User talk:Replysixty

Welcome!

Hello, Replysixty, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! And thanks for the pictures! shoeofdeath 23:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the images of the WGA strikes. Since they are all PD you may want to look at uploading them to Commons instead of Wikipedia. This makes them available to other language Wikipedias without the need for re-uploading. I've already uploading some of your images to Commons (see [1]). Adding them to articles on Wikipedia is exactly the same, (ie [[Image:Imagename.ext|...]]). Evil Monkey - Hello 23:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, thanks a lot for the images. Let me know if you need any help. Miranda 01:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should watch your language, otherwise I'll inform authorities. (: - Yours truly, Superior_(talk) 02:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way to be bold in tossing out the actor's section of the WGA page. It was time for something to be done, great job! Snowfire51 (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask you if it would be agreeable with you if I uploaded a newer version of the image referred to in the title of this discussion. Using Adobe Photoshop Elements, I brightened the shadows seen in the image (mostly on Jeff Garlin). Polarbear97 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the recent edit you made to 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Triona (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you changed the picture size on this article back to a forced size of 300px. I've reverted that change, as well as replacing the br-clear code so the references fall properly on the page regardless of monitor width and resolution. Please leave this change in place to conform to the MoS per Displayed Image Size. This prevents the picture from overriding individual preference settings. --Faith (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notice that I will now be more free about reverting your edits to Drupal. Your contributions are increasingly nonconstructive and nonsensical for reasons I have outlined in the Drupal talk page.

Novasource (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you haven't been reading the talk page very carefully. I have spent far more time explaining my edits than making them. --Replysixty (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A collection of Novasource's bogus vandal warnings (now w/admin comment) NOTE: I'm cleaning up the page by merging Novasource's warnings to one section. --Replysixty (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Drupal, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Your edits continue to be nonconstructive and have risen to vandalism.Novasource (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] For the record, Novasource is harassing me because he doesn't like edits I made regarding his lack of NPOV and use of OR. --Replysixty (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as the one you made to Drupal. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Again for the record, Novasource is a disgruntled editor who is crying "vandalism" because he does not like me reving out his POV and OR. Rather than citing a valid reference in his edits, he chooses to universalize his own opinions and inject them into the article as objective (and notable) fact. Anyone who might be interested in what this stink is about should take a look at Drupal's talk page, and particularly his edits]. Novasource, your repeated unfounded warnings, edit-warring, false claims of vandalism, and uncivil behavior are bordering on harassment. --Replysixty (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Update! The admin comment below speaks for itself. After spending some time looking through all the edits, I think most of what Novasource is adding has a strong POV, and the sources that are referenced are not what I consider notable source. The entire Criticism section suffers from having no real sources, I couldn't find to much myself in a quick search, but any good source that can be found criticizing Drupal would be great. If Novasource can write a NPOV criticism backed up by sources, then that has every right to stay in the article, but I don't think that has happened, and what Replysixty is trying to keep in the article is more accurate than Novasource's additions. Replysixty's replies to your substantiations seem reasonable. — Boccobrock•T 21:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Ah, that was satisfying. --Replysixty (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Please note i'm hardly an admin... and while I still stand by what I said, please try to keep a civil attitude! best wishes, Boccobrock•T 22:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, thought green signified admin for some reason ;) But I'm glad to see others agree too --Replysixty (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your contrib at Oath of office of the President of the United States. Headlikeawhole (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism sections should include criticism, balanced with unbiased reasoning, not glowing praise. Stop whitewashing please. Stop deleting. Your comments claimed you were editing for POV, but have extreme POV edits! You removed a citation without actually reading it, you assumed with the title that the article (from Dries Buyart no less) didn't apply. If you dislike the wording, reword it in an unbiased fashion. Rogdor (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. The article (which I did actually *READ*, and yes I know it's by Buyart) showed that when caching was on, and I quote from the article, "Joomla's cache system improves performance by 12%, while Drupal's cache system improves performance by 508%." Even though Buyart concedes it may not be a real-world improvement due to non-anonymous users having customized content (and thus not using the cache), the cited article is overwhelmingly a favorable evaluation of Drupal's cache system. So why is it in a criticism section? Did YOU read it?

Next, the first sentence of this section reads: "Drupal's primary optimization is through caching oriented toward anonymous visitors which are not logged into the system. Performance tests with optimizations may not reflect actual usage in dynamic environments with logged in users and interactive tasks". Okay, great. But aside from the confusing sentence structure, does this have any meaning to a casual non-technical reader? How many buzzwords can you fit into two sentences ("primary optimization", "dynamic environments", "interactive tasks", etc. etc.) ? And is it in any way "criticism"?! Doesn't seem like it to me-- It's just a vague comment on speedup mechanisms.

I don't see how anything I added constitutes "glowing praise". I did reorganize a section on "learning curve" which had nothing to do with learning curve (but rather ease-of-use, which was covered in the previous section.) And I got rid of the Performance/Scalability section which did not provide clear NPOV criticism of Drupal's performance or scalability-- it referred to a single issue (caching) without much explanation of (1) what caching is, (2) how it relates to performance/scalability, and (3) aside from a direct comparison to a single other CMS only in terms of caching, any criticism of Drupal's overall performance and scalability. It was just a bunch of technical babble with a single metric and a single competitor (against whom it performed relatively favorably- in its worst test it served 13 pages to Joomla's 19, in all other tests it smoked Joomla) . It was NPOV because it was framing an article (by the lead developer, no less) giving a positive cache benchmark as a negative criticism without any logical connection between one and the other. (Not to mention offering a basic description or primer of how this "caching" thing relates to performance and scalability) --Replysixty (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- The article was chosen and is in reference to Drupal's caching affecting static content and not reflective of Drupal's actual perfomance, which Dries Buyart does address. You're trying to say it doesn't apply to the whole section of performance, but it was specific to that aspect. Go read it again, I'm not going to cut-and-paste a section like you've done, you can just read it. :P Rogdor (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article several times now. I am not saying that caching is unrelated to performance. I am saying that the section did not read well and did not make a clear connection from "Performance & Scalability" to a bunch of stuff about caching and comparison to Joomla. Is Joomla fast? Does it mean anything that Drupal is faster than Joomla with caching turned on? What is the relationship to scalability? --Replysixty (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- Oh and specifically, "striving" to do something, or policy about something, in reference to software is absolutely useless information-wise.

I completely disagree that Drupal's policy is useless information. The section read as though Drupal/Dries's policy was to casually break upgrade paths for the end user. That is not the case, so I added clarification to make it understood that this is not Drupal's practice. --Replysixty (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone coming to the page is going to be looking for how the software operates, not how it could theoretically operate in the future. I don't think anyone could honestly say that Drupal's upgrade paths are currently seamless, most of the core developers would openly admit that it's not, that's why it's something they're striving for. Rogdor (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence that Drupal's upgrade path is not seamless, please post it. That would be fair criticism, (e.g. "some users/reviewers/etc. have reported difficulty in upgrading their sites across major versions, such as from 5.13 to 6.0") But the article (as it was when I edited it) read as though it was Drupal's POLICY to allow such breakage. That is not the case. It is only the case from a developer standpoint (although one could argue that backward compatibility is desired, though often not possible), so that is what I clarified.

The point is, the Drupal page should be informational, not advertisement. Rogdor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I agree.

I don't think you agreed at all, you're going on now some more about alternative rhetoric on something that shouldn't be said in the article. If you are talking about forward-plans for Drupal, at the very least (note I did, but you deleted it) include a reference to the versions when that will happen. Stop disinforming and start informing. Rogdor (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what edit you're talking about here. Again, I have no problem with an article criticizing Drupal's scalibility or performance (although my understanding is that Drupal is notably scalable). My problem was that the scalability section was half-baked- it was confusing, misleading, incomplete, and not supported by the cited article. --Replysixty (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drupal strives to provide a seamless upgrade path" may have not been the best words to use. Although I do think that they are accurate.. "Drupal's policy is to provide a seamless upgrade path" may have been better. I'm fine with criticism, but it has to be real criticism, it has to be understandable to the lay reader and it has to be accurate. The article left the impression that every time Drupal is upgraded it breaks the system for the end user-- it did not clarify this to be a (fair) criticism for developers. I did not want to say that "Drupal provides a seamless upgrade path for the end user" because some users may have trouble with migrating their sites to new versions. So I said "strives to". I could have said "aspires to" "has a policy to" "tries to" etc. I said "strives"... I don't think that's very advertisey, but whatever. Change it. --Replysixty (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want credit for not having the best wording and that's fine, that's exactly how Wikipedia grows, but you have not extended that courtesy to myself or others. Full on deletions of entire sub-sections however are something usually discussed on talk pages, etc. before you just go ahead and nuke a large chunk of something someone else was working on.

See above. I was being bold. If you want to fix the section, put it back. I looked at it and couldn't even figure out what it was trying to say. --Replysixty (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues with you making changes, small undos, etc. but when you completely obliterate honest criticisms in a criticism section, you must understand that comes across extremely biased. It's as if you're defending Drupal and treating me as if I'm attacking it for referencing well known criticisms even within the core community of developers. This makes me assume you have a vested interest and if you do, you certainly shouldn't be anywhere near the article at all.

I am a (non-professional) Drupal user. (I have in the past used many other CMSs over more than a decade, so I have some familiarity with the topic), but would not say I have a particular POV interest. My problem with your addition was that to me it was not supported by the cited article, was very technical, and did not address the critique of overall performance/scalability. --Replysixty (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any interest in straightforward and balanced information on Wikipedia, you would expand upon what I'd written rather than nuking it. I don't believe you really have an issue with NPOV at all, I think you have an issue with any criticism with Drupal, period.

Because it was so poorly written as described above, I felt the article was more accurate without the section. There are other criticisms which I think are valid and supported and I have contributed to those sections. The criticism you added was nonsensical and baseless enough to me that POV seemed the likely motivation. Are you sure you're not being paid to edit? Oh, I kid. --Replysixty (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm looking back at the history and seeing that others have also had similar problems with your near-vandalistic deletions.

There was one other editor who had a clear bias. If you'll fully read the history, you will see that a neutral third party agreed that my edits were appropriate. So I say to you, if you had some personal difficulty with Drupal, Wikipedia is not a place to vent your frustration, nor to universalize your experience as typical. In other words, if the criticism is not notable and supported by something other than "original research", it should not be in the article. --Replysixty (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was interested in adding some balance for anyone using the Wikipedia entry to make an informed decision about software. I don't think you'll ever see it that way, which is the essence of bias.

The essence of bias? Give me a break. I am in favor of balance- I am in favor of fair criticism of Joomla, Drupal, whatever. And I am in favor of well-reasoned, written, and supported articles. If you make your section coherent and well-cited, I'm all in favor! --Replysixty (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is, I use Drupal myself but not professionally. I'm not arguing on behalf of Joomla (have never used it) or any other CMS. These are well known and common criticisms from the Drupal community and I noticed a distinct lack of neutrally addressing them on the entry.

If they are well-known and common then please explain in a clear fashion for non techhies, and includes support and I'll be the first one to slap you on the back and say thanks. --Replysixty (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there were one more criticism I'd apply to Drupal it's that the community has too many watchdogs like yourself that are so interested in protecting Drupal's image as respected software, that it doesn't grow or improve as much as it should. The flaws are too well defended and excused for, again, by people like yourself.

You're making a lot of wild assumptions about me and my motivations. My motivation is only a complete and well-written article. Sounds like you have a serious chip on your shoulder, which again suggests a lack of NPOV. And by the way, where the hell did I "defend" or "excuse" any flaw in Drupal? Just write a good section and support your assertion! --Replysixty (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you do have a vested interest, please have some sanity and understand the notion of recusing yourself. I will refrain myself from editing because I have zero interest in some Wikipedia war with you. I did undo your gigantic deletion of the work I added, I hope you gain some clarity to either let someone else clean it up (if anyone feels it's needed) or to at least leave the core criticism intact and edit without a defender's approach to put the software in absolute best light.

I will take a look and make any edits I feel are appropriate. Sorry to step on your toes, but you're plain wrong about my "vested interest". The fact that you're making such assumptions should make you question your own POV. --Replysixty (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, if you're really so big on NPOV then walk the walk and prove it. Edit gracefully for a change. Personally I think you're probably just going to keep on using NPOV excuses to push your own mandated bias of software that you most likely have some financial dependence upon.

Be honest with yourself. Do you have a vested interest?

Nope. --Replysixty (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If so, we have nothing to talk about, there's no point in trying to discuss something rationally with someone trying to protect their own arse. Rogdor (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, taking a deep breath then because it sounds like we've rubbed each other the wrong way and both made assumptions. Not to mention similar backgrounds with the subject at hand.

I'm getting tangled on wording the criticism plainly and non-technical while trying to come across as neutral as possible. I'll just explain more fully here so at least you know what I'm trying to have it explain:

Drupal's modular structure, even within core, results in a large number of SQL and internal server requests which cause moderate-to-high usage performance-wise and serious concerns for scaling. The more modules added, the more the problem exasperates. The usual response is to use Drupal's default caching and reduce modules, but the entire modular nature is designed for, well-- modules and interactive sessions that don't cache (not the overall caching system at least). So to get the impressive performance in the benchmarks, the site has to deliver content much different than the goals of most Drupal sites.

