User talk:Hackbinary

Python
Can you explain what makes you entitled to turn things upside down in a book to which you have made no previous contributions? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, let's make it clear. I will revert and undo your hasty edits turning things upside down, unless you show an ability to actually deliver value-added substantive content to Python book. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please explain what in particular you are not happy with. And actually I contributed to Programming Python all the way back in 2006.  I suppose what makes me entitled is the same thing that makes you entitled.  Programing Python in particular is actually a bit of mess.  I am working on organising it basis of not knowing python, and building incrementally on previous topics.  I do not think I have turned anything 'upside down' and if you would like to have a conversation about organisation, I would be more than happy to.


 * I also suggest you should use a more conciliatory tone. What makes you entitled to use such an abrasive tone? I'm on the IRC channel if you would care to discuss. Hackbinary (discuss • contribs) 17:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Responding to a post you made on my talk page in :
 * Re: "I contributed to Programming Python all the way back in 2006": Not under this user. If there is substantive contribution you have made to Programming Python or any other Wikibook, please post the relevant diffs.
 * Re: "Programing Python in particular is actually a bit of mess.": I disagree. If you feel bold to make drastic changes, I feel bold to revert them. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have responded at User_talk:Hackbinary, which is the original location of this conversation. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You did you not respond entirely. Your attitude is shocking.  Programming Python *IS* a mess.  Decorators are talked about Classes.  The navbars do not link between articles.  The text page basically talks about strings.  And my favourite, there is a section called 'Intro': Intro is not even a word.  And I almost forgot about the Discussion pages: I archived what seemed me as no longer relevant.  Capitalisation is inconsistent.  The list goes on and on.  What gives you right to revert improvements?  I would be happy to discuss if you took a more cooperative tone.  I do not contend that my view is gospel, but it is very peculiar why you are being so hostile.  Please explain.  Hackbinary (discuss • contribs) 18:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been bold and reverted your revert. Lets discuss what you are not happy about.  Hackbinary (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I would also ask that you read over BITE. While I did some work in 2006, I have not been active, and I have lost that accounts password.  On the logs, it looks around Aug 7.  Hackbinary (discuss • contribs) 18:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You did not post any diffs; why should I believe you have made any previous contributions?
 * Re: "Decorators are talked about Classes": I am not sure the sentence is grammatical, and I sure do not quite understand it, but if the chapter on "Decorators" talks about "Classes" and it should not editing the chapter should help.
 * Re: "Intro is not even a word": Wrong; check, and in particular.
 * Re: "The navbars do not link between articles. ... And I almost forgot about the Discussion pages: I archived what seemed me as no longer relevant. Capitalisation is inconsistent. ....": These are minor concerns that do not make anything a "mess".
 * Re: "What gives you right to revert improvements?": The fact that I am a contributor of substance to Wikibooks and that I do not consider your improments to be actual improvements. I am extremely suspicious of people with no previous substantive contribution who jump on the parachute and start making rather drastic changes that are made in a series of tiny, hasty edits that contain close to no substance. A seasoned editor understands to use a preview function instead of making series of tiny edits, understands that inconsistent capitalization is an absolutely immaterial issue to be solved as one of the last things, and that adding to empty talk pages is moronic.
 * One more thing: in case of lack of consensus, status quo ante prevails: the things return to as they were before. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * One more thing: in case of lack of consensus, status quo ante prevails: the things return to as they were before. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Your boldness will be met with my boldness => a pointless impasse. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Re: "Decorators are talked about Classes": should have read "Decorators are talked about *before* Classes'
 * Dan, do you want my help or not? Calling someone a moron just does not create a positive atmosphere.  The reason why I did that was so that regular contributors could just jump through all the discussion pages to see if there wasn't anything new.
 * I happen to find it easier to make smaller more incremental edits. Why is that such a problem? I can see that you have only intermittently contributed to the Python programming book, and in general contribution has been pretty sparse.
 * I have had some time to contribute over the last few days to help make it better. The quality is pretty poor.  It may well be that capitalisation is something that does not matter to 'Experienced' editors, but it does matter to me.  I also did not see your name on any of the discussion pages. Hackbinary (discuss • contribs) 18:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please also, could you point me to some books that you have had direct work on that are of a high quality so I can be sure that you are offering competent advice. Hackbinary (discuss • contribs) 18:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Finally, as far as I could tell, there was no one working on Python programming. Let's compare the Python programing page to the Haskell page, which is immeasurably better. Do you have some plans that need to be implemented?If you are a busy admin, then why are you fussing over this page? Hackbinary (discuss • contribs) 18:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What is your substantive contribution to Wikibooks, in the form of diffs or other identification of a piece of text? As for my substantive contributions, they include, , , , but also a series of recent edits in Windows Batch Scripting, a Wikibook with over 14 000 viewes per month. (I find Haskell entry page inferior.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 19:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Dan I do not claim great contribution to Wikibooks, and you attitude towards a potential new contributor is really very poor. Your contributions to the Python programming book are, frankly, not substantial, but obviously greater than mine.  Just because my contributions do not equal yours in terms of quantity, does not mean that are not thoughtful, and well intentioned.  I used the Haskell book as an example of a book that has been recognized by the community as high quality, and your book on Windows Batch Scripting has not.  While your book is informative, I do not like the single page of content.  It does seem to me that you have some emotional attachment to Python programming with your bullying behaviour towards me, and I did not mean to hurt your feelings.  Quite simply, you have come at me with all guns blazing.
 * So, let's put our initial poor introduction to each other aside, and work together on improving the book. From my point of view, I think that the order of chapters should follow a logical order, taking the reader from installing and setting up Python to learning the syntax, variable, the basic logical components, then leading into more abstract ideas of code reuse initially through functions, then moving into the object oriented features of the Python.  Once the language has been discussed, then we can start to talk about the libraries, first the 'standard library' then the other libraries that cover functionality that is either omitted from the standard library, or done substantially better eg Request.   My attempt to reorder the entry page was what, in my view, close to an optimal ordering of the existing content.  What system where you following, as maybe I just totally missed something that you were trying to accomplish.  I also tried to group chapters together whose content was similar and that should ultimately be merged.  I do find it strange that you think decorators should be talked about before classes.  That you talk about modules before classes. From my point of view, you can not really develop a book unless you have a good idea on how the content is supposed to progress.  Ultimately I would like to see a text that has more and better examples than the Python documentation, that illustrate functionality more clearly.  Ultimately I would like to write and work on chapters about XML handling and HTTP client.  At work, I have done substantial work using Python to access and mange information contained in  MS Exchange 2003 through its webdav interface.
 * What are you looking to achieve with the Python programming book? Hackbinary (discuss • contribs) 19:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please would you consider reverting back to entry page that I developed and discussing what you do not like about it? Then I will fix up the navbars.  I think there are some navbars that are better looking, so we should consider updating the template. Hackbinary (discuss • contribs) 19:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As a native speaker of English, using the word intro in an authoritative text does not instill confidence in the quality of the text, and the person using it in a written context would be considered to have a poor grasp of the language. Hackbinary (discuss • contribs) 19:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (before an edit conflict) So we can agree that you made no substance or content contribution to Wikibooks (or not any of which you and I would know), while I did. And that this what makes me feel to have something of an upper hand in the discussion and editing.


