User talk:Todd Weed

From ArchWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

gpg create a key

Hey --full-gen-key comes standard with gpg on Arch, so that's why I reverted your change for GnuPG. What version of gpg does your install show? An updated system should be 2.1.11. —This unsigned comment is by Rdeckard (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2016‎. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

OK, thanks the heads up, repair, and information. I apologize for this as I am using a non-standard Arch installation—gnupg must have been compiled with a different option(s). On similar edits in the future, I would appreciate, if the revision could be respected and only to the five character repair done. This way other readers would benefit from the effort (if say the author is unable to return to the edit). Todd Weed (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
On similar edits in the future, you should split off the uncertain part into a separate edit, so that it can be reverted more easily. Or even better, ask on the talk page first. See ArchWiki:Contributing#Do_not_make_complex_edits_at_once. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I think that moderator intervention in this resolution is completely unnecessary and I'll list here why. First let me make quick mention that I have seen moderators here: behave with unprofessional behavior in regards how they treat people and their contributions... some beyond mention, so I have to be wary. The edit made to the article was a flag change and sentencing being put into a list; it was a three sentence-ish edit and a fix could have been done in a few minutes. I rather not get into details with such a short edit. I would appreciate moderators leaving this be—I gave full disclosure with the flag issue in the summary... it was an honest and completely unpredictable foresight.
Of the conflict resolution, it is only necessary when one appears. To this point me and the original poster may very well be capable of handling this ourselves. If a moderator is interested in this, why was it not tracked to its source: content was deleted. Good editing practice says to try and fix problems? Moderators leaving this be would be preferable to me and I ask that it be done. It would be best. As for this edit regards to the article, I feel me and original poster can handle it. — Todd Weed (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I think I'm going to warn you just once on stirring up the pot for no good reason. -- Alad (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I am a person that tries to get along so I am having a hard time understanding what is being said. I am here because I like to help a community project and like to collaborate. I really would like it if the moderators were fair about this type of response; I am unable to understand it and this is my first reception here at the wiki. With this statement put out there, for me, causes me to worry, and I imagine, for its author, would feel non-authoritive if not followed up on. If planning is being done to follow up on what I garner is being alluding to, please listen to what I would like to share: "right does make might". I, unfortunately, cannot help but think the response is coming from a position of an un-monitored power-base that is unfortunately prevalent on the Internet. I hope otherwise. I want to belong to a good, solid, trusting community where these positions have the ultimate responsibility. I ask that this be considered. If the planning as good-natured is not the case, good luck. — Todd Weed (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Todd, I happen to run across this talk item as well .. That is a fair, balanced, thoughful response of yours.
I have had a look back at the original edit and revert to try understand. I must say I see a couple of additional inaccuracies introduced in your edit, apart from said "five characters". As such, in my opinion, the reverting was overall better and the now current revision collaborated by you and RDeckard improved the subsection very well!
If you want to know in order to understand, I can spell the inaccuracies I see out here. If you are happy with the current revision, you might as well decide to close this item, now that air is vent. We're all here because we enjoy team work collaboration. I am confident you will find your expressed reservations unjustified over time. Regards, --Indigo (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I want to spend a word here too: if we admins are interested in your edits and try to inform you about the wiki guidelines, it doesn't mean we are picking on you for the sake of it; what Lahwaacz tried to do is let you know about some of the best practices that we recommend here to improve our collaboration, you shouldn't take it personally, we do it frequently with many users, and it means that we regard you as one who is worth spending a bit of time to guide towards better editing standards. Please don't feel discouraged or, worse, personally attacked, but accept the advice that is offered to you, and remember that, as Indigo says, we don't login every day here to look for arguments, but instead to have a good time and be proud to be working on an important project together. Take it easy, I will close this discussion, so you don't feel forced to reply further :) — Kynikos (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)