Talk:C++/Archive 4

message: On March 12, I added the following external link:
* List of books and tutorials about C++
User:Yamla (an admin) removed a link, called it vandalism and told that if I'll continue "spamming", I will be banned.
The page is a list of links to 50 C++ related resources.  Of them, 41 are free books or documents about C++ which are opened in the browser (without registration or anything else, and without any amazon.com links).  For 9 others, there is a choice of reading them in the browser (also freely) or buying them from amazon (links to amazon contain refid).  
Please comment about
* whether this link is appropriate
* whether you think that adding this link constitutes spamming or vandalism
My personal opinion is that my link was very good and useful.  After careful reading the Wikipedia:External links document (I read it three times), I still believe that there is nothing wrong in adding this link.
--Urod 05:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. --Urod 07:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yamla wrote that this site satisfies criterion 4 for exclusion in WP:EL ("primarily exist to sell products or services").  I personally doubt this. --Urod 16:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you sure you aren't just a sockpuppet of ? --Yamla 22:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no sockpuppets.  Please check my IP if it is possible.  (I don't know technical details about IP checking in wikipedia and who does it.) --Urod 22:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that it makes more sense to link to a big list of freely available books, then to have multiple links directly to freely available books. Unfortunately the free book site that is the object of this dispute seems to be horribly broken. Therefore I propose the creation of List of freely available C++ books and link to that in "See also" section. --MarSch 10:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Broken in what way?  It works for me.  I have reviewed about 15 of the free works linked, and found them all to be high quality. AnAccount2 07:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yamla specifically asked me to review the link in question relative to WP:EL.  I have done so, and I have made my decision.  Administrators are not given higher authority about what to include in the encyclopedia -- there is no special role that gives them a higher authority with regard to content.  The link is far more informative than the two individual free books which I replaced with it.  There are no free books on C++ available from Froogle.  Again, I will continue to include the link for the many reasons listed above. AnAccount2 07:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You didn't answer the crucial questions above.  Froogle was just an example of the online resources available for someone who wishes to buy a C++ book.  Why would someone use the amazon referrals at freecomputerbooks.com rather than use Froogle or amazon.com directly, for example?  For free online C++ books, why not just do a google search?  Unless you can provide reasonable answers to these and the above questions, it is obvious link spam.  And please stop gaming the 3RR.  Thank you. Xerxesnine 15:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Please note also that administrators are empowered to enforce Wikipedia policies.  --Yamla 16:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In your conclusion, by replaced you seem to mean reinstated and you seem not to mean removed or indeed replaced _by something else_. Is that correct? It is quite unclear. --MarSch 10:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, has been corrected, thanks—Red Baron 14:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Revised again per comment by Xerxesnine.—Red Baron 16:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  appropriateness of external link 

message: I strongly suggest that you talk it over with Yamla first. Ask Yamla to elaborate on why they deleted your link. As for me, I think that it is appropriate as a link. It contains a nice amount of information that you might even want to use to cite. bibliomaniac15 05:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. --Urod 07:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yamla wrote that this site satisfies criterion 4 for exclusion in WP:EL ("primarily exist to sell products or services").  I personally doubt this. --Urod 16:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you sure you aren't just a sockpuppet of ? --Yamla 22:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no sockpuppets.  Please check my IP if it is possible.  (I don't know technical details about IP checking in wikipedia and who does it.) --Urod 22:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:3O|Third opinion]]

