) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

This is to be clear that everyone knows how I view this situation.

Caleb's Tags:

1. “This article contains text that is written in a promotional tone.”

This was Caleb's original tag. No information was provided as an action item to look at or evaluate on our talk or V's talk. Instead of progressing through this like a senior editor on Wikipedia, more tags were added without utilizing talk.

2. A) This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. B) The neutrality of this article is disputed. C) This article needs additional citations for verification.

Caleb then adds a group of more tags without specifying what his issues are utilizing talk. I put a message on his talk to elaborate on his issues, but they were not specified. The increase in tags and refusing to clarify on talk appears punitive or escalatory, without interest to resolve issues. Each of these tags need time to address, but there appeared an unwillingness to communicate and cooperate.

3. A) This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. B) A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. C) This article needs additional citations for verification.

With the new series of tags by Caleb, what these specific issues are, were not clearly clarified or discussed before the placement of the tags. Initially the article was claimed to be promotional or advertisements, but no evidence was provided about that. The accusations in the tags continued to change and escalate without allowing time to refute or address them. The rewrites continued, without heeding requests to stop and discuss.

Exercism is a free site that was removed as a reference or appears to have been objected to. It requires no money and is for learning multiple other languages besides V (it is not a V site). The Exercism site debatably helps to demonstrate the notability of the V language, as being among the languages taught. It also provides secondary source information about V. The Exercism website is not associated with me in anyway nor with V's site or lead developers to my knowledge. The site was removed without consensus or debate. Caleb has apparently placed himself in position over the reviewer who promoted the draft to article and previous editors, to remove what they already reviewed. If Exercsim can be arbitrarily removed, then why not any other site or book that has V as its subject matter.

4. "This article needs additional citations for verification."

Caleb continues to change the wording, while his tags are asking for citations on them versus the original. The original wording was, "The foremost goal of V is to be easy to use" He instead changed it to, "The goals of V include readability and fast compile time." He then adds that a citation is needed to verify the statement he changed it to.

I don't know how to exactly quantify this behavior. It's not for me to decide. It's one thing to say the citation is in error, it's another to change the original wording, and then have a tag on the article or request for more citations and as if the onus is on someone else to provide it. I don't know what is going on with changing the wording or for what purpose. This is why I asked to stop engaging in rewrites and edit wars.

The citations of 9 and 11 (old numbering) have the term "easy to use". In the case of citation 10, it uses the term "simple" for V. However, it was redirected from the original site and then put behind a paywall at medium, which no longer shows the entire article. A duplicate of the article, in its entirety, exists at this link- "https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/vlang-automation-scripting-jader-oliveira" I'm for changing the link or citation.

Caleb again continues rewording the original, which was arguably much more clear, to the confusing version he made below (Performance) without explanation. Then keeps stating new sources are needed, and because of the tags he placed on the article, it comes across as the responsibility of other editors to provide them.

Caleb is arguably injecting confusion, with unnecessary information, changing meanings, merging distinct points, and insinuating things like V is no longer as fast as previous versions. A person who is not a programmer or familiar with V, in my opinion, would be even more confused about the point of Caleb's rewording and rewrite.

Caleb's version:

“Performance

At the time of 0.1.24, V was found to be as fast as C.[20][21][22] The language also supports a foreign function interface for interoperability with C.[23][24][25]

Allocations are minimized by the language,[26][better source needed] which also supports serialization without runtime reflection[20]. Native binaries compiled with no dependencies[8][27] “

Original version (which itself a rewrite requested by previous reviewer):

“Performance

• Fast like C (human-readable C compiled by backend)[20][21][22][23]
  • Added features for safety, if desired, can be disabled or bypassed for greater performance
• C interop[24][25][26][27]
• Allocations kept to minimal[28]
• Serialization with no runtime reflection[20]
• Native binaries compiled with no dependencies[7][29]”

5. Caleb again unnecessarily scrambles the original wording, which arguably creates confusion and further separates his version from what was just approved by the reviewer that promoted it from a draft. Appears to be mixing or removing sources, then gives the impression that more sources are needed to validate wording he himself added. The original statement below, was just about exactly quoted from their sources, where Caleb's new version wants more sources.

Caleb's version:

“Compilation time

"The V compiler is written in itself. As of January 2022, the compiler was about 1 MB and could compile an unspecified 1 million lines of code in less than a second, according to a blog post.[28][15][better source needed]”

Original version:

“Fast build

"V is written in itself and can compile within a second.[30][15][23]”

6. Related to this, Caleb goes to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science, to complain about the article and me, instead of resolving what his issues are. The previous editors and myself are also not responsible nor were part of his new rewritten version of the article. The accusations of COI and his comments there, cast unnecessary aspersions, completely separate from any particulars in the article that is claimed should be addressed.

7. A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (November 2023)

I want to clearly state this for the record. I am not involved in the development of V, not a contributing developer for the V project, not involved in the V toolchain, nor any organization run by V developers. I am not paid by any V organization nor any persons associated with it. That it has even come to this, is amazing to me, by itself.

Wukuendo (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Includes removal of sources, shown above.

I fail to see how any of this is useful for discussions on the talk page. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It's for public clarity, discussion, and comparative display as to how things are done and what goes on at Wikipedia for those that have or would even be bothered to volunteer any time and effort.

And can other editors comparatively do and act as Caleb and yourself have done on the V article (without any discussion or consensus) to Zig, Crystal, Red, or perhaps the Rust articles. Wukuendo (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Starting multiple talk sections merely stating that references have been removed don't really help write the article. References support and verify statements. What is the information that a reader needs to know about V? And then, when we know that, we can reference it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the compilation time section. I don't know what it is telling me, and it looks like marketing speak. The compiler is written in itself? Not really notable. Language compilers are often written in themself. The compiler can be compiled in under a second (or the "million lines of code a second" in the sources) is not benchmarked, and is not comparable to anything else. As V can compile to C, is it C code that it compiles in less than a second? If so, how long to then compile the C code to a native binary? Compilation time is the time it takes to go from source code to an executable. And then, of course, there is the issue that fast compilation might result in poorly optimised code. This needs something better with better sourcing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

And before the inevitable comparison comes up, note that the Rust section about compiling itself was specifically about the development history, (and in addition, sourced to a reliable interview article discussing said development history) and not as "features" of a programming language. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The point you bring up, arguably makes the case of bias or prejudicial treatment greater. For V, why not move it to another section such as history (as you or the other Rust editors did with that language) as oppose to remove it entirely or attempting to bypass what was already approved by the reviewer? This all looks really strange.