 * Now you dislike the single-page approach to Windows Batch Scripting, while I find it eminently useful and convenient, and dislike that Haskell spends the first screen of the page introducing the book instead of showing the table of contents. By my lights, Haskell main page is a counterexample, which can be fixed by moving the text to Haskel\Preface, Haskel\About, or the like, and restricting Haskel main page mainly to the table of contents.


 * I concur that narrative should go separate pages; I concur that the Python programming book's landing page should be the contents and little else.


 * Re: "I would like to write and work on chapters about XML handling and HTTP client": I am looking forward to seeing you contributing actual content to the Python book. Please, if you have some actual content to contribute, do so.


 * From what I could see, Python programming was largely unmaintained, so I charged ahead.


 * I acknowledge that some items on the main page of the Python book are in wrong order.


 * In principle do you like the order that I put it in? Does that make sense to you?  If not what are your views on this.  I am happy to some amount of tidying up, so the book has a consistent fell.


 * I do not acknowledge that your edits to the main page have only fixed that order; you have removed "modules" section heading, renamed "Basics" to "The very Language Basics", and introduced "Code Reuse" heading, all changes with which I disagree. Moreover, you have created the utterly useless likes of Python_Programming/Code_Reuse, a well-known trick of cementing a particular hierarchy that, aparnt from the cementing, does not create any added value.


 * I agree with that the section naming was not perfect. I was trying to break down the chapters into logical sections, but neither are Intro/Basics/Modules/Standard library modules/Third-party modules/Writing extension modules.  The section names could be easily changed back, or to something that works better.


 * You speak of recognition of books by the community, but that does not really matter: what matters is the usefulness, ease of finding oneself around the book and the like.


 * Peer review, and therefore recognition absolutely matters. I do not agree that Haskell is all that difficult to get around, for someone learning the subject matter, it might be *easier* for them.  My point is that 'usefulness' is highly subjective, and we have to be careful.  Poor and inconsistent capitalisation plainly gives people the wrong impression about the 'usefulness' of the content.  The psychology works like this, if authors/editors do not care enough to be consistent accurate with simple things such as section capitalisation, then how can we trust the accuracy of the content?


 * Re: "What are you looking to achieve with the Python programming book?": An easy to navigate reference that has good succinct examples that are to the point, that has well-chosen external links to complement the book content, and that has great findability by good use of keywords. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 19:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 'Easy to navigate' -- I fixed all the navigation between the pages.