message: Thank you for your message.
I am concerned about your apparent inability to assume good faith, your accusations of spamming which upon independent review I have found unjustified, your apparent lack of reluctance to bite an obvious newbie with a final warning after what I believe to be an unjustified accusation of spamming, and your hastily withdrawn accusations of sockpuppetry against me. 
You have asked me to evaluate http://freecomputerbooks.com/langCppBooksIndex.html in terms of WP:EL.  I have done so.  I find that adding it to C++ would be a service to our readers because it:
* is more informative than at least three of the existing external links in that article;
* has merit, linking to dozens of free references, tutorials, and guides;
* is at least as accessible as any page rendered in Wikipedia's monobook style;
* is clearly appropriate to the article;
* has a well-articulated copyright policy, allowing submissions of only free materials and providing a means for copyright holders to remove their material if it appears on the site;
* is supported by advertising and referrals, as are tens of thousands of our existing external links.  This fact alone does not prohibit its exclusion under WP:SPAM or WP:COI;
* provides unique resources beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article;
* does not mislead the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research;
* is not mainly intended to promote a website;
* does not primarily exist to sell products or services -- although it is ad- and referral-supported, those links are few and sparse in its text, and again, these sorts of compilations are not at all uncommon in our articles;
* does not have objectionable amounts of advertising -- I count less than ten referral links and zero direct ads on the linked page, spread among dozens of useful resources;
* doesn't require payment or registration;
* works on all Mac and PC browsers, and my Nokia 9300 phone;
* doesn't require Flash, Java, or other external applications;
* isn't a search engine link or aggregated search engine results;
* is not a social networking sites, discussion forums or USENET (which I might add is included in the article's external links); and
* is not a blog, a personal web page, or an unestablished open wiki.
Based on this determination, I will continue to replace the link in the article, and I will encourage others to do so as well.  
If you are truly concerned with keeping the external links in C++ to a minimum, won't you please consider removing one of the links to a single reference manual or tutorial instead of the link in question, providing a collection of such works?
If you disagree with my decision, I encourage you to establish an RFC on the topic.  Thank you. AnAccount2 22:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it makes more sense to link to a big list of freely available books, then to have multiple links directly to freely available books. Unfortunately the free book site that is the object of this dispute seems to be horribly broken. Therefore I propose the creation of List of freely available C++ books and link to that in "See also" section. --MarSch 10:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Broken in what way?  It works for me.  I have reviewed about 15 of the free works linked, and found them all to be high quality. AnAccount2 07:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From [[User talk:Yamla]]: C++ texts from freecomputerbooks.com 

message: This is a straightforward case.  There are thousands of "middlemen" sites which exist as referrals to other sites; amazon referrals, which appear in the site in question, are particularly common.  Why did you pick freecomputerbooks.com and not one of the thousands of other sites?  Why not give a link to Froogle, for example?  What is so special about freecomputerbooks.com?  Why are you being so persistent about that site?  Why have you devoted so much time to promoting it on the C++ page, on this talk page, on Yamla's page, and on my page?
On Yamla's page you wrote, "...Based on this determination, I will continue to replace the link in the article, and I will encourage others to do so as well."  You then proceeded to revert yet again.  Yamla is an admin.  Please review the responsibilities of Wikipedia admins, as you appear to misunderstand their role in relation to yours.
In summary, please stop these shenanigans.  Thank you.  Xerxesnine 17:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yamla specifically asked me to review the link in question relative to WP:EL.  I have done so, and I have made my decision.  Administrators are not given higher authority about what to include in the encyclopedia -- there is no special role that gives them a higher authority with regard to content.  The link is far more informative than the two individual free books which I replaced with it.  There are no free books on C++ available from Froogle.  Again, I will continue to include the link for the many reasons listed above. AnAccount2 07:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You didn't answer the crucial questions above.  Froogle was just an example of the online resources available for someone who wishes to buy a C++ book.  Why would someone use the amazon referrals at freecomputerbooks.com rather than use Froogle or amazon.com directly, for example?  For free online C++ books, why not just do a google search?  Unless you can provide reasonable answers to these and the above questions, it is obvious link spam.  And please stop gaming the 3RR.  Thank you. Xerxesnine 15:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Please note also that administrators are empowered to enforce Wikipedia policies.  --Yamla 16:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough, please 

message: I came here because of the note at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology about including the link to freecomputerbooks.com. There ought to be a consensus on a Talk page that any particular external link belongs in the article. I don't perceive such a consensus here, so I believe that the link should stay out. Also, at present there are 16 external links in the article (even without the new one being discussed) and that's probably too many to exist in a Featured Article, should this one ever want to pass those criteria. Regarding the merits of this particular link: a Google search for 'C++ books' gets 26.6 million hits, including many to free download sites, suggesting that there is no burning need for our readers to be sent to this particular site lest they find no relevant books. Reverting other users repeatedly to insert a controversial link, without a clear Talk page consensus that it belongs, seems to me like uncooperative behavior. EdJohnston 17:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional opinion

