User talk:Vilhelm.s

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Vilhelm.s, 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:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! —Ruud 12:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Covariance and contravariance (computer science)[edit]

I have moved your comment to the bottom of the talk page (as is the convention on Wikipedia) and replied there. Cheers, —Ruud 14:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Covariance and contravariance (computer science)[edit]

You are now in an edit war with multiple people. Stop replacing the  tag via as you and as an IP. Three people have now tried to change this. Stop. You do not own this page.

You have two choices. Leave as is or use the proper <syntaxhighlight> tag. Bgwhite (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgwhite: I'm not sure if I agree with you here.

One of the people who "tried to change this" [1], clearly did so wrongly and was justly reverted by Vilhelm.
It's not clear to me the IPs who did some of the reverts are Vilhelm, as you claim.
{{C sharp}} wraps the code in a <source>...</source>, which, according to MediaWiki's documentation [2], is equivalent to the <syntaxhighlight>...</syntaxhighlight> you suggest above.
Not using any escaped HTML entities seems vastly preferable to me for maintainability of the article.
It's not quite clear to me what kind of problems  is supposedly causing. Could you elaborate a bit more on this, instead of asserting this without argument?

—Ruud 21:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgwhite: Your preferred version of the page renders as follows:

Is that what you intended?

The IP-edit is not by me. Vilhelm.s (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, from the diff it looked like he modified the introduction, so I did not even notice that. That settles it, I guess (and also explains why the anonymous IPs where so quick to fix this). —Ruud 21:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Ruud, glad to see you start right up and edit warring. You should know better than to revert. I DID NOT MODIFY the introduction. I only changed two characters. You should know better to yell, calling me a liar and saying I edited the introduction. Stupid. Bgwhite (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vilhelm.s, three have reverted for the same reason. The first clearly did it wrong by changing it to bold, but they changed it for the same reason all us of have done.

The Mediawiki software is NOT changing until it is sent to the reader. Until then, it looks like  inside a template. Multiple programs are seeing this. You will have bots and people continually showing up changing this, mostly to bold.  does not go into templates unless you mean bold, it can go inside tags.

Syntaxhighlight is the preferred tag, not source. The documentation does NOT say syntaxhighlight and source tags are equivalent. They ARE different and not even close... The HTML source tag is not the same as Wikipedia's <source>. Mediawiki is depreciating their source tag because of the conflict. When you install your own version of the Mediawiki software, the default has <source> turned off.

You have three choices. You can leave it with and have people reverting the edit and most likely changing it to bold. Or you can leave as is (until Ruud's warring) or use the proper <syntaxhighlight> tag. My goal is to not have being continually changed to bold. I'm trying to head off future problems. Bgwhite (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgwhite: Sure, I agree that having a raw in the source code is a problem, because it attracts automated editing programs like you describe. If you can figure out a way to get syntax highlighting while avoiding this issue, that would be great, but what you tried before doesn't work correctly. (See the screenshot above). Alternatively, maybe we should just change the text to say S/T instead of A/B, which would sidestep the issue. Vilhelm.s (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vilhelm.s: The obvious fix here would be to replace {{c sharp|...}} with <syntaxhighlight lang="csharp" inline>...</syntaxhighlight>. I think the size of the latter piece of wikicode also makes it immediately clear why a template is being used now. I'm thus not completely convinced this is the right way to go. Instead one could argue that the automated editing program Bgwhite and others are using should be changed to cope with these templates. —Ruud 23:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgwhite: Calm down and carefully read what we are trying to say to you here:

Your change broke the definition in the article (and as you did not make any reference to this in your response, you are likely not realizing this; please carefully look at the screenshot Vilhelm posted above).
While you may argue that there are some potential technical problems with the wikicode of the current article, changing this into something that ends up being rendered as something that is factual non-sense, is completely unacceptable. Vilhelm, the anonymous IPs and I were perfectly in our right to revert your change for that reason (especially as you did not seem to realize that you broke the definition, but did so accidentally).
In did not claim you modified the introduction—I stated I initially assumed you did so, but realized this assumption was mistaken and that you in fact did not change the introduction, but a section further down. Please read our arguments carefully, instead of jumping to mistaken conclusions.
The problem here seems to be that the <source>/<syntaxhighlight> tags are hidden inside a template. One can argue whether the problem here is with the template or your automated editing program. One solution that is clearly not acceptable in this situation, though, is one that changes the article as presented to the reader into something incorrect.
And <source>/<syntaxhighlight> do seem to be equivalent according to MediaWiki's source code: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/50696

—Ruud 23:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]