The source used for Rust compiling itself is here. It's not any stronger of a source or case than that of V. I'm kind of perplexed at what's going on here, particularly the intense focus. When I check the activity and past activity of languages promoted from draft to article, I don't see them having had so much activity.

Speaking of which, it appears Rust is allowed lots of references to primary sources (like their language document). This could be easily done in V's case, in terms of documentation or videos. But, editors and reviewers on the V draft were very insistent that this should not be done or allowed, yet it appears the standard is not equally applied. This is getting confusing. Wukuendo (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

their language document - did you mean the book titled "The Rust Programming Language"? That one is published through a publisher and a physical book. By all means we absolutely could include a brief mention of V bootstrapping itself on a section about history, but the section shouldn't be so bare as to only include every selling point of V, which would serve little encyclopedic value. The problem here is that almost all sources repeat the same selling points that V itself claims on its official website, which affects the reliability of these sources for those claims (they are less independent as they did not arrive at such claims as someone who has looked deeply into the language, and instead just repeating what has been said).

Look, we are all here to build an encyclopedia, and we'd be happy to correct any inconsistencies in editorial decisions. Let's focus on the content, instead of reaching conclusions about individuals' personal opinions. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

"The compiler is written in itself?"

1) The repeated removal of the section or contesting it on the grounds that someone personally doesn't understand the meaning appears inappropriate. It is not marketing speak. It is programming terminology well understood in computer science.

2) "V is not derived from any other programming language and is written in V itself and compiles itself in under 1 second." is an exact quote. It's from the book, "Getting Started with V Programming". The author of the book conducted extensive testing of the language.

3) As editors, we can only use information based on sources. It doesn't look appropriate to remove information based on personal beliefs or personal requests for benchmarking, as opposed to use what is stated in the sources. As was mentioned earlier in this talk, there are 2 video demonstrating V's ability to do as claimed. As these were primary sources, a previous reviewer objected to it's usage. However, as primary sources appeared to be allowed and are being placed in the lead ("beta[4]"), then perhaps other primary sources can be allowed like they are for other programming language article pages.

4) The rewording of the section title to compilation time from fast build was done by Caleb. He left that in, as would probably understand what it means.

5) To be clear, this terminology was not added by me, but by editors before me. So adding it back, is not about me.

6) As was mentioned by 0xDeadbeef, it is also in the Rust article (and likely other language articles). To remove it from the V article looks clearly unfair by comparison.

7) This is to let those who are or will be viewing this article and talk, that I was banned from editing the article after being reported by 0xDeadbeef based on reverts (and where only my reverts and not those of others were put up here on talk). Consequently, if there is a consensus, it is up to other editors to revert it. I'm in the process of appealing this decision and clearing up various factual inaccuracies made against me. Wukuendo (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

You have only been banned for 72 hours. After that, you are free and welcome to edit the article once again. But you would be well advised to gain consensus on talk before reverting information into the article. The section I removed is . I haven't removed it before that I recall, although I raised an issue with it on 13 March when this article was still a draft. Has someone else removed it previously? in any case WP:ONUS applies. We need consensus on what we can say on this. 0xDEADBEEF has suggested (and I agree) that mention of bootstrapping itself could certainly be placed in a history section. You could go ahead and try new text in the history section to the effect (omitting the "compiled in less than a second" claim). That would not be a revert, and would implement something for which we seem to have consensus. As for the build in less than a second, I have described my objections to that text and nothing here addresses those. In particular, you are wasting your time when referring to how other pages do it. Another page may do it another way, but that doesn't make the other page right to do so, even if the two are comparable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

And the next ban could/might be longer or forever. These kind of actions were already predicted and stated way before. This is why I'm making sure that those that read this later are clear and see what was happening here. It is not solely for you, but for others. I volunteered to simply help with research and add sources, not for anything else.

It is not appropriate to omit portions of quotes coming directly from sources or give what appear to be orders on what content they have to put into articles. That a person does not believe or understand information coming from a source, doesn't mean that others have the same bias and should feel constrained by someone else's personal beliefs. Keep in mind that the reviewers, previous editors, and even Caleb appeared to not take issue with the full statement.

I refer to other articles as a matter of fairness and objectivity, and have also passed a review process. If all others are wrong, then that would be a display of systematic problems at Wikipedia, which should then still be addressed. Wukuendo (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

next ban could/might be longer or forever - which is exactly why you need to use the talk page, and understand why restoring your preferred version repeatedly can be disruptive. Come on man, talk to us. It currently looks like we are raising and defending our own points, while reading and responding to your points, but you aren't responding to our points.

Assertions such as It is not appropriate to omit portions of quotes coming directly from sources or give what appear to be orders on what content they have to put into articles is exactly why this discussion is so hard. You are not acknowledging the probability that you and your values might not fully align with Wikipedia's goals. It's not helpful to make Wikipedia about a single person's opinion on what an encyclopaedia looks like, and that's why we work through forming consensus. What's important is what the collectively agreed-upon definition of what Wikipedia ought to look like.

I disagree with your assertion, since Wikipedia to me has never been only about repeating what sources say, word for word. For example, if a film critic says that a film is about love and death, then we'd happily add that to the article about the film. But if the film critic says that the film is one of the best films of all time, or a film that makes your blood boil, we can't just add those to the article, right? If we look at "compiles itself under a second", the foremost issue is, what encyclopedic value does that information provide? Does the reader now have a better understanding of what V is after reading that? I'd say very little. And then, we need to consider how reliable the sources are in relation to this claim. WP:RSCONTEXT: The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. That pretty much settles it. And I'll add, the fact that this quote is used over and over again in the sources suggests something about the reliability of the entire sources. I'd like to see a source that actually verified this claim with their hardware details published.

That a person does not believe or understand information coming from a source, doesn't mean that others have the same bias and should feel constrained by someone else's personal beliefs. Same goes the other way. Just because one person believes that the source is reliable for the claim doesn't mean we should actually include the claim.

This will probably be the last extended response. I'd like to see my points written here to actually be addressed before I'll engage further. I encourage you to switch focus on other ways we can make the article better, such as what other things we can cover about the language (maybe a criticism section? I've seen some sources about that, but I guess you wouldn't want it) (and also serious question, does anyone really care if it compiles itself under a second?)

Thanks Caleb and Sirfurboy for making improvements to this article and engaging in good-faith discussions. It's probably better to not respond until valid points are made since otherwise it'd be a lot of time spent on nothing. (and also, we'd still able to form consensus on editorial decisions) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 18:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The impression is given of the following:

• "we'd still able to form consensus on editorial decisions" Have formed a team where other editors are/can be/made to feel excluded.
• "It's probably better to not respond..." OK to not discuss with other editors, continue certain style of editing, which arguably degrades versus enhances or builds.
• Administrative actions taken on IPs or editors of opposing views or editing of certain version. Opposing edits labeled as reverts.

Wukuendo (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Large quantities of information have and are being continuously stripped from the article, resulting in degradation, where the remaining section or sentence being left is nonsensical or doesn't convey usable meaning anymore.

The edit history shows it is being done by an iterative process, thus not so obvious (per each iteration) unless aware. However, it has reached the point where now it's very obvious, because there are places with a single floating sentence. Information, context, or sources are being removed versus productive adding or contributing. Wukuendo (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have concrete suggestions to improve the page or any specific objections to individual edits done by me? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Among the things that have been iteratively happening, based on the edit history:

• Sources matching statements have been scrambled or moved. Creating mismatches.

• Statements or sources are removed due to the resulting mismatches, and...

• Outright removal of statements, sources, or sections without debate or consensus.

• Direct quote of sources not good enough or putting direct quotes back into article subject to being considered reversion.

Tags placed which are contradictory to actions taken or creates impossible to resolve catch-22 situations:

• After already doing the removal of sources at will and without debate, for seemingly being unreliable or not liked, then keeping a tag stating there are unreliable sources. Tag and action are contradictory.

• After removing numerous statements in the article, so that there is only a sentence or the minimal amount of content, then keeping a tag stating the article contains "an excessive amount of intricate detail". This include after other editors and reviewers have already gone over the article. Tag and action are contradictory.

• Placing a tag on the article that is subject to opinion, without specifics, despite the previous editors and reviewers. Unresolvable catch-22

The appearance that any attempt to change the article, from a particular version, will result in IP ban or editor block.

Wukuendo (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Removal of this source^[1] from the article.

Per search Analytics India Magazine (AIM) is often used or considered as a reliable source in many articles on Wikipedia.Wukuendo (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I am posting here the reason that Wukuendo (talk · contribs) gave for reinstating the very poor Exercism source (now for the third or fourth time) for review by other editors.

link to the source in question

^[1]

better citation needed claim

1) This claim is being disputed, so please allow it to be resolved on talk before attempting to revert the work or eliminating sources of other editors without explanation or resolution.

2) The Exercism website is not associated with this editor in anyway nor with V's site or lead developers to my knowledge. It is a free site for learning many other programming languages, not just V. If Exercsim can be arbitrarily removed, then by similar logic, so can possibly any site or book that is referring to V as its subject matter or in it's title.

3) Website was seen by previous reviewer, who didn't object to it.

4) Exercism is notable enough to have article about it.Wukuendo (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Exercism says, in its about section:

We rely on open-source contributions.

There is limited editorial oversight, but they do say they have a top down team and a community too. That top-down team presumably provides some editorial oversight. I would think that any use of this source would require caution, but could be used in some cases. But, I then took a look at where it was used. It supported two statements. That V is fast and that V is written in itself and can compile within a second. And here is the thing: those statements are merely taken from V's own publicity. I have queried that "compile in a second" claim before (see "Advert template" section above). It is marketing hype and we don't appear to have any proper benchmarking claims being made here. Rather we have a run of references that all repeat the claim. They repeat the claim because V says this about itself. This is not careful use of the source. Whether that source can be used somewhere is moot. The statement that V can compile itself in a second needs excision and replacement with something objective. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The references section in general is kind of lacking more notable sources.

• Umoren, Samuel. "Building a Web Server using Vlang". Section. Retrieved 5 April 2021.
  • Link is dead and the article no longer appears to be available on the site.

• Emy, Jade (29 August 2023). "The programming language V 0.4 Beta is available". developpez. Retrieved 29 August 2023.
  • This is a forum post and seems to most just contain content copy-pasted from the vlang home page.

• "Introducing the V Tutorial!". Replit. Retrieved 4 January 2021.
  • Link is dead and article is no longer available on replit.

• Chakraborty, Soubhik; Haldar, Subhomoy (6 December 2023). Randomness Revisited using the V Programming Language. Nova Science Publishers. doi:10.52305/CVCN5241. ISBN 979-8891133280. S2CID 265170755.
  • Subhomoy is a core contributor to V (https://github.com/hungrybluedev) so they are probably not a reliable source for opinions like "human-readable C" but is otherwise a good source for objective statements.

Many of the other sources appear to be little more than blog posts without clear notability so it would be best to find more accredited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neweditor89 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

There are some sources that may not be reliable, to whit (from the delete discussion): "I cannot even confirm who Independent Laboratory or Nova Trex/Wang are - no web presence, not found in publisher lists, do not have an ISBN range, etc. Recent books by Trex have this statement: This book has been authored with the help of LLM tools ...; "help" could be doing heavy lifting there. My take is that they do not meet the WP definition of "reliable."

I may run these by the RS noticeboard to see if anyone has info about them. Lamona (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

The person you are responding to has only ever made one post, now a year old and counting, which was to interestingly drop a comment here. That person has never mentioned Independent Laboratory or Trex/Wang. As mentioned in a previous comment, many authors and publishers are increasingly using LLM tools, however, the technology still does not allow creating entire technical books consisting of hundreds of pages that are intelligible. Significant human editing is still required, and that may continue to be the case for some years to come. What Trex/Wang is doing with LLM tools on their other books is also not relevant to the book in question. The quote does not appear to be from that book, but for some other ones.

