User talk:Xxcom9a

Xxcom9a (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Minecraft classic.png
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Minecraft classic.png, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Taemyr (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Minecraft. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Spacexplosion[talk] 22:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Minecraft 1.0 title screen
I already uploaded a 1.0 title screen before you, why the need to replace it? Mr Serious Guy (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Our edits were 5 seconds apart, so you can't really "blame" me for replacing your image when I had copy/pasted my infobox edit onto yours (to fix the Patch versions section), which happened to include the image. Aside from that, three reasons why I used mine instead of yours:
 * Yours is a higher resolution, yes, but it doesn't show up well in the info box as a thumbnail
 * More specific filename (can be replaced with future updates to the title screen if needed)
 * It's hosted on Wikimedia Commons like the previous screenshots (other wiki sites can link to it more easily)

Visual Basic.NET is proprietary
Hi.

I thought we should have a word about this edit in Microsoft Visual Studio article. What exactly made you believe you are seeing VB.NET's source code there? After all, with it being proprietary trade secret and all, I hardly believe it can end up in a Wikipedia screenshot.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not say that it was the source code to Visual Basic, and I ask that you please do not put words in my mouth. If you read my remark correctly, I said that "editing a source code" did not sound like proper English to me - I do not believe that "source code" should be prefixed with the article "a". Though I see nothing wrong with my edit, perhaps we can agree that "editing Visual Basic.NET code" or "source code written in Visual Basic.NET" could work better? Xxcom9a (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi.


 * I am afraid "did not sound like proper English" is more emotional than analytic. From grammatical aspect, "Code" is a countable noun; therefore, it accepts quantifiers. It can be made plural too. For example: "Windows and Linux are made from different source codes developer by different developers." So, your last suggestion is not grammatically correct. As for your first suggestion, "Visual Basic.NET code" or "Visual Basic.NET source" may refer to the code that gives birth to Visual Studio.NET, a component of Visual Studio. It is at very least ambiguous.


 * Note that "written in Visual Basic.NET" is also ambiguous but its ambiguity is a welcome one: In one sense, it means "written in Visual Basic.NET programming language", which we can see in the picture. In another, it means "written/typed inside Visual Basic.NET component/project", which we also see in the picture. Apart from being seen in the picture, one usually entails the other.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that your example sentence ("Windows and Linux are made from different source codes developer by different developers.") is also improper. Aside from "different source codes developer by different developers" making very little sense, "source codes" is generally not used (I'd categorize it along with "softwares" - you don't include the "s"). Xxcom9a (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi.


 * Let's assume you are right; in that case what's the individual noun? In other words, "software" is a group noun meaning "computer programs taken as whole", making "computer program" (or "program") the individual noun. In that case, what is it that "source code" represents as a whole? Then again, there is still the problem that "source code" is a noun adjunct and dictionaries say "code" is a countable noun.


 * But we can have a compromise. After all, you can always argue that dictionaries are not up to date enough and I can't possibly argue against it. I choose your second example, "source code written in Visual Basic.NET". It is not ambiguous, which is a great improvement over your first.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What if we go with "a piece of source code written in the Visual Basic .NET language" or similar? I don't think either of us could argue anything against that. Xxcom9a (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)