Difference between revisions of "User talk:Aroko"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(hwclock --show)
(Blanked the page)
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
===Some advices and requests===
Hello and welcome to the ArchWiki.
I would like to ask you to explain here (in detail, if needed) the overall scheme at the base of your recent edits to:
*[https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Bash&action=historysubmit&diff=165219&oldid=165174 Bash]
*[https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Core_Utilities&action=historysubmit&diff=165205&oldid=158864 Core Utilities]
*[https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Environment_Variables&action=historysubmit&diff=165198&oldid=164355 Environment Variables]
*[https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Commandline_Tools&action=historysubmit&diff=165217&oldid=165099 Commandline Tools]
*[[Readline]] (new article)
*[[Command Shell]] (new article)
It looks like you have deleted some content without providing an explanation, and that is not customary here.
Please remember that there are users who habitually and voluntarily check all the edits that are done to the articles, to try to prevent pages from being damaged, and keeping them clean and tidy, for everybody's sake. Right above to the save button in edit pages you will find the "Summary" field, where you would be required to briefly provide a description of your edit, also specifying the reasons which led you to do it. Failing to do so, you make the work of the patrolling users much much harder, because they have to figure out what you did and why all by themselves, possibly even forcing them to directly contact you to get an explanation, like in this very case.
I hope you will understand, there are currently more than 12,000 registered users on this wiki (continuously growing), and several dozens of edits are performed every day, so we all have to try and collaborate in the tidiest and most considerate way.
Thank you for cooperating. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 14:33, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
:Hi, Kynikos! It's nice somebody noticed my work. Firstly, I haven't deleted anything. