Talk:Mark Pilgrim (software developer)

Deletion request

I am Mark Pilgrim (verify), and I see no point to this page. Can it be deleted?

For what it's worth, I came to this page looking for information about you (I'm a recent perl guru -> python convert =]). Don't underestimate people's curiosity! While assessing some non-base modules and seeing that you were the author of more than one I was interested in adopting, as well as responsible for a free (as in beer) solid Python tutorial, I looked for more information. Sorry to say, you're notable to some of us. Cheers. 198.144.206.231 13:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mark, I do not know why you want this wikipedia entry to be deleted. Even if it serves no purpose, You are notable enough to have an entry about you. Unless wikipedia has a policy of deleting articles, if the subjects request, this article must not be deleted. The subject is very notable. Shabda 13:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why does this page have to have an image something like zillion x gajillion when important things have images 32x32 with no higher resolution? But I think Pilgrim is notable if only for his contribution to the free software debate - he's been very notable there!

I don't agree with the deletion of this page, but i think it's a right that assists to the 'owner' of the biography to determine the existence or not of his profile; even if the information available is public, we are dealing with private identity which in my view configures a case of human rights. I consider the information in this article relevant enough; even if it is available elsewhere on the web - for instance, Mark's website - the fact is that the hyperlinks present in the article can turn it as some kind of hub information about Python or programming in general within Wikipedia, moreover the broad community of Wikipedia can make this information readily available in a multi-language scenario, where it would be difficult to achieve otherwise. I suggest that, as a 'in-between' consensus, Mark should point the specific points about the article that troubles him, if any - yes, you can call it censure - otherwise he should have his own and the article deleted; in that case, maybe an article about the 'dive into' series should do the trick. Wcris (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I just discovered that you write more things than just "Dive into HTML5". So in my particular case, as web developer, helped me.--190.49.193.133 (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Deletion request

Mark's written a good book on Python, but Wikipedia biography pages should be dedicated to folks with more accomplishments. Which is I think Mark's own point in his request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.23.39 (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So open a new deletion request and explain why the legitimate consensus reached against deletion last time was faulty. The Wednesday Island (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

External links

I have added a link to DIVEintoPython site. This is an important enough work of Mark be be included in the xternal links section. Shabda 13:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To everybody; please feel free to look there and elsewhere for mirrors so we can update the dead links in this article. Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are some candidate pages:

http://diveintohtml5.ep.io/

http://diveintopython3.ep.io/

http://diveintopython.nfshost.com/

http://mislav.uniqpath.com/2011/10/dive-into-html5/

http://diveintopython3.kennethreitz.com/

https://github.com/diveintomark

http://www.diveintohtml5.com/

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3074159

--Guy Macon (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

1992 Arrest?

I'm surprised that there's no mention of Mark PIlgrim's earlier escapades - specifically when he released several viruses (one of which I believe he wrote) from a computer lab where he worked at Cornell. It was on the heels of an earlier incident, about five years before when another Cornell student released a worm. I came across this link to his indictment: http://www.rbs2.com/dsb.htm as well as a New York Times article -- http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/25/nyregion/police-link-computer-virus-to-2-at-cornell.html. As I recall, he was expelled from the university as well. Why has no one mentioned this? In terms of his career now, it's notable that he overcame some very serious issues, for lack of a better word. --CountryMama27 (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Fix redlink

The red link "404 gone" in the 2nd paragraph should resolve to HTTP 404. 91.125.247.251 (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And "After October 5" should read "After October 5 2011" 91.125.247.251 (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed that paragraph for the same reason an administrator semi-protected the page: edits are being made without discussing them here first. The semi-protection stops IP address users from editing without discussing, but Wikipedia:Consensus applies to everyone, and will be enforced with blocks if necessary. I don't see what is so difficult about following the rules on consensus. Why are you people those of you who are editing without discussing doing this?

Also, Wikipedia has a page devoted to finding alternates for dead links. It is at Wikipedia:Link rot. I already marked the dead links, but is someone wants to be helpful and try to find alternatives through Google Cache, WayBack machine, etc. Wikipedia:Link rot is the place to start. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Guy, I really resent the aggressive tone of your reply. I've never edited this article before, and have nothing to do with those who have. Lumping me in with "you people" is entirely inappropriate. The sentence in question was not added by me, but by user Bunyl in this edit. All I wanted was a red link fixed and a date clarified, both in text added by someone else. For this you immediately threaten to block me? 91.125.247.251 (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, the wikipedia gods are like that. The more badges, the worse the attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.192.72 (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

91.125.247.251, I apologize for implying that "you people" includes you. That was not my intent. I edited the offending statement above to be more clear. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Disappearance

Mark Pilgrim just disappeared off of the internet. Probably an important thing to note.

http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2011/10/04/searching-for-mark-pilgrim/

Kevin Ballard (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I advise waiting a bit. Wikipedia really isn't the place for late-breaking stories, especially in Biographies of Living Persons. Right now we don't know the reason (Health? Legal? Political protest?), whether he will turn over the existing data for someone else to put on the web, etc. Far better to wait until we have the whole picture. Guy Macon (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Jason Scott tweeted: "Mark Pilgrim is alive/annoyed we called the police. Please stand down and give the man privacy and space, and thanks everyone for caring." https://twitter.com/#!/textfiles/status/121436177298493440

Sounds like a private matter.

205.250.247.113 (talk) 06:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted to the last stable (29 September 2011) version before the edit war started. When there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page about whether to make a change you are not supposed to just jump in and make the change without discussing it first. To make things worse, multiple editors. many of them first-timers, have been changing the page and undoing the changes of others. Calm down, everybody, and discuss the changes you want to make here. Once we all agree then the page can be updated. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to report late-breaking news. Guy Macon (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I just re-revered back to 29 September 2011 version as per Guy's note above. Labeling this a "suicide" of any kind is not supported by any of the links provided, and changes of this nature should be discussed here in any case as noted. --Kynn (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? All the links on this page are now dead, but people aren't allowed to correct the article or even mention the whole page of broken links staring everybody in the face? This is like a parody of bureaucracy, people. --An Annoyed Wikipedia Reader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.70.233.66 (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Seriously. If you are not willing to go to the article talk page and make a calm, logical argument as to why you want to make a change to Wikipedia, your version will be reverted. Guy Macon (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What Guy said, yes, seriously. If you want to propose what to write about this, go ahead, but so far the attempts such as the "info suicide" edits have not been up to snuff. AAWR, what would you like to write here? Let's talk about it. --69.235.221.140 (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a journal of current news says "When editing Wikipedia to reflect current news, always ask yourself if you are adding something truly encyclopedic and important." This event is too new for us to properly evaluate that. What if he restores everything tomorrow? will the event have been truly encyclopedic and important in that case? Guy Macon (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A Wikipedia administrator has semi-protected this page for a period of one week. After one week the page will be automatically unprotected. Semi-protection prevents editing by unregistered contributors and contributors with accounts which are less than four days old or have made fewer than ten edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you (WP) please at least add a short notice on the page why all the links are 410, and a link to the Dive Into HTML5 mirror? I find the word infosuicide wrong and offensive (how about offlining or undoxing?), but this is no excuse for removing any mention of an important fact about Mark that is directly relevant to his Wikipedia entry, because it affects the weblinks it contains. The article about _why contains such a notice, and I don't see why this one shouldn't. Just because it is too fresh? It is confirmed that it was Mark's decision to remove his online presences. This isn't just a server failure or domain expiry. In fact I would say that the linkrot template is misleading here.--88.73.46.233 (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Good! At last someone is discussing why we should make the change. I have a prior commitment and cannot get to this tonight, but your request seems reasonable. More on this tomorrow when I have more time. I did replace the Dive Into HTML5 link. Got any other alternative links? I will check here and insert them when I get back later tonight. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

On http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2011/10/04/searching-for-mark-pilgrim/ there is this comment:

"Mirrors of Mark’s work have started appearing (see the comments for some of them) and so his legacy, if not his presence, will not be lost."

Note: I believe I was the author of the offending edit that created this edit storm - as a noob the context is insufficient for me to tell. Or I may merely be one of several over-enthusiastic editors who did not properly inform themselves of Wikipedia policy before making my edit. It stands to Wikipedia's credit that my insertion did, at least briefly, see the light of day on the Internet without prior approval from some censorious editorial board. For the record I have no objection to policy being applied to my edit and having it rescinded. I added a factual note which was in my opinion properly removed for pertaining to current affairs rather than historical record. I apologize for any controversy this may have stirred. I have no wish to take part in the discussion about the response to Mark's request that his page be deleted, as I can see sense and propriety on both sides of the discussion. Someone else can cut the Gordian knot, if cut it be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.134.133 (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Repeated attempts to edit this page while refusing to discuss proposed changes.

There have been repeated attempts to edit this page while refusing to discuss the proposed changes. There were so many unregistered and newly-registered users doing this that the page was semi-protected for a week to stop the disruptive editing. In particular, several editors found the terms "infosuicide" / "info suicide" to be particularly offensive violations of WP:NPOV. Despite repeated requests, there is still an ongoing refusal to discuss the proposed changes. Why the refusal? I don't know because they won't talk about it.

Now I see what appears to be a backdoor attempt to introduce the material into Wikipeda without talking about it. I have raised the flag over at the BLP Noticeboard. See http://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mark_Pilgrim_.28software_developer.29 ^{Archived. see beliow.} for details. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

link as good as dead (i.e. no mention of Mark Pilgrim in that whole page) --Lohoris (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

High volume pages such as the BLP noticeboard archibve older material. You can find where it was moved to by searching the archives for "Mark Pilgrim", which brings you to:::

http://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive135#Mark_Pilgrim_.28software_developer.29

Again I want to emphasize to anyone reading this that it's OK to add the material about his online disappearance. Just discuss what you thing the page should say here and we will work it out together. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This would be a lot easier on everybody if those who want to change this page would simply discuss the changes they want to make. That's how Wikipedia works: see WP:CONSENSUS. Nobody is suggesting that we not cover the recent events; we just want to get the wording and citations right. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again a new editor has attempted to introduce this material without discussing it here, and again the change has been reverted. Again, there is no problem with adding content about Mark Pilgrim shutting down all his web sites. The problem is that we need to discuss exactly how to cover it. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see my notes above. To the extent this applies to my edit, I confess my changes were made out if ignorance, and have no issue with their reversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.134.133 (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Wikipedia really is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and we especially welcome new contributors such as yourself. One thing to keep in mind about the rules for what is allowed in Wikipedia is, when in doubt, be bold and make the edit. See WP:BOLD. I hope you like it here and will join us as we build Wikipedia.

I just put a standard welcoming template on your user talk page that has a lot of useful links. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)