Arguably, any site on any software could match that exact performance with the addition of a site-wide cache because at that point it's just delivering static pages. Anyone sending out static pages probably shouldn't be using Drupal, there are other CMS systems better suited for that environment or just use plain html / xml.

The problem is further exasperated by modules that conflict with the caching system.

The next response is cache selectively at the SQL and server /code levels, but that's outside of scaling, or rather that's the usual response to scaling and not really a Drupal solution to the problem: It's part of the infrastructure system. This solution still performs best in less-interactive environments. The more that's unique, the less can be cached, right? The benchmarks are far removed from real-world usage.

So caching aside, Drupal scales poorly by default but great results can still be gained with infrastructure. That's a cure-all solution, just scale big enough until it's fixed. Worded at its most positive, you could suppose that support infrastructure is typically good enough now that Drupal's relative performance is a non-issue. But in the end, what that does is limit Drupal to those whom have the infrastructure to support it, which does narrow Drupal's target market.

Upcoming Drupal 7 attempts to fix the SQL requests problem (that in itself is arguably all the reference needed). I haven't looked at it too technically but my understanding is that they're attempting to merge SQL requests together as a sort of patchy fix. That's a tradeoff in code performance because they aren't merged to start, they come out in branches and are recombined, so slowing down in PHP makes sense.

I'm stating it this way above so you have a better idea of what the actual criticism is that I'm trying to convey. I'm not suggesting it should be written into the article verbatim, it's too long for the subject matter and not reference sourced (although it could be from just one or two references, most are logical conclusions based on the initial problem). It's based upon what I'd say is relatively common knowledge (except for the last bit with Drupal 7).

One problem with sourcing is that people who've run into these problems jump to other software rather than try to swim upstream fixing it, but that's why I'd like to see it in the article, because it's not well addressed. Perhaps this makes Wikipedia the wrong venue, but I'm honestly not trying to drive a stake somewhere with it, it just made sense to me as the first stop where people will look for the info.

I don't have a great urge to do this if I'm also fighting upstream. I'd like to see it in there, but if after reading what I've stated here you're not convinced it's valid for the article, then I'm not going to toss back and forth about it. Rogdor (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is something like this what you're trying to say:

Due to its delivery of dynamic content and its "pluggable" modular design, Drupal operation tends to require more computational overhead than other CMSs that offer similar features. As Drupal custom-builds dynamic web pages on-the-fly, each unique module and theme may require their own database queries. Thus Drupal must consume more CPU cycles to create every page. This creates a problem for both Drupal's performance and scalability, as CMSs that do not support plug-in modules are better able to internally optimize database access for more efficient and scalable page rendering. One proposed solution to this issue is Drupal's core caching system, which stores static pages, reducing the need to re-generate them. Unfortunately, static pages are used mostly by anonymous visitors, so logged in users will not receive much of the benefit of caching. Other solutions, including caching only blocks, forms, and themes, SQL caching by the database server itself, and proposed improvements for Drupal 7, may help mitigate such performance and scaling issues.

I don't know if this begins to capture what you're talking about, but if so, I would hope that every statement above would be supported by citing sources, and that the issue itself would be demonstrated to be notable, ie "This problem has been cited as a reason for not adopting Drupal by XYZ corporation" or "A conference of CMS administrators voted this a major hurdle Drupal needs to overcome" or something like "this issue is unique to Drupal" or "this is a common issue with all CMSs, but advancements in database access technologies including xy, and z make it likely to be a non-issue in the future" or SOMETHING to indicate that this DOES belong in a criticism section. Ideally, technical terms like "modular design" or "computational overhead" or "page rendering" or "caching" would be linked to the appropriate wikipedia article. My big question though is-- is this a notable criticism of Drupal? Where are the big corporations that have had scalability and performance issues? If someone at a conference gave a speech saying "this is why drupal sucks..." that would be a big help to say, yeah this is a real thing, as opposed to "oh this could be a problem but it's not really..." in which case it certainly doesn't belong. Anyway, that's my thought. I need to go eat now. --Replysixty (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair bit closer and more coherent. It's not so much that other CMS' don't also use modules, but that Drupal absolutely relies on them, right down to the core being made up of numerous modules. So out of the box defaults it's more taxing than other CMSs because it's already modularized.