message: Finding this page through the RFC page, I have decided to add my input (having no prior involvement, and desiring no further involvement).  I have read the comments on this talk page and the appropriate Wikipedia guideline (WP:EL).  I conclude that the link should be reinstated.  I trust my responses to the challenges against the link will be complete enough to support my conclusion.  Following are the challenges and responses associated to the RFC regarding the link:
====Challenges====
#It falls under exception #4—Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services
#The editor seems to like this link above others
#Consensus was not met for addition
====Responses====
#I count two "advertisers" (links to Google-related sites, and amazon.com links) on the site in question and ten (i.e. Etrade, Vonage, Samsung Blackjack, etc.) on the NY Times main page.  If the New York Times website is a reliable source with its several advertisers, this link, with less advertising, cannot be construed to fall under exception #4 and therefore is an appropriate external link.  The primary purpose of the site seems to be to give a free online resource, secondarily some links may lead to selling sites.  NOTE: Having found the main site, it has potential to be used as an external link on any number of Wikipedia pages.
#Here is the situation:  (a)An editor adds a link; (b)it gets deleted; (c)he replaces it; (d)he then gets accused of some nefarious affinity to the specific link above all others.  That just doesn't seem fair!  The whole RFC is whether this link should be included in the article.  How then does it make sense to accuse an editor of repeatedly referring to it and none else?  Also, in making this unfair accusation, other sites were suggested: Google and Froogle.  These really are sites that primarily exist to sell products (exception #4).  How are lists of books for sale (also falling under the WP:EL exception #9) better than a number of books that can be read on the web for free?
#My answer regarding this good faith link is almost an exact quote (deviations in bold) of the consensus argument by Ed:  There ought to be a consensus on a Talk page that any particular external link doesn't belong in the article. I don't perceive such a consensus here, so I believe that the link should stay.  In other words, the consensus argument cannot be applied successfully to ONLY one side.
QED
—Red Baron 22:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In your conclusion, by replaced you seem to mean reinstated and you seem not to mean removed or indeed replaced _by something else_. Is that correct? It is quite unclear. --MarSch 10:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, has been corrected, thanks—Red Baron 14:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Revised again per comment by Xerxesnine.—Red Baron 16:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My RFC Conclusion: Reinstate

message: #I count two "advertisers" (links to Google-related sites, and amazon.com links) on the site in question and ten (i.e. Etrade, Vonage, Samsung Blackjack, etc.) on the NY Times main page.  If the New York Times website is a reliable source with its several advertisers, this link, with less advertising, cannot be construed to fall under exception #4 and therefore is an appropriate external link.  The primary purpose of the site seems to be to give a free online resource, secondarily some links may lead to selling sites.  NOTE: Having found the main site, it has potential to be used as an external link on any number of Wikipedia pages.
#Here is the situation:  (a)An editor adds a link; (b)it gets deleted; (c)he replaces it; (d)he then gets accused of some nefarious affinity to the specific link above all others.  That just doesn't seem fair!  The whole RFC is whether this link should be included in the article.  How then does it make sense to accuse an editor of repeatedly referring to it and none else?  Also, in making this unfair accusation, other sites were suggested: Google and Froogle.  These really are sites that primarily exist to sell products (exception #4).  How are lists of books for sale (also falling under the WP:EL exception #9) better than a number of books that can be read on the web for free?
#My answer regarding this good faith link is almost an exact quote (deviations in bold) of the consensus argument by Ed:  There ought to be a consensus on a Talk page that any particular external link doesn't belong in the article. I don't perceive such a consensus here, so I believe that the link should stay.  In other words, the consensus argument cannot be applied successfully to ONLY one side.
QED
—Red Baron 22:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In your conclusion, by replaced you seem to mean reinstated and you seem not to mean removed or indeed replaced _by something else_. Is that correct? It is quite unclear. --MarSch 10:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, has been corrected, thanks—Red Baron 14:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Revised again per comment by Xerxesnine.—Red Baron 16:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses

message: You did not mention the what the actual challenge was:
* What exactly justifies the external link?  What is that mysterious something, that je ne sais quoi, which freecomputerbooks.com provides that a simple google search cannot?
I still await the answer.  I wonder, what will the new spin be this time? 
I also have a few challenges directed at the author personally.  These are incidental; in no manner should they be considered in lieu or before the actual challenge above.
*Why is Rjakew trying to pass himself off as Red Baron with a wiki-link trick of Red Baron?
*The initial dispute began on 12 March 2007 when the link in question was removed by User:Yamla.  On the same day, a petulant complaint about the removal was added to Yamla's talk page.  On 15 March 2007 an account named Rjakew was created, the author of this RFC who goes by the name of "Red Baron".  On 17 March 2007, more complaints are added to Yamla's page, and from then on the hassles have been persistent, including puerile threats left on my own page.
*Given "Red Baron"'s presumed disinterest in freecomputerbooks.com, would he agree to hand off the issue to another user whose account was created significantly before 12 March 2007?
*The good faith about freecomputerbooks.com has long expired.  No legitimate claims have been made for inclusion as an external link, only persistent and disingenuous arguments made by a variety of users, including our newest friend "Red Baron".  For starters, just look at the recent AMA request.
Xerxesnine 16:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Actual Challenge

message: Contrary to the directive not to do so in the article's comments, I have made the bold move of changing this code:
 'using namespace std' should never, ever be used, ever, even as a simple example.
 this is not a tutorial on namespaces; this is an overview of C++.  Mentioning 'using std::cout' is too much detail.
 including <ostream> is required by the standard, so it should be included.  This is not a tutorial on iostream technicalities; we do not need pedantic notes on iostream/ostream.
Xerxesnine 19:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "'using namespace std' should never, ever be used, ever, even as a simple example" - I disagree.  It is ok in cpp files. --Urod 19:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ugh, not in a C++ overview.  This is not a tutorial on namespaces.  If we write "using namespace std" we are required to also mention where/when that is/isn't acceptable, and we must also mention the difference between using directives and using statements. Xerxesnine 20:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree wholeheartedly with Xercesnine. "using namespace std;" is just a notch above "#define cout std::cout" in my book. While there are cases where "using namespace std;" might be acceptable (i.e. in cpp files, especially when porting old code), general use of this construct is not good practice. It does not belong in a "hello world" program which would serve as a new user's first intro to the language. ATren 15:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It should defenetly be 'using namespace std;, because this is the I, and most people, learn it. besides, if people learn it now, they won't have to worry about it later. And it is alot faster for larger programs.K25125 00:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Using namespace std is not a required component of the hello world program, nor does it make the program simpler to understand.  When you are trying to make a simple program, you want to make it as simple as possible, without confusing newcomers or slowing down quick glances.  The best thing that can be done with that statement is to reduce typing, at the cost of a potential cross-namespace naming conflict.  --Sigma 7 02:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  This discussion is going on in two different places. I vote that we talk about the "using" construct in the section named that, and worry about the code itself in this section. — EtherealFlaim 05:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Much more simple but also wrong according to the C++ standard.  You need ostream for std::ostream.  Also, std::endl is not the same as \n.  --Yamla 19:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it stated anywhere that endl has to be used. It might make the code easier to read but it does not achieve a different end result. endl causes an extra class method call where "\n" is interpreted by the parser as an end-of-line which it checks for anyway. "\n" might actually be easier to understand for some people. Come to think of it neither endl nor "\n" has to be present when writing only one line. -Andrew flame him | stalk him 13:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Hello, world' code 

message: Is there a reason why both dialects of C++ are referred to as being ANSI rather than ISO standards? I would have thought that the international standard superseded the US one.
SheffieldSteel 23:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why ANSI and not ISO? 

message: Geez, seems like there's been a few times people have tried to add a .h to this header.  The CORRECT header is just iostream (e.g.: #include <iostream>).  Look, if you really think we should be using deprecated header files, you're well behind on the current state of C++ and it could be argued that you have no business editing an article about this language.  Sorry to be harsh, but that's really poor and inexecusable. C++ Template 16:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  iostream.h