For clarity, and to help stop the creation of unnecessary confusion or conflict, Trex/Wang (introduced as a source by a different editor) and Independent Laboratory are no longer used as references and are simply in the further reading section. Wukuendo (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Why does it matter how many contributions someone has made if their comment holds weight? Betseg (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Was not giving an opinion on the validity of or making a judgement on that original comment, but was instead referring to the activity of the account and what was stated. It would be unlikely to surprising to get or to expect a response from someone who hasn't returned in a year or more. Wukuendo (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

A discussion at reliable sources concludes that the lack of information about Wang publisher, the totual blackout on author Nova Trex, and the odd flood of books (During the week of December 20 to December 26 of 2024, Nova Trex released 18 books) that these books cannot be considered reliable sources. That includes the V programming book used here. The discussion did not come to a conclusion about Independent Laboratory other than no information was available for this author/publisher. It being in Japan means that we probably need someone who can navigate better in that language.

This is in addition to other sources that are problematic, as noted above. Removing these cannot degrade the article because it is their presence that is degrading the article. Lamona (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

A problem appears to be conflating or confusing policies. Where the scenario is being presented as if those book links are being used as references for statements or to establish the article's notability, when they are not.

It is easy to see where such a misleading scenario can lead, by comparing the V article to other programming language articles that are using further reading or external links. By the misapplication of such logic, an argument could be made to remove all content under further reading or external links on all of Wikipedia. This would also get into "I don't like it" territory (WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT).

Per Wikipedia, "Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used with appropriate care to verify some of the article's content". In this case, the article goes the extra step, to only be used for and in the further reading section. Wukuendo (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Some of the syntax sections seem to be copy pasted from other resources like the offiical Vlang Documentation for example the Structs example code is copied from https://docs.vlang.io/structs.html and the error handling is entirely copied from https://docs.vlang.io/type-declarations.html#optionresult-types-and-error-handling with the code copied from https://docs.vlang.io/type-declarations.html#handling-optionsresults

All of these violate WP:COPYPASTE and its possible that the other sections copy are copied from other resources or older versions of the docs. Because of the violation the offending sections should be removed but to throw user:Wukuendo a bone I'm gonna leave these sections up for someone qualified to rewrite. Jan200101 (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

The sustained focus on article and content removal is getting beyond interesting. For instance, examples are common for programming languages. This is plain to see among the many other programming language articles, and the desire to just outright remove them from the V article would be nonsensical.

Examples with an issue, can be easily rewritten to be within the policy (WP:PRESERVE). Portions were redone and statements above them are all referenced, where on many other programming language articles, they do not go that extra step with providing references with their examples. Wukuendo (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I saw that you simply changed variable names and string contents, this doesn't magically resolve the issues and make it less of a violation.

I'm trying to point this out in good faith but I also don't see me being able to rewrite these sections myself without causing you to revert all the work.

Is there a way we can come together to work on a solution? Having these sections is valuable to give the reader a better idea into how V code is written however plagarism and violating copyright is a no-go. Jan200101 (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Confusion is being introduced as to what plagiarism and copyright are. The use of provocative words does not mean there was any violation. "Small code snippets" are not protected by copyright (especially common and simplistic small examples), unless more than a dozen lines of code, where they can then be considered creative enough. "Paraphrasing" (especially a few words or sentences) is not plagiarism or a copyright violation either. Editors of Wikipedia are suppose to paraphrase when explaining text from a reference. Examples and code snippets are commonly used on other programming related articles. Wukuendo (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

"Paraphrasing" is not copying the exact text and code from MIT licensed documentation and not disclosing it. This wasn't an explanation of the book

To the MIT license its a violation due to the lack of proper accreditation and because the original work was never cited or disclosed it is functionally plagiarism.

You are correct that small code snippets, especially those that try to achieve the same goal, tend to look the same, however this in the case the code matches character for character until the naming was changed.

I'm more than willing to put up the work but you have a history of reverting other peoples changes and causing edit wars so I'm trying to find a resolution where we can work together to improve this article. Jan200101 (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

For clarity, it was editors before me that added the examples and the basic structure of the article. What later editors and myself did was to be productive and elevate the draft to an article. This includes finding sources, making corrections, fixing vandalism, and helping it survive the recent attempt to outright delete it. Coming to Wikipedia for such activities as disruptive editing (WP:DISRUPTIVE), battling (WP:BATTLE), vandalizing articles of languages that one doesn't like (WP:VANDAL), and wholesale deletionism is not productive nor what I'm here to do.

Your accusations directed towards me about copyright and plagiarism are false, just like the other accusation about heap struct not being cited correctly or paraphrased was also false. It also appears that you do not understand copyright nor does it look like you have checked a variety of other programming articles to compare. You can not copyright small simplistic code snippets such as a := 3. If someone changed a variable from z := 3 to y := 3, that would still not be a copyright violation, when the code snippet is too small to qualify to begin with. Something else to be aware of is that any algorithm used or the functionality of the code (what it does) can not be copyrighted. Meaning if someone creates a similar function or small code snippet that gives a similar result, it is not a copyright violation either (especially at the scale of a function, method, or procedure). Wukuendo (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the Heap Structs subsection in the Syntax section is helping anyone since its just a straight copy paste from the Vlang docs without any explanation on memory management or allocation.

If no one objects I will remove it and add a bit to the Memory management subsection explaining when the compiler decides to allocate. Jan200101 (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Strongly object to any further degradation of the article, which now appears related to the vague and catch-22 type of tag, that has arguably set the stage for encouraging continual content removal. The tag really should not be there, as it came after content was already removed, leaving only the minimum. For instance, content about Vweb and ORM (built-in features of the language), were already forcibly removed without debate or consensus.

Not clear about what the fixation is with continually attempting to remove content from this article (including the previous case of confirmed vandalism), even when such efforts are attempted slowly, it still displays itself as odd. Would be better to see and advocate for more productive editing, like adding of content, and a bit more put into the memory management (as was mentioned) and performance subsections (which has only 1 sentence). Wukuendo (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

To come back to this subject:

The Heap Structs section is poorly explained, copy pasted from the Vlang Docs and doesn't use the cited source at all.

I'm going to remove it right now despite your objects because it violates WP:COPYPASTE. Jan200101 (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Please do not make false statements. The explanation above the example on heap structs comes from the reference provided, page 172 and "Understanding heap structs". Additionally, a particular person's lack of understanding about programming terminology or the material covered, would be their personal issue and not grounds for removing sourced content (WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE). Wukuendo (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

You are correct, page 172 of the book briefly talks about Heap Structs after the introduction of Structs however the exact text on the wiki can be sourced back to the Vlang documentation which is licensed under MIT and copied without attribution.

This is a blatant violation of at least WP:COPYPASTE and the MIT License in multiple cases Talk:V_(programming_language)#copy_pasted_article_contents.

I also don't understand why you are talking about programming terminology, I do not take issues with the terms used but with how the content is layed out to give incomplete information while also not detailing how the functionality of the language actually works. Jan200101 (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

From the statements, what you appear to want or are focusing on has nothing to do with copyright law or Wikipedia's policies. Small code snippets are not protected by copyright (especially common and simplistic small examples), unless more than a dozen or so lines of code, where they can then be considered creative enough. Paraphrasing is not WP:COPYPASTE and is what editors of Wikipedia are suppose to do when explaining text from a reference. The point of an example, is to visually illustrate. The text above the example is to describe what the example is doing. Wukuendo (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I've been told that the best way to resolve this is to simply add attribution.

To cause no conflict its been added under the WikiProjects on this Talk Page leaving the article untouched. Jan200101 (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Changes should be clearly explained, either in the edit summary or on talk (WP:ES). Especially to not look like a form of vandalism (WP:SNEAKY). Adding the date of 3 November 2022 is baffling as well. Additionally, most books written about a programming language and nearly all programming articles have some relationship to the language's documentation. So far, searches on other programming language articles with examples on Wikipedia does not show them doing what was attempted here.

You left a blank edit summary and have stated on talk that "I've been told". It's vague and gives the impression you are working as a team with unknown persons. Who told you? (from your statement of "I've been told"). What specific Wikipedia policy are you referring to and what's the connection to this article? Wukuendo (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, the summary got lost when I was previewing the changes.

I ask you not to accuse me of something that you cannot prove, I've been trying to converse with you in good faith believing that we are both arguing to improve the article.

The date 3 November 2022 comes the earliest revision of the article which is the initial revision of the article which also contained the sections copied from the V documentation. The Dual template requires that a date is given so I needed to pick that date.

I've said that "I've been told" because I've asked on IRC what the best action going forward with this case is since you take any modification to the article as a personal attack.

What "I've been told" is that this issue is minor and generally not worth fighting over and that simply adding attribution to the Talk page would be the simplest solution since it would satisfy the MIT license and thus count as proper attribution (though I do not fully agree with that but this could be argued about).

Regarding citing books or documentation, there is nothing wrong with that but it is important to properly cite sources and when entire sections are copied it is important that the license of the source is respected which is not the case here.

To mention it again, the text is a 1:1 copy from the docs which puts it under the MIT license which requires states

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

attributing the original source is good enough in this case.

I'll put the license notice back up with a full summary that explains everything I have written down here because Talk sections can be archived making it impossible to find this message. Jan200101 (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Being told what to do by unknown persons on IRC is not Wikipedia policy or a noticeboard. Repeating false claims, do not make them facts, Wikipedia policy, consensus, or a decision from a Wikipedia noticeboard. Tags referring to years old and partially non-English drafts are not the present article. Trying to force misinformation into an article can be seen as subtle vandalism (WP:SNEAKY). Wukuendo (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

The non-English draft is still the earliest revision of the Article on the english side of wikipedia and where the offending sections were added.

If you believe my claims are false or misinformation then lets please put it on Wikipedia:Copyright_problems so that people more qualified than both of us can judge this.

You can even ask for a WP:3O and if the other party agrees that this isn't at least worth bringing up as a copyright problem then I'm going to willingly drop this. Jan200101 (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

My focus is not about what you want to do. I'm here to be productive, where possible. My intervention in this case was because of an apparent violation on subtle vandalism (WP:SNEAKY), stopping the injection of misinformation, and adhering to Wikipedia policies (including how they are applied on other programming articles). I've already demonstrated how your claims on the heap struct section were false and went into detail about other false claims made. Wukuendo (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I do not see how constantly fighting with other editors and causing edit wars is productive, you've already been blocked for being disruptive in the past but lets forget about that for a moment.

You have never refuted my claim that sections of the article were directly copied without proper attribution which in the worst case can be seen as plagarism because it is not original but claims to be and also a violation of the MIT License under which the V documentation is licensed. I also want to make it clear that I am not accusing you or anyone of actual plagarism, it seems to me that he initial article version used text copied from the docs as placeholders that were simply never replaced and I think other people would view it the same, I'm just stating what this would be in the absolute worst case. It still violates the MIT License.

Your arguments against it have been that citing books or documentation is common or that its paraphrasing, neither of which are true since the copied text matches 100% with the documentation (before your edit).

Again, I know that if I am going to submit this article to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems you are going to revert it which would be avoidant vandalism (WP:VANDTYPES) which is why I am asking you to either submit it yourself, ask for a WP:3O or allow me to submit it without doing the vandalism you are accusing me of.

You do not agree with me on the issue hence why we must submit it the article, Copyright problems handles copyright things but also copyright disputes such as this:

The removal of copyrighted content has been contested.

and this Talk page section can be included as reference so all your claims will be available to the people making the decision on that.

And if you aren't willing to let this the article be submitted to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems then I'm going to do it anyway and report any vandalism that you do. Jan200101 (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

(1) You made false statements, like about the heap section, "doesn't use the cited source at all", and were proven wrong and shown the source does have it. (2) Based on teaming up with unknown persons on IRC (from your statements), you then attempted to force a tag that related to a partially non-English draft from 2022 that is not related to the present version of the article. This type of distortion and misinformation falls under subtle vandalism (WP:SNEAKY), it was removed, and you were notified. (3) It was explained to you (including other talk section) how the present article does not look to be in violation of plagiarism or copyright, aligns with other programming articles, and that rewritten articles can be within policy. (4) Lastly, you appear overly intent on pushing other editors to do as you want. That is not Wikipedia policy (WP:CHOICE). Wukuendo (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe you are confused right now.

We are having a disagreement right now about what is true and what is false.

Normally you would go on the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard for this however since this is about copyright we need to go to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems.

This is not about pushing or forcing other editors to do as I want, its to resolve this dispute once and for all and I've said that if they ruled against me and and that I am indeed wrong I would accept that.

I've also, in good faith, given you the faster option of asking for a WP:3O to see if someone else agrees that going to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems is reasonable and if they didn't I would not persue this anymore.

I'm trying, in good faith, to get you to understand this so we can resolve this dispute through a third party.

But because this appears to be going nowhere I'm giving you an ultimatum: In 24 hours I will submit this article to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems myself, this will require that the following template be put on the article

{{copyvio}}{{Copyvio/bottom}} which will hide the content from view and since you keep accusing me of vandalism you should understand that removing this template all constitutes as avoidant vandalism. Jan200101 (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I've marked sections that I could directly match to the documentation as copyvio and reported it Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2025_July_15 Jan200101 (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

The Copyright clerk has made the determination that, "the snippets of code are too short and too functional to be considered a copyright violation. As it stands, there is no copyright infringement". This will also be placed in a separate section of the article's talk, not to instigate, but to guide future editors.Wukuendo (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Per copyright clerk, 24 August 2025, the article has no copyright infrignment. Code examples used in the article are also "too short and too functional to be considered a copyright violation". Original statement can be read here. Additionally, the license statement placed under references by the copyright clerk should not be removed, unless under their advisement or direction. Wukuendo (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Please, assume good faith! Wukuendo has repeatedly tried to assert that criticism against the language is vandalism, which is not the case! This is very clearly an attempt at white-washing the image of the language.

I have tried to add a maximally unbiased critique of the language, as inspired by the Java (programming language) article, citing very popular articles by developers. Vlang, like any project, has its own fair share of problems with the language and community, as has been noted by not only just one source, but multiple.

I ensured that my paragraph cited not only one source, but rather various. I ensured that the paragraph also highlighted that the project is still in beta, and thus it is natural to have some problems.

User Wukuendo in specific has repeatedly tried to highlight any critique against the language as "vandalism" and "scandalmongering", when it is merely a lens into the reality of the language. They have repeatedly tried to "warn" me that I will be blocked from Wikipedia for this alleged vandalism. When asked on how this is vandalism, they have not responded.

I don't want to throw any accusations against anyone, but rejecting any valid criticism of a project as vandalism is very suspicious of conflict of interest. They do not own this article. Stop trying to edit-war! MapleTheColor (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

To be more specific:

1. They have accused me of vandalism: Which is clearly wrong! This is not a case of vandalism, I am merely adding unbiased content to an article
2. They have accused me of adding original research: I have not added any of my own original research. I have only cited verifiable and legitimate research performed by others.
3. They have accused me of citing anonymous bloggers: All authors of the articles I have cited used their own name, and neither are they "unknown"! These articles have been shared hundreds of times across many different forums.

Who else but developers would critique a programming language? MapleTheColor (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@MapleTheColor @Wukuendo If the criticism is written by recognised experts (with relevant degrees, professions, who had been published in RS), then their attributed opinion can be included in the article, even if that opinion is self-published. WP:SPS: Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The three blog posts by Xe Iaso from Anubis_(software) fame should more than qualify as reliable research by a professional but the other two cited sources from mawfig and n-skvortsov-1997 appear to be from unremarkable users with private github profiles (potentially related to them being from russia? Unsure what github is doing) and blogs that only consist of their Vlang review.

I also don't think that that talking about the chatroom bans is worthwhile since that is more about the character of the people moderating the community and less about the language. Jan200101 (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

By mentioning the contentious material and authors in the talk, this might become more problematic, and was possibly avoidable (but who knows). As you clarified, 2 of the 3 do not qualify as SMEs. In the case of Xe Iaso: (1) appears to have been involved in a personal conflict or grudge over chat room ban (2) has made statements indicative of possible grudge or revenge motives (3) comments in blog and else where can be seen as libelous (4) appears to have conflict of interest as speaker to promote Golang (rival language). Additionally, such content looks to plunge the article into the middle of language wars and to generate scandal. Wukuendo (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

1. Xe Laso was not the one banned as far as I can tell? The source containing that mention was another author.
2. Please specify which statements from the source, what "grudge or revenge motives"? Until you specify, this is pure projection.
3. Again, please do not be vague. Specify what can be seen as libelous. Because until you do so, any criticism ever can be considered "libelous".
4. Xe Laso is not associated with the Golang project. There is no conflict of interest.
5. Merely having a section about criticism does not incite language wars, it merely responsibly provides additional information about the drawbacks of the language, as shown by other decades-old language articles with criticism sections.

MapleTheColor (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

1. You are misstating or making false statements about the references that that you tried to force in. To say others are engaged in "pure projection" is ridiculous or something else. Xe Iaso stated, on the reference that you gave, to have been blocked (banned). Even more, there appears to have been continual hostility, spanning over years that gets into grudge and revenge issues.
2. Xe Iaso is a speaker that is well known for promoting Golang, in addition to self interests. There is a very clear and continual association with Golang, at a public level.
3. The issue was and is about statements made that were not in the references and problems with the references used. Wukuendo (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

1. They were banned only after their first post on V. That is not enough to convince me (or apparently anyone else here) that there is a grudge that compromises the factuality. There's also nothing about a chat room.
2. What do you mean well known? According to whom? What do you mean "self interests" and "association"? If you mean personal opinions, those are not a conflict of interest, and even then they stated in a 2021 interview that Golang was their least favorite tool, in fact.
3. Which statements, then?

Overall, what do you mean when you use {{talk quote inline}}? Those aren't things anyone's said before. For tonal emphasis just use <em></em> and <strong></strong>. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• Iaso, from statements on that blog, made a direct appeal to HN (a forum). This person apparently has an account of a related name on that forum, where they appeared engaged in years of conflict with V's creator. And made many scandalous statements, while arguably promoting their blog. In fact, the person has accounts tied to their previous and present names (that are publicly admitted to by Iaso), which are also in open and direct conflict with V's creator and where more libelous and contentious statements appeared to have been made.
• Statements made by Iaso in that blog, were specifically called out for dishonesty, by Steve Phillips (elimisteve). Who is also a programmer, public speaker (DEF CON 23), and has made numerous public statements against Iaso's blog.
• Statements involved in this scandalous conflict, is what the anonymous account (178.69.159.68) appears to refer to.
• As of the writing of the blog in question, Iaso stated to being banned from the V project, which presumably is GitHub since that's where to contribute. These blocks and bans appear to take place prior to the writing of the blog entry being referred to.
• We and readers are being dragged into or are being asked to entertain a scandalous conflict, which looks unencyclopedic. Wukuendo (talk) 05:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  Again, which scandalous statements? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

wait hold on, how is Golang a rival language? are you thinking of a competing language since have similarities?

Is this why you accused me of having a COI with Zig, to stop me from being able to work on this Article? Jan200101 (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Practically, Golang is at a much higher scale and not even near a "rival" language for V (Especially considering that V is in beta and has been for many, many years). I agree with your sentiment, though I believe you should take the Zig article discussion to a more appropriate place <3 MapleTheColor (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@MapleTheColor @Jan200101 I looked into Iaso. She has spoken at conferences and tech publications interview and quote her. I would say that her opinion can be included with attribution, although we can always consult WP:RSN.

That said, looking at the cited post, there are other concerns. The post doesn't support the claims in the reverted edit. I agree with you that the chatroom stuff isn't WP:DUE. She also doesn't write about "memory leaks", but says that memory management is a work in progress. The post was made 5 years and three months ago so the opinion/information is outdated, so I don't think that should be included either. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 15:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the content in the reverted edit is fairly poor but I believe that the source could be used to mention the critisim at launch due to false promises, however I wouldn't find if it was left out until newer information is published. Jan200101 (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, the Java (programming language) criticisms are 17-20 years old, so I believe that the inclusion of a criticism section citing Xe should still be considered for Vlang. :) MapleTheColor (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

That person literally wrote "V should die". A very unbiased source indeed. 178.69.159.68 (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I can't seem to find where they said that, please point me to where. MapleTheColor (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Bias has no bearing on reliability. Simonm223 (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

TurboSuperA+ that is correct, however (and see my response below): (1) if the references are libelous and regardless if the author is an SME, the content is to be removed. (2) References were provided, that are clearly not SMEs. And one is an unknown person. (3) Statements and conclusions were given that were not in the references provided and fall under WP:OR. (4) references are contentious, disputable, and also appear to involve grudges over chat room bans. Wukuendo (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

if the references are libelous

That applies to biographies of living persons, not articles about programming languages. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:Libel does not state it applies to only biographies, have not seen any interpretation specifying that, nor would libelous content be unconstrained in that way. Otherwise, libelous content about any person could be freely leveled all over Wikipedia. Wukuendo (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Referring to a reference from an otherwise reliable source as libelous is a WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. Can you please specify the purportedly libelous reference and provide some evidence of its inaccuracy? Simonm223 (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

For other readers, this was answered (2X) further below. Wukuendo (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

This is a fair look into the matter, and I am willing to remove citations from the other 2 authors (and thus accordingly change the content), and also remove the mention on chatroom moderation. MapleTheColor (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 18:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Notified: WP:RSN. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Read this crazy long talk after finding the article about V. Hey, it is clear something is going on here and Wikipedia shouldn't be about that kind of crap. Seems like there are people dedicated to deleting the article. If that fails, then smearing the project and lead developers. That's wrong.

Thumbs down and downvote to those trying it. The other articles are not full of crap or weird blogs full of smears. Respect open-source projects.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.67.223.98 (talk) 148.67.196.87 (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The benefit of the doubt should go to the project, developers and the many contributors. V has a number of articles on Qiita. Even there is translation of their documentation to Japanese.

Easy to see many doing hard work at their repo, to make better language and programming world. Many enjoy their work. Impression made that others come to delete, fight and strange talk.

Gives bad taste, that maybe it is about fight for some other language or bounty from competitor. Sad to observe bad behavior or questionable objectives. Truly this is not seen on other pages backed by big companies. Even the case, like small rock in big pond, so no effect to them. Too much attempt to delete something or smears, as you say. 148.68.89.198 (talk) 04:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Please keep comments focused on improvements to the article and not on editors. No one is trying to delete this article at this time, despite V only being marginally notable, and the project still having no release version nor any sign that any of the big claim features have been implemented. What we need, however, are secondary sources. Encyclopaedic articles cannot be written from the project's own documentation. We need the books and articles from independent people writing about V, and not just uncritically repeating unsupported claims found on the V website. Are there any that are not self published? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

It can be said that's unfair. It smells biased to push negatives. Nobody goes on like that for other articles about programming. The project for V or language founder wouldn't usually have anything to do with who writes about them and how they do it. 148.67.196.87 (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Nobody goes on like that for other articles about programming: Criticism of Java exists, and so does Criticism of C++. One could reasonably create Rust (programming language)#Criticism if they wanted to. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Every Wikipedia article should be written from secondary sources. No exceptions. What independent and reliable secondary sources do we have that talk about V? Project documentation is not independent and is primary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

There appears to be confusion or a mischaracterization about what was added to the article by a copyright clerk. There was an attempt to delete most of the article's examples and their descriptions, on the false premise that they violated copyright. This was a long and drawn-out affair, lasting months. It was something that I haven't seen attempted on other programming language articles. The copyright clerk made the decision that there was no violation and it was deemed best to add clarification under references. The reference to the documentation, is about license and copyright, and was considered (by the copyright clerk) as the best way to do it at this time. Wukuendo (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Your own explanation is a mischaracterization of the events, I had pointed out that the entire Syntax section was a copy straight from the docs which, at best, would be an issue of attribution and at worst a license violation.

I tried adding attribution, you reverted it and protested against its inclusion at which point you refused any kind of good faith communication and refused to my agreement that if a Third Opinion sided with you I would drop the situation.

To give this the proper attention I blew this up into a Copyright Problem where you were told to Please try to assume better faith next time and proper attribution, as I had tried to add previously, was added.

For reference that whole ordeal can be found here: Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2025_July_15 Jan200101 (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The following are examples and direct quotes of inappropriate ultimatums and false accusations: (1) I'm going to remove it right now despite your objects because it violates WP:COPYPASTE (2) Because of the violation the offending sections should be removed (3) But because this appears to be going nowhere I'm giving you an ultimatum

Your own words and actions, shows seeking the deletion of large sections of the article, while continually making wrongful claims of copyright violations. It was also unnecessary to cause disruption by making large sections of the article not viewable for months or to continually issue threats. The disruption to the article's full availability would have likely continued for many months more, had I not intervened, to get a final decision to remove the tags that you placed on the article. As was repeatedly told to you (by various editors) and clarified by the copyright clerk, there were no copyright violations. Furthermore, your attempt at attribution, was your own personal solution that was not viable and was not under the guidance of copyright problems, a copyright clerk, or any other clearly identified persons on Wikipedia.

The workable or viable solution is what the copyright clerk suggests or does, and that person (not me) decided on clarification of licenses under references. Lastly, to assume good faith works in both directions and is not unidirectional. Wukuendo (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Convert Go to V with go2v appears to be japanese and lacks the `language=ja` parameter, I do not know if this is just an issue on my end or if this was just left out by accident. Can anyone confirm that there is no english section/translation? Jan200101 (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Non-English sources are allowed, the title is translated to English, and the V code it contains is also in English. Wukuendo (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Correct and I never stated anything else, I am asking if the language parameter to the reference is missing because of something I am not seeing or by mistake. Jan200101 (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no info about this and clearly no opposition I've gone ahead and added the paramter. Jan200101 (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The V article now has almost as many books referenced as the C_(programming_language) and its start to look more like an index of V books than a helpful list of further assets. It might be time to go through and cut some of them out, for example the Article from Linux Format seems to be completely inaccessible through the publisher. Jan200101 (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

There are a number of things going on here: (1) Your statement looks very opinionated, if not odd. It would be like an editor going to the Zig language article and saying its external link section has too many movies in it. Maybe the movies in Zig's article should be removed, because the C and Crystal language articles have less or no movies. (2) There is no specific or hard limit to how many books or links must be in further reading or external links (AFAIK), as long as it's reasonable and subject related. (3) Books are often first added to further reading, where they might later be used specifically as references, debated about, or referred to for study. (4) It looks inconsistent or hypocritical to make the claim of wanting more sources, while claiming there are too many sources or books at the same time. (5) There is nothing stopping a complaining editor from adding or suggesting books be added to the C language or other language article. A lack of or less books on a particular article, has no bearing on other articles. That the Zig language article has more or less books than the Crystal language article, or has a bibliography section instead of further reading, is not demonstrating any relevant relationships.

Linux Format magazines are still accessible, and the publisher is still recognized, despite going out of business. WP:PUBLISHED states, any source that was made available to the public in some form. It does not state that if the publisher goes out of business, all references using that publisher must be removed from all of Wikipedia. Wukuendo (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Wukuendo: I've removed the movies from Zig (programming language). See WP:ELNO. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to the movies as an example of the logic displayed, not as any kind of action item to remove video links from both articles. I'm not a proponent of deletionism and did not have a problem with Zig keeping their video links in the external links section. Additionally, it was suggested by another editor to add a particular video to V's external link section, and now a different editor has removed it without discussion. Though you might be correct and have mentioned WP:ELNO, it is not clear how both videos violated policy. Wukuendo (talk) 05:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Before I reply, a small bit of feedback: could you split up your arguments in a way that makes them more readable, for example by using a list or putting them into seprate paragraphs? This would make it a lot easier to read each point separately and respond to them accurately.

1. I mean, yeah. Its my opinion which is why I put this up here to see if others agree with me and if this would be a worthwhile change to improve the article.
2. You are correct, there is no hard limit for how many books can be referenced however I am specifically talking about the "Further reading" section which appears to be used as a mixed references and further things someone interested in V might want to read. For references I agree that as long as its a reasionable inclusion it makes sense to keep but for Further reading the list should be kept to a reasonable size, see Wikipedia:Further_reading#Limited.
3. Taking C_(programming_language) as an example again, it has a section for books that were sourced as well as a further reading sections. Other articles add books directly to the references if they are not already included.
4. I am not talking about sources.
5. Nothing is stopping you from adding more books and me from removing books hence why I started this discussion. I am not looking to remove any books, I am simply concerned that V, a language that existed for 5 years, has almost as many resources listed in its Further Reading sections as C_(programming_language) which has had major changes over its 5 decades while languages that are more comparable in age like Crystal_(programming_language), Zig_(programming_language), Rust_(programming_language) and Go_(programming_language) have signifiicantly fewer.
6. (You didn't number this one so I will) the source cited is Linux Format 288, I've tried both the `Buy it now` and `Read a sample` links but neither seems to function. While there are some third party services that still sell that specific issue it is no longer readibly available and thus not suited to be for "Further reading", see Wikipedia:Further_reading#Available_access

Jan200101 (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

The claimed reasons for wishing to delete references still looks odd and nonsensical.

• You linked to an essay and not a Wikipedia policy, therefore it becomes debatable to what extent that should be followed.
• Wikipedia's policy (WP:PUBLISHED), which I linked and quoted for you, states if the source was made available to the public in some form. It does not state that the source must be conveniently available nor that removal of references from articles are subject to a particular person's issues.
• Even in regards to accessibility, the publisher is clearly making past issues available to the public, as both PDFs (digital format via the Internet) and physical magazines. Whatever your problem might be, it can be resolved by contacting the publisher, who clearly has a website (link is on their wikipedia page) that also provides an email address to the public. Wukuendo (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  I read the first sentence and I'm already going to stop you right there, I do not want to delete references, I want to clean up the Further reading sections.

  If you want to maintain the list and stack books ontop of books turn it into a bibliography section instead because thats what you are using it as.

  And in regards to the Linux Format issue, please provide me with a link to a place where I can read or buy the mentioned issue that is provided either through the Magazine, Publisher or a related party, its not my job to deal with poorly maintained or buggy systems from some company but feel free to inform them about this issue over email. Jan200101 (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I just looked at the Article and saw that Sirfurboy already cleaned the Further reaction section up and put the remaining literature into a Bibliography section, so that topic is already dealt with. Jan200101 (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

On that we can agree. I do like the separation of the Bibliography and Further reading sections by Sirfurboy. However, it's perplexing how much attention the V article gets as oppose to other language articles, that could be organized in that way. Wukuendo (talk) 11:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)