Are you sure about this? Do other CMS' not modularize their core functions? Also, couldn't the modular design be a performance ADVANTAGE, because it easily allows admins to restrict Drupal to only those modules they want? For example, a system with 15 hard-coded functions would be much larger and slower than a Drupal system where only 1 of 15 modules are turned on, right? Speaking for myself- I don't use many of the core modules- they're not even checked in the Modules section. This means the tables are never created, the code is never loaded into memory or run. So maybe there is a performance advantage as well as penalty for modules, depending on which are used...? --Replysixty (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you comparing to other CMS' or Frameworks? Frameworks, probably yes, CMS' typically no. There's modular and there's modular. Modularizing code (IE: code libraries) isn't the same as loading / unloading specific packages the way Drupal does. For instance the focus on modularity in code might encapsulate SQL functions, whereas Drupal's modularity involves separating into building blocks for features. The closest comparative system is Joomla! / Mambo (Joomla! being a Mambo fork), so considering their comparison, Drupal's modularity is way out there from the rest of the crowd.

So yeah, I'm sure.

In theory you're getting flexibility, that's what Drupal's scope is about, while most CMS' focus on one thing (forums, blogging, office documentation or even Wikis), Drupal tries to be able to all of those and whatever else too. Performance and Ease-of-Use are the trade-offs, both logically and in reality. It's not unlike the old Jack of All Trades adage, if you focus on one thing then reusability of the parts isn't necessary.

But what about the point that drupal's modularity allows admins to NOT include/load certain modules that would otherwise be loaded by a rival CMS? Doesn't this promote a MORE efficient use of resources when compared with a CMS that throws in everything (including the kitchen sink)? A CMS with the same functionality as Drupal with all modules turned out may be faster as it could optimize databse calls, etc. But once you start turning off drupal modules you don't use, at some point drupal must gain the advantage. --Replysixty (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exasperated by the popular Views, CCK and related modules. Hugely different from say, a module in any other CMS that inserts a Flickr feed, or forums software installed fully-featured. Most other CMSs are often run on default installs, maybe with a module or two. That's a notable difference from Drupal, even just on the default install (and my experience with Drupal is default installs are rare).

Aside from my question about potential performance increases from a modular design, are we just speculating here as far as Drupal vs. other modules? Or is it an established fact that most other CMSs may have a module or two turned on? If so, which modules, and what is the cited source? Benchmarked comparisons would be very helpful. Then, assuming that the critique is based in fact and well-explained, we need to ask if it is notable... --Replysixty (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drupal is designed modular for flexibility. Easy to reference, but unnecessary. Each module makes its own SQL calls, so if the core is making many SQL calls compared to other CMS' it's logical and obvious to conclude that more modules with more SQL requests will be a greater total. 1 + 1 = 2. No references needed, it's really just simple additive math, you can't get simpler logic than that.

Except that this may be a totally negligible performance hit in real-world terms. Or it may be that Drupal has optimized the way it handles module database calls in some interesting way-- perhaps all modules calls are cached, optimized, and then run in a single database access by the API... I have no idea. The point is that while the discussion is interesting, it still feels like speculation to me... If you started with a conclusion: "Users agree: Drupal is slow and these benchmarks show it is slow relative to 5 other CMSs" and then explored reasons for the slowdown, including more SQL requests, that would make sense and probably should go in the article. But to start with "Drupal is modular, modular means more SQL requests, more SQL requests must mean drupal is slow..." I don't know.. --Replysixty (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A comparative benchmark is already referenced by that Dries article, it's just arguing that caching compensates the difference, but it documents that there's a difference in the first place.

But (1) the Dries article is three years old, (2) it says that Drupal is slower than Joomla w/o caching in handling 14 rather than 19 requests (something like that I don't have it in front of me), and (3) again, I don't know that it constitutes a notable criticism... if Joomla is the fastest CMS out there and Drupal is 2nd place to it (this is made up, but I'm just saying...) does this mean Drupal is slow? What is the context compared with other CMSs or with actual administrators' usage? I can say that a Honda Civic has a slower top speed than a Corolla, but does that mean that a common criticism of the Civic is that it has poor performance? --Replysixty (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Drupal 7 notes also document that they're reducing SQL queries, indicating it's still an issue. Why does it have a 2006 disclaimer in there that steers away from the inherent conclusion and reads like it's a problem in the past? It isn't, it's exactly as it was until Drupal 7 comes out (and then it'll be deprecated).

Again, there are probably many changes in Drupal 7. But an improvement in 7 doesn't necessarily correspond to a notable problem in 6. Going back to the car analogy, the new Civic may get another few MPG out of the engine, but that doesn't necessarily mean it would be appropriate to put a "criticism: mileage" section in the older civic's wikipedia article. See what I'm saying? --Replysixty (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could find more articles noting many SQL queries and the pros and cons of modular design, but aside from getting outside of scope, it's just getting silly, how many references does it need?

It needs a reference that overall, Drupal's performance/scalability is a problem for people. --Replysixty (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're oversaturating references. The citations are getting excessive on things that are clearly true. This leads back to my original beef, because AFAIK Wikipedia policy for well-referenced articles doesn't equate to requiring a reference on every statement, or else immediate deletion. That's over-policing and making it difficult to contribute. This is what annoyed me initially.

I am looking for any citation that performance/scalability is a notable issue in Drupal. A critical review, an online poll, a preponderance of "WHY IS DRUPAL SO SLOW?" posts from a wide-ranging number of users-- something! Right now you have a theory about more modules leading to more queries leading to reduced real-world performance when caching is not turned on, or for those users who do not load cached content. I don't think this is enough. --Replysixty (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a thought-- maybe what you have is not actually a criticism of performance and scalability but a criticism of Drupal's modular design. In that case, the section should be called "Modular design" and might read something like Drupal's plug-in modularity is intended to offer the system flexibility in features and functionality. However, this design may have a performance cost when compared to non-modular CMSs.^{[citation needed]} For example- a non-modular CMS may optimize its database calls whereas modular components of Drupal each make their own database requests independent of each other.^{[citation needed]} These independent database queries take more time and could result in slower page generation. On the other hand, a modular design allows administrators to turn off features they do not use, which may end up saving database queries when compared to a similar non-modular CMS. Also, caching, both at the application and database levels can help mitigate this.^{[citation needed]} Drupal's developers is working to address these concerns and improve performance via optimizations in Drupal 7.^{[citation needed]} --Replysixty (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an example: If you say that most CMS' have a way to insert and display images by default but for Drupal you need a third-party module, that's just true and there's unlikely any argument against it, so why does it need a citation? If there was a dispute or confusion, sure, but I've never heard a dispute that Drupal is focused like most other CMS', what is disputed is whether Drupal is better in its modular design.

See above. In your example though, you'd need a citation more to indicate that the lack of image support exists, but that it's a problem. Ie, an article in CMS Weekly called "Drupal's Image Handling SUCKS!!!!" would be a better citation than just linking to the ImageCache module or whatever if the WP article is noting a criticism of Drupal's modular design. --Replysixty (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable that Drupal uses modules to achieve the same results of CMS' which are designed more as complete solutions. It's a different approach and in many ways defines Drupal. This is IMHO how the entire article should be oriented, on these sort of differences, because as it is, it's pretty confusing what exactly Drupal does if one goes by the Wikipedia entry. Rogdor (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I agree that the references need to indicate repercussions, just indicating that the issues exist and they concern both users and potential users. It's not that it isn't a problem, it's that as a problem it acts as a filter and barrier for who's likely to implement the software into working solutions. Finding examples of non-working attempts or people bumping into the problems is easy, finding authoritative writeups / postmortems isn't.

Exactly my thought. One could go to the forum and find examples of all kinds of issues people are having setting up Drupal. The other guy who posted his particular problem, something he hated about Drupal's default filtering behavior, simply disagreed with Drupal's design and posted it as a criticism. But while there are zillions of people who may have this or that issue, I think the section "Criticism" should be for widely acknowledged and notable issues with Drupal behavior/licensing/cost/utility/etc., not simply a place to discuss an issue that any single person may be having. It should also easy for a lay person to understand. --Replysixty (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't performance, though disputed (the cache factor), well enough known and impact related to be notable? The disputes themselves are an acknowledgment that it's a major issue. The criticism shouldn't need to prove one side or the other, just state it. Rogdor (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the cache factor a well-known dispute? I'd never heard of it before you brought it up. So I'm inclined to say "no." Where have you seen this as a hot area of discussion? Please cite those sources, because I may be just out of it, but I haven't seen any talk about this... --Replysixty (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of big corporations having scalability and performance issues, I think that's the part that's notable, that Drupal is more designed with those in mind and (in this issue at least) not as appropriate for users without scaling options (shared hosting for example, or limited budget). The lack of a focus statement for the software is notable, even the top paragraph cannot decide whether Drupal is a CMS or Framework or something else. I know they haven't clarified these focuses within the Drupal community, but the Wikipedia entry could at least indicate target audiences and limitations of using Drupal outside of that scope. That's where the criticisms come into play, because in this case they're defining Drupal as much as the rest of the article is.

Well I think that Drupal can be both a CMS *AND* a CMS framework. It is a bunch of parts that can be used to build a sophisticated web site, but is packaged by default in such a sample "basic" site. A (poor) analogy might be a box of legos-- you can buy a box of legos that are used to build a rocket ship-- the same legos can be used to build a train or a boat. There's a rocket on the box-- so you could say "This box contains a rocket, but it can also used to build other things..." --Replysixty (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've used the lego analogy too. Personally I'd say it's a Framework for creating a CMS (and delivery of content, but that's included in most CMS'). This is inherent in most of the practical usage: web design companies install, setup and customize / code Drupal sites for customers and then the customer uses the end product as a CMS. I'd estimate that's most of Drupal's typical usage, which is much different than say Wordpress which is typically used by the end-user directly just as a blog CMS. That's a very notable difference!

FWIW, I do know at least one person who does use Drupal as a personal blog. I have no clue what "typical usage" is-- whether it's corporate, personal, hobbyists, bloggers... don't know. It could be any of those things.. but if you have the data, I'd say put it up there, because you're right-- it is notable.. like if you had somethign that said XYZ survey showed that 56% of drupal sites are used for corporate, 14% political, 20% personal, and 10% "other" purposes it would be very illuminating. --Replysixty (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I can't speak to Drupal's adeptness at scaling. I get very few visitors to my site and haven't ever had to address it. Nevertheless, even if I had a horrible time scaling Drupal, it would be totally irrelevant to the article itself, as my experiences are not sufficient for citation. If, on the other hand, Drupal had won CMS Magazine's "Least Scalable Web System" award for 2009, that might be a notable criticism.

Digressing into personal opinion here: This is, in part, a frustration with Wikipedia as a sort of pop-culture encylopedia. A magazine and an award as examples of authoritative referencing, that does seem typical of reference requests. Using another example: A world-wide event happens and first-hand experiences get referenced on Wikipedia to an article: They get quickly removed and replaced by links to CNN and AP, because those are more "authoritative", but what's happened is now the accounts are less true, less direct. We're accepting more vague, third-party references because we're supposed to trust the source more. Now like I said, personal opinion, but I'd rate your actual experiences higher than a magazine which is more interested in public image like betting on a horse. Wikipedia has migrated this way because it has attracted a lot of abuse on articles, but it's a shame just the same that typically the respected references are IMHO the wrong ones. I can't change that and I'm not trying to here, but just being brutally honest about it.

I can't account for wikipedia's reasoning over citing sources- I guess it's just preferred to have at least a single person's distance between the article's subject and the article itself. There are inherent flaws in this (you can still write an article somewhere and then publish it as a source), but I do understand the argument. This may be a situation in which there is no perfect solution. It would be pretty crazy to have a policy which encouraged everyone posting their subjective experiences on every topic. In other words, you may be in some ways the best person to write an entry about yourself. But in many ways you are the worst person to do so. I understand for an encyclopedia why WP asks you not to do this, and I think the same sort of logic extends to first-person & original reporting. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper or a blog- it's meant to be an encyclopedic reference and include consensus information... but your point is very well taken, and I am sort of in the middle on the issue... --Replysixty (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the scaling again, I wish I still had the link and maybe I'll hunt it down, but a perfect example was a cartoonist website that dynamically displayed his strips and as such the caching was useless and very quickly his server reached its limits. He had to decide whether to scale higher, switch software or switch designs. He was asking how much scaling anyone thought he might need so he could price it and just like this situation, nobody knew because benchmarks in scaling situations just don't exist. Now, the reason I tell this, is that we don't need the same info he did, we don't need detailed benchmarks, but simply that the issue exists, that it does limit the software's usage / choices. Rogdor (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have that article about the cartoonistit would be great to show that this is a real-world (and not simply theoretical) issue. ---Replysixty (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing could be wrapped into the nature / design of Drupal with pros and cons without even a criticism section, but I don't think I'm up to tackling the whole scope of the article. I guess I'm coming to the conclusion that without the overall article defining just what Drupal is, any criticism is going to sound too negative / spiteful. Rogdor (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't worry about the negativity-- a criticism section will by its nature discuss "negative" aspects of Drupal. I just want whatever is there to pass the tests of being notable, easily understood, accurate, and well-supported by objective citations. It has to be more than simply an interesting discussion. IMHO, to be notable, the criticism should represent a consensus opinion or a critique by an authority. So if we're talking about performance issues, I need evidence that this is truly and fairly an issue for Drupal- and I'd like context-- comparison with other CMSs, a discussion of some structural or design flaw, the impact the problem has, and even any proposed solutions... --Replysixty (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See notability comments above. And at the risk of repeating myself, Drupal's differences in structure and design should be a part of the article itself and to a degree they already are, whether they're a flaw is the point of stating the criticism in the first place. The reader can decide, we just provide the information. It could be a lot more clear if there was less emphasis on trying so hard to prove / disprove it in a convoluted way rather than just using common sense.