 * It is somewhat disheartening that you continue to insist that the work that I did last night tidying up the pages, and reordering them is of little value. I did start to add a page 'Editing and Running Python Code' is not linked to on 'your' main page.  Additionally there are question about which version of Python this book is supposed cover, 2, 3, both?  You really should chime in on that if you want to send the message that you a maintainer of this book.  Could you revert the pages back to where I (we?) had them.  I'm happy to revisit the 'section' naming.  The plan for the 'Code Reuse' page was to describe the 'Code Reuse' constructs in Python.  I do see your point how that it makes it more difficult to reorder structure later on if that is required.  The view with the 'Code Reuse ' was to divide up an otherwise large section, and help make the contents page more navigable.


 * You have moved parts of my previous response around on this talk page in a really messy way. I will think over whether I want to continute this conversation under these conditions. I was inclined to undo your post, but I will not do it right now; posting in between parts of my post is utter mess. Please consider reverting your post and post again in a way that leaves my previous response intact. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 20:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We now have multiple threads. I was trying to respond to each one.  Probably we should move this conversation the Talk:Python_Programming anyway.  And divide it up so each thread can be read coherently. And so we don't have a similar situation with someone else.  I need to grab some super before the shop closes.90.203.213.206 (discuss) 20:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Python 2.x and where noted, Python 3.x
To discuss your particular edit here: The summary paragaph should be short and free of excessive details. Of course the book is about Python 2.x: that is the real Python being used in the industry and by academics. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 20:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur that it is obvious to you and I, but it not obvious to new users. Ubuntu will be shipping with 3 by default.   The world is moving to 3.  I think also new Windows users may also download 3 not fully aware that Python 2 is still more common.
 * Please don't forget to sign; also notice that you are now editing under an IP, which shows in the page history.
 * Ubuntu is not industry and academics. I see no evidence that "the world is moving to 3". Where applicable, the differences between Python 2 and Python 3 are noted in the book. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 20:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I don't know why it signed out.
 * Please don't forget to sign with "--~" or "~". --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 21:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Actual content contribution
I'll repeat what I already said in response to your "I would like to write and work on chapters about XML handling and HTTP client": I am looking forward to seeing you contributing actual content to the Python book. Please, if you have some actual content to contribute, do so. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 21:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well Danny boy, I did actually contribute this page: Python Programming/Editing and Running Python Code Hackbinary (discuss • contribs) 21:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * First thing, we are not on familiar terms, so "Danny boy" is inappropriate, and I ask you to avoid it in future.
 * To substance: Python Programming/Editing and Running Python Code was in part composed by you from Python Programming/Setting it up page. The part that you apparently did not copy from another page starts talking about interactive mode, which is already covered at Python_Programming/Interactive_mode, and then goes on to say some new things.
 * I welcome more content edits, especially those adding material actually useful to Python programmers, including "chapters about XML handling and HTTP client". --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 21:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes Dan, I know what I wrote on there. Since I now have your 'permission' to add content, I thought that I would point out to you that I was working on more content after I had finished reorganising the contents page.  If you actually have a look at my revision of the contents page you will see that 'Interactive' mode comes just before the Editing page, and I was in the process of moving the content in from 'Setting it up' and evaluate what to do with the content on 'Creating Python programs'. Hackbinary (discuss • contribs) 22:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Babel
Can you add to your page? I'd appreciate it. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What is it? And why? Hackbinary (discuss • contribs) 12:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Template:Python Programming/TalkNav Start and Python Programming/Orphaned Pages
You suggested that you were reverting edits on these pages because of User:Dan Polanksy's disruptive edits. The edits don't appear to be disruptive, care to explain? Looking at your talk page would show that you have had several disagreements with this user in the past so it might have been wise to raise the issue with him before making these edits. I haven't reverted your edits but that doesn't mean that somebody else won't.--ЗAНИA talk 19:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Xania, thanks for your message. Python Programming is an incoherent mess.  There is no logical order it, and Dan has been exceptionally disruptive to moving the work forward.  Navigation through the pages is a mess, there is masses of duplicated content, the order of the pages has not made any sense of progression.  Dan has stood as a troll underneath the proverbial bridge, and anytime anyone has made effort to improve structure of book, he has stood in the way.  Dan has his own vision on how the book should be, and he has not, and will not share it, in my experience.  In the absence of Dan providing a coherent plan, I feel that I have every right to make improvements. Dan at various times has called me a newb, and been incredibly condescending.  I typically only have time when I'm on vacation to contribute substantively, to which Dan has said that is not how contributions to a wikibook are to be made. Dan has also been the centre of controversy before. Hackbinary (discuss • contribs) 21:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For reference, please refer to here for some more background Hackbinary (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I had read the discussion on both talk pages. Your recent edits seem absolutely fine and as always you should be bold and go ahead when you feel something needs to be changed.  Good luck with the book.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Estonia.svg|15px]]talk 22:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)