Content deleted Content added
→Heinlein reference: One of my edits accidentally reverted, but I made those changes again; is RS a problem, since we are talking about the book itself; is it the topic or the term that is non-not |
|||
Line 12:
::OK, I put it back like it was. I wasn't able to access your source, but found enough in quote in Google book search. The extended quote is a bit useful, since it seems to clearly imply a meaning of idiot code that's simpler and more specific than the one given in the article. Still, sci fi can't be taken as a reliable source, and the topic is still non-notable, as far as I can tell. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 08:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I have again made the changes in one of my edits that you reverted along with two of your edits.<br />It's not like the book is talking about something and we then reference the book; we are talking about the book itself. Thus I don't think that sci fi not being a reliable source is a problem here.<br />Is the ''topic'' non-notable or are these uses of the ''term'' "idiot code" non-notable? [[User:Brianjd|Brian]] [[User talk:Brianjd|Jason]] [[Special:Contributions/Brianjd|Drake]] 08:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
| |||