Mwasheim

lmdb

mwasheim, i noted in the following https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lightning_Memory-Mapped_Database&oldid=630263579

these comments: "The following is a precaution against losing work by an editor who seems intent on destroying useful information."

you took a copy of a page that was actively being developed and reviewed and, through "passing judgement" without contacting any of the people whom you could _clearly_ see named and could have reached out to are long-time technical specialists and long-time contributors to wikipedia, managed to lose all the history of the edits that they made in between the time of the arbitrary, judgemental and "non-trusting" decision that you took.

was this an error of judgement on your part or an oversight that you are happy to have corrected?

Lkcl (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Clearly an unintened side effect. As I noted, I was making a copy, including the edits I had contributed, to preserve them in the case that someone removed the article. I made all my changes entirely in the open. It was clear that the article required some work which I clearly was able and willing (although it can no doubt be improved) to do. As for passing judgement, the case of the article being deleted speaks for itself. I had noted later amendments to mine own and assumed all was well. Why should my copy have anything to do witht he original? I must admit, I may have made an error, but certainly unawares. I have, in the past, lost significant work when editors with as little as a difference of opionion on citations removed a days work. I could, if I were ignorant use reverts. But I prefer to state the case as I see it and do some work to overcome the criticisms which (as was the case here) are/were weak and should not have led to something as drastic as a take down.

If you could please explain what exactly I did that lost edits/history? In any case, the move done by 'Aperson' which overwrote (?)the original was not done by me. As I stated, the original (with take down notice) was still live after I made my copy. Then someone did aditional edits on the orignal, not on my own.

Mwasheim (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Mwasheim: unfortunately, as you were involved in the review process and i was not, it was the *copy* that was accepted by APearson, *not* the page being edited at its talk page location. It was the edits that I began which sparked the "re-review" process, but because you had made the copy, APearson picked that up. There is no need to make copies of pages: wikipedia contains revision history: all edits are always available through the history or through archive access. In other words, you or anyone else can access pretty much any revision of any page at any time. Making COPIES of documents rather than trusting the process and the technology is, traditionally, where things go badly wrong.

The original takedown was over a year ago and it was criticised as having been initiated by someone with links to Oracle. The original was moved to a User talk page (which was hard to track down). But this was all well over a year ago... and the history on the (now live) page shows that you made the copy around the 23rd october 2014, which happened just to be at the time that I and some other Software Libre Developers were collaborating to improve the article's quality.

in fact if you look at the AFC page it's apparently still awaiting review!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Lightning_Memory-Mapped_Database

there, all the history is available... which it is *not* at the now-live page.

it was only completely by accident that i discovered that there was a live version of the page that had been accepted! so, an interesting lesson there. if you really really need to keep copies of pages from wikipedia, may i recommend that you keep them on personal machines (or on a personal wikimedia server, where you may retain history), or if you really *really* must keep a copy at least make a note both on the copy *and* on the original being copied (or its talk page) that that is the action that you have taken?

Lkcl (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

right. ok. i understand the ambiguous sentence that you wrote, now. due to the timing on the copy that you made, i thought that you were referring specifically to me because you took the copy *exactly* around the time that i was collaborating with others to improve the article's quality. perhaps next time you might like to explicitly name the person whom you believe is intent on "destroying information"? otherwise it could be completely misunderstood as it could refer to absolutely anybody. Lkcl (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Two points. I was not involved in review but, as were you, merely editing the 'talk' page in the hopes of making improvements. As for making the copy, not all editors have equal powers. I've seen this kind of thing escalate. However, I never expected someone would simply 'publish' a private effort of mine. The error is mine, since I neglected to remove the 'articles for creation' meta data. Nevertheless, the whole thing points up a problem with editorial oversight (or lack thereof) and problems in communication. I'm sorry if my comments, aimed at the initial notability take down, appeared to refer to you.

As I was not involved in the review, the only way we can get this cleanued up is to have Aperson, who has the editorial powers, to switch the articles to restore the history. The question is whether you initiate it or I? I'll leave a note.Mwasheim (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Mwasheim (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

As I noted here, I've requested that an admin fix up the history of the two pages. (Only admins are able to perform history merges, so I can't do it myself.) APerson (talk!) 14:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mwasheim. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Mwasheim. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)