User talk:Anonymous Agent

I suggest not to blank the existing redirects, it makes harder for custodians/curators to check the situation. I understand your frustration, but your cooperation to custodians/curators will be welcomed. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 13:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reminder to help me understand the wikiversity procedure Anonymous Agent (discuss • contribs) 14:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for explaining your reason in the edit summary, but explaining the reason in the template may be more helpful. For example, you just added {{delete}} to pages, but writing like {{delete|My reason}} might be easier for custodians/curators to check the situation. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 13:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help. I've added the delete reason to my 2 Candidates for speedy deletion pages. Anonymous Agent (discuss • contribs) 14:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I suggest not to blank the existing articles, it makes harder for custodians/curators to check the situation. Your additional cooperation to custodians/curators will be welcomed. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 05:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oops. Sorry for my mistake. I've reverted my edit on that speedy delete required article. Anonymous Agent (discuss • contribs) 05:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The changes you made to Advanced C Programming were not helpful, in my view; they obscured the original plan and content and added nothing of value. I hope you are not going to make similarly unhelpful changes to other resources. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you want to use the Wikiversity primarily as a writing exercise, one good place to do so is in User:Anonymous Agent/C Programming: there, you can write things to your heart's content without worrying about making something worse, and practice your expository writing skills. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've discussed the plan for that article with user Dave_Braunschweig, the author of the course (https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dave_Braunschweig&oldid=2596355). He seems to be happy if I take "ownership" of C Programming course. Anonymous Agent (discuss • contribs) 08:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I undid multiple changes by you, with explanations in the edit summaries.

As one example, I undid renaming of Programming Fundamentals/Functions/BASIC: this page is part of Programming Fundamentals by Dave Braunschweig and I do not see why anyone should be moving material away/out of that solid work by Dave without discussion. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reaching and patrolling my edits. I'm going through the whole Programming fundamental course of Dave Braunschweig and find that all of those lessons, when getting into the specific language, simply include a source code or stub contents like a list of IDE,... That's why I'm merging them all into the specific programming languague courses so that student can directly get those knowledge instead of searching for them manually to finally end up in a stub page with just a few information on it.

I expected Wikiversity to have only one unique course for each programming language, while the current structure from Dave Braunschweig seem to "duplicate" them. For example with C, based on the current structure in Wikiversity, we are having 2 courses, the first one is C programming language and the second one arised from the "Programming fundamental". Having multiple course seem not to be helpful as student will be confused, as well as the course developing resource from the community is also scattered

For the Programming fundamental course, I personally think their scope should only be limited to provide the fundamental concepts, and not to be involved with any specific source code. Students who learn any specific programming language just simply need to refer to those Programming fundamental page for those fundamental concepts, e.g functions, variables,... E.e In C prorgamming/Functions, I expected to mention Programming fundamental/Functions (Fundamental concept of function in programming) in the See also part, and the content of Programming fundamental/Functions/C is merged into C prorgamming/Functions.

My mistake during this restructuring process was not discussing it with Dave Braunschweig beforehand, which might cause annoyance to others. I’ll send the discussion with him for this restructuring process and will continue later after getting the approval from the community.

Sorry for my broken English as I'm not a native speaker and also sorry for anything that might cause annoyance to you. Anonymous Agent (discuss • contribs) 08:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikiversity is not based on elimination of duplication, unlike Wikipedia. I do not see why students should be confused as long as the different courses have a clear subpage structure. What you seem to be proposing is the elimination of the "Programming Fundamentals" structure by Dave. If you are still serious about this proposal (I do not think it is a good one, but I am only one person), I propose you create a proposal in Colloquium. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It would probably be better to make your own course from scratch. You state that "their scope should only be limited to provide the fundamental concepts, and not to be involved with any specific source code." but it would almost certainly be harder to illustrate these concepts without some sort of code, and you might as well use real code instead of ad hoc pseudocode. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 08:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply. I've provided more explanation for that in this proposal in Colloquium. Please join me in the discussion. Anonymous Agent (discuss • contribs) 08:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you posted a notification to User talk:Dave Braunschweig/2024, but I think this is an archive and the notification rather belongs to User talk:Dave Braunschweig. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done. I've posted the question on his discussion page Anonymous Agent (discuss • contribs) 11:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you clarify based on which statement you started to remove categories? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just simply remove the category C programming language from Programming Fundamentals/C as they're now 2 separated course Anonymous Agent (discuss • contribs) 03:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Was there an explicit consensus for this category removal? In Special:Diff/2624525, you removed "Try it" section; can you undo all your non-consensual changes to Programming Fundamentals including your removal of "Try it"? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've manually undoed all my changes as you requested. They now all have their "Try it" header. Anonymous Agent (discuss • contribs) 06:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not really; you went ahead and removed the categories again. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have now restored Programming Fundamentals/IDE/C/Online/Free to where it was before your changes. The page is being transcluded in other parts of Programming Fundamentals, or was before you removed the relevant "Try It" sections. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you undo all your changes to Programming Fundamentals subpages, thereby restoring the course to full working order as it was before your changes? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I undid your de facto deletion of FreeBASIC. For deletion, there are dedicated processes. For mergers, wikis also usually have a process, but I am not sure which one it is in Wikiversity; one could use e.g. Colloquium in case of doubt. In the case of FreeBASIC, I do not see why FreeBASIC-specific material should be merged to BASIC. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

As for Special:Diff/2632316: why are you changing "syntaxhighlight" to "source"? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I manually reverted them so they back to the syntaxhighlight Anonymous Agent (discuss • contribs) 07:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Then, can you undo your change in Programming Fundamentals/Variables/C? There is still "source". (I would do it myself, but I hate revert wars.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

done Anonymous Agent (discuss • contribs) 11:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is not done. I will now do it myself (Programming Fundamentals/Variables/C), in the hope that you will not revert. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is Dave okay with that removal? I registered my disagreement with that removal; why are you reinstating that removal? See also WV:Consensus. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I’m the one to first add those post with Category:C programming, not Dave Anonymous Agent (discuss • contribs) 07:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

E.g. Special:Diff/1659218 shows the "C programming" category to be present in Dave's version. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

If so, it was my mistake between 2 category "C programming" and "C programming language". Just keep the "C programming" on those posts as it was Anonymous Agent (discuss • contribs) 08:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you now restore the Category:C programming in all the pages from which you removed it? Alternatively, can you get a go ahead from Dave for removing the category? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Special:Diff/2632949: "Luckily, we do not need to do this, because C, like any other programming language, allows us to declare functions": blatantly/obviously untrue. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what you mean here. I don't say all programming languages allow us to declare functions because I don't work with all of them. But I mean most of the programming lang do that. Anonymous Agent (discuss • contribs) 07:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Updated to "Luckily, we do not need to do this, because C, like most programming languages, allows us to declare functions". Languages like assembly don't have functions, they support subroutine and jmp condition instead. I forget this as I worked with PLC nearly 10 yrs ago. Anonymous Agent (discuss • contribs) 07:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's what I meant. Not only assembly but also e.g. Atari BASIC does not allow function declaration (and there are likely other 8-bit BASICs with this property). Especially with universally quantified statement, one is well advised to either have sources, be very positive about the statement or refrain from making it. Even "most" programming languages is uncertain since it depend on how you count them; at least, it is somewhat plausible. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply