User talk:Rjnt

Welcome!

Hello, Rjnt, 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:

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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 05:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions of my edits[edit]

Sorry, exactly on what ground are you undoing my edits? Hope we can resolve this, §hep • ¡Talk to me! 05:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote in the first edit summary, they're articles about BASIC and Visual Basic.NET, so it helps readers understand them if they know what the languages look like. It's not instructional, because they would need more information to get the code to work.--Rjnt (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a set of indiscriminate information, examples shoud be transwikied. If they want to know what the code looks like they can look at the Wikibooks book on the code. It's bad form to have examples in articles. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 05:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, be aware of our Three-revert rule which you are close to breaching. I noticed you're a new editor so I've included the standard welcome template at the top of your talkpage, I hope you find it insightful. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 05:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't bad form, in fact readers will expect them. And how is it indiscriminate exactly? Indiscriminate information would be random characters, kid. Do you even know anything about VB?--Rjnt (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used indiscriminate to reference WP:NOT. The content in the article needs to either be deleted or transwikied, and yes I know a bit of VB. I'm not trying to make this personal by any means, just trying to do the same thing you are trying to do, what we all are generally aiming towards, just making this place a bit better. In all respect, the content I removed is more appropriate at Wikibooks or Wikiversity. I've checked again Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science/Manual of style (computer science) and I could see an argument for keeping the Hello World, but I don't see it as a strong one even within the WikiProject's MoS or for the comparison. But I don't see the need to have both of them; especially when with another click the reader can have that and a lot more. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 05:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Readers of an encyclopedia generally don't want to learn the whole language. They just want to get an idea of what it's like. BTW, if we don't allow source code in articles, then why is there a <source> tag? I looked at the section about indiscrimination, and it mentioned notability. I don't see how code samples aren't notable.--Rjnt (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(OUT) How are they notable? We have the source tag for botops during BRFAs, so AWB devs can display their custom mods to users, for other script-related issues that are generally dealt with at WP:USS, we also have the devs who display code for programs such as Huggle and Twinkle, and for a million other uses. Code can be included in articles, I'm not against it 100% (more like 99), but it should be used sparingly and only to display information that is written about in the text. I honestly can't think of an encyclopedia offhand that displays code for different programs. Is there one? Genuine question. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 06:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. All of the computer science encyclopedias I have read include them (e.g., Gale's World of Computer Science, Wiley's Encyclopedia of Computer Science, etc.) Even Encyclopedia Americana includes source code, and it's a general encyclopedia. They're notable to the subject for sure. It's much easier to describe aspects of the language if you show the reader some code. They have an easier time understanding it, too.--Rjnt (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this. One of the reasons I don't like "code" in articles is that they are generally put there without any RSs backng them up. After the first prose sentence, would you mind putting a citebook to the page(s) where the code can be seen in a book? If so I'd be happy to let this issue drop. Without a source, the code as it stands is OR and OR is bad. That sound good? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put the code there, and I don't think it was pasted from a book. Why? Do you think the syntax is incorrect? I know the language like the palm of my hand and I can tell you it works with a few tweaks.--Rjnt (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm glad it wasn't copied from a book (copyvio). Everything looks pretty good as well. I was just curious if you would mind adding a <ref> to the article to show that the code is not OR and can be backed up in a third party relable source. Just for WP:V. If not, it's most definitely not your job to tag other people's additions with references and I'll get to work with tagging them as needing citations. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 05:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it'd be impossible to add citations to the code. What would you do, cite each keyword? You could paste it into Visual Studio, highlight each word, and press F1 to open the MSDN help page. But then the code would be cluttered with numbers.--Rjnt (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, you could also add a prose description of the commands above or below it and add citations to the prose...--Rjnt (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was talking about. I made an example diff here. Citing each keyword would be mad, bu citing prose is generally a good thing. Sorry I was unclear. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 18:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Rolleyes.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rolleyes.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]