User talk:Archange

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Refactorings

Hi, thank you for contributing to the wiki!! I just wanted to make you aware that, in order to facilitate the collaboration of various editors on the same articles, we really need users to try to abide by ArchWiki:Contributing#Do_not_make_complex_edits_at_once, which conflicts with recent edits of yours like [1] and [2] (whose accuracy I don't have the knowledge to question), thanks again for understanding :) -- Kynikos (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Noted, thanks. Problem with Cozy is that almost everything went obsolete with the switch from v2 to v3. I was thinking it would not make sense to edit part after part, since I basically just rewrote the page entirely. If you think it would still be better even in that case of a (almost) full rewrite to edit part by part, please let me know. Regarding CouchDB, I could have split this edit indeed. Regarding technical accuracy, well I’ve been the maintainer of both packages for quite a while now. ;) -- Archange (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Cheers, yes, when a piece of software gets a major upgrade, full articles rewrites are sometimes inevitable, but still perhaps removing and adding sections separately would help improve the resulting diffs, and ideally rewrites should be announced (ArchWiki:Contributing#Announce_article_rewrites_in_a_talk_page): the rules must be the same for everybody of course, but they are also flexible, and since you maintain those packages (thank you) you are justified to edit their articles more freely. Since you did it twice in 3 days I just wanted to make sure that you're aware of the contributing rules, that's all :) -- Kynikos (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Closing and removing discussions

Hi! Your efforts to clean up Talk:PostgreSQL are appreciated, but to remove discussions you must the follow proper procedures as outlined in Help:Discussion#Closing a discussion. I've reverted your edits to that talk page. Instead of using the summary field to explain the reason of removal, please add a comment to each section instead and strike the section header. The section can be removed after a week. This gives time to others who might want to continue the discussion after reading your comment. -- nl6720 (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi! OK, will do so. I thought that those discussion being quite old for most of them, cleaning right away would be a good idea, but I can understand your point. Thanks for pointing this procedure. Archange (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The main reason to follow the procedure is that, if someone will ever want to find out the closing reason, they can simply read the old discussion instead of having to read each change summary. -- nl6720 (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


Well, woulnd’t they have to first find the closing change in the history anyway? Archange (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
True, even clicking on the date in the history will show revision summary on top of the page. I still consider it simpler to to read the comment in the discussion itself. Anyway, the issue is resolved.  :)
-- nl6720 (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)