I'm getting worn out on this, it's really fairly simple and being made overcomplicated.

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Max Machine Night Hawk, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

non notable product

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RadioFan (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Come as You Are (Nirvana song). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. JD554 (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for re-invigorating the BFS page, that speedy delete irritated me, if nothing else the debate this has engendered (http://lwn.net/Articles/351058/) is helpful, and will probably justify it's notability over time. EasyTarget (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, thanks for working on the CyanogenMod page, it definitely needs help (another speedy delete survivor too, apparently.)
I had primarily two purposes in starting the "User benefits"/"Philosophy" section:
- write in plain english the main benefit of that firmware (not my native tongue though, and it shows)
- throw in a bunch of reference links that mention CyanogenMod (they all do, even when a title doesn't call it out) to help establish notability, since the AfD has merely been delayed.
With that said, I'm totally fine with drastically altering/merging/destroying that section (as one of your commit messages hinted at (I think)), I just hope we can keep enough reference links so that notability can be quickly established when the AfD wakes up again. 66.68.113.5 (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The CyanogenMod article was userfied and moved to User:Virdi/CyanogenMod until it satisfies Wikipedia requirements. Please help improving it and getting the necessary sources. We can move the article back once it's ready.

Thank You. virdi (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is CyanogenMod. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CyanogenMod (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for this photo (and others too :). I use it here. Best regards Przykuta (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Rooting (Android OS), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages App and Tablet PC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on CyanogenMod. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SudoGhost 00:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I realise I focused almost entirely on the version history table back in November, but I meant for my comments to apply to the supported devices table as well. (I thought I mentioned that somewhere. Sorry if it was unclear.) The version history was really, really bad at the time [2] so that was the bigger problem. Although I do agree with Sudoghost about the supported devices I'm less bothered about it now that the version history is better, and tbh I'm not going fight over it. Hope that clears things up. – Steel 00:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Randy Quaid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Outer Limits. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Carly Fiorina page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving some expert attention to the Carly Fiorina article. This is just a friendly reminder about the WP:3RR policy. I haven't examined your edits closely enough to see if you've exceeded the 3RR threshold, but I figured it couldn't hurt to remind you about it, given the number of edits today. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a small but straightforward example of one of your reverts.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of us doesn't know what a revert is. Removing an unneeded word at the end of a sentence is not a reversion of anything. It's a straightforward edit. It does not undo any specific prior edit and does not return the document to a previous state.... That's your example of a reversion? Huh? --Replysixty (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting reply, thanks. It may also be that neither of us knows what a revert is.  :-) According to WP:3RR, "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." In the example I pointed to, you undid the action that inserted the word "widely". But you're right that the definition of "revert" at Help:Reverting is different. So I'll investigate some more and get back to you. One thing that I hope you see is that I was not (and am not) trying to accuse you of anything. I was merely offering a reminder, but you have pointed out a possible mistake on my part. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Okay, umm. I'm just gonna keep doing my editing thing, and if you spot an issue let me know. Funny cuz I didn't feel like I was in any kind of edit war situation or even in contention with anything that had been edited between my edits-- I simply took a break and came back a few hours later and picked it up where I left off... Incidentally I think the intent of the three reversions is plainly to avoid a situation where people go back and forth endlessly reverting each other (via the revert button or by an effectively identical manual edit), but hey.. I'll leave the Talmudic study to others... --Replysixty (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rules could be a lot clearer, and the results depend a lot on which adminustrator gets involved. Anyway, happy editing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I replied to a comment you made in the talk page of science communication, I'm not sure if it would notify you automatically so I thought I would leave you a note here on your talk page as well. I'm interesting in this list because I am teaching a research methods course and am working with students to better understand science communication and making connections to people in popular culture (mass media) who they already recognize would help in this effort. --Djgriffin7 (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi this guy @Lightofiran deleted ur edit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/937620907

please take a look to its original now Knightfullplate (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/938439886

This guy is deleted and had one warning cuz of his pro-antiregime edits

I just want to please suggest a way to pervent of these kind of issues

Knightfullplate (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And i had a small edit in that page please say ur mind as my first edit in en wikipedia

Thank you! Knightfullplate (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]