|
Your manner is too devisive for Rosetta Code.
{{mylangbegin}}
{{mylang|C++|Rusty}}
{{mylang|Perl|Rusty}}
{{mylang|Lisp|Very Rusty}}
{{mylang|Pascal|Very Rusty}}
{{mylang|PL/SQL|Very Active}}
{{mylang|Scala|Very Active}}
{{mylang|SQL|Very Active}}
{{mylangend}}
"Function follow function."<br>NL, Heemstede
'''See Also:'''<br>
* [http://xkcd.com/1270/ xkcd] (humourous).
Your continued participation is no longer wanted.
On behalf of the RC administrators, --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 05:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
<br><br>
==flagging of REXX entries==
Siskus: your numerous flagging of various REXX programs and/or section headers has been very disruptive and time-consuming to fix and re-instate. You have repeatedly flagged REXX for omission when if fact, an example (solution) of the REXX language was present in the task. This is ridiculous. If a solution provided the answer(s), than it shouldn't be marked for omission.
Previously, you had marked the REXX entry in ''Rank languages by popularity'' to be omitted because REXX doesn't have web access. Nowhere in the task requirements did it state that web access was to be used (or even necessary); indeed, the REXX section header has such a statement, and furthermore it stated how it accessed the web page data.
You further went on to delete a REXX solution three times, and changed two other REXX program solutions (within one task) so that the comments are no longer true (they had references to the deleted REXX program), and you later added a version which was garbage; it had numerous syntax errors in the program and it even could/would not run (execute), nor produce any output. Yet you cut and pasted text, and included part of the program in the output (which was part of a comment). This act of vandalism (my opinion) has no part on Rosetta Code. Too much time and effort was spent in repairing your malicious efforts (and not just by me).
It is clear that you don't know the REXX language (not even as a beginner), and further, you apparently don't have access to a REXX interpreter, otherwise you'd have noticed how badly your version was written/coded (as far as syntax of the language).
As for the latest round of flagging, you marked REXX as incorrect (for Rosetta Code, Rank languages by popularity) you cited three reasons:
* program does not properly ranks (sic) tied counts,
* counts are not accurate,
* PARI/GL is missing.
REXX is the only solution (as far as I can tell) that does proper ranking of tied counts, and as a matter of fact, no other solution even addresses the tied count issue.
Counts are accurate as of the time of the program execution and the numbers are obtained from the CATEGORY page and filter through a list of languages (from the ''language'' page).
PARI/GL '''is''' indeed, in the ranking. It is ranked '''30''' with 358 members.
As for the ''need review flaging'', what is or isn't unnecessary HTML is a matter of opinion, and there is no need to flag entries on your beliefs that there is too much. What is important is the rendering of the HTML. Is it presentable? Is it readable? Is it viewable? Is it accurate?
Whether there is special MediaWiki code for formatting (or not) doesn't mean that everybody is aware of it (or not), and there is no requirement that it has to be used, and that's especially true if it isn't known how to use it properly. There is nothing wrong with making a section header as readable as possible, in whatever method is used to format it. The viewer doesn't see any of the HTML tags.
Your main thrust (as far as I can see) is to remove whitespace and make short readable lines longer, in fact, way too long. There is a
reason why magazines and newspapers use columns --- to reduce line length. Shorter lines are easier to read than lines that go across the whole page. All your efforts do, in fact, is make the section comments less readable.
There is no requirement to use special or specific MediaWiki code for formatting (regarding comments in the section headers, this is excluding the titles, versions, and the like).
It's a matter of opinion if too much unnecessary HTML is used or not. It doesn't matter, as long as the output is presentable.
What was used is different than what you would used. There is no need to make a big deal of it and flag it for review.
Whatever HTML tags are used, they're not part of the program and are essentially invisible to the viewer.
I feel that you may be fixated a bit too much against certain entries, there are other programming examples that specifically mention languages that aren't even languages, and yet you don't flag any of those. It appears then, your flagging is beginning to appear to border on vindictiveness. Almost all entries have inaccurate counts, as those change daily, even hourly. Who can say which counts are inaccurate? All counts will become inaccurate as new entries are added to Rosetta Code. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 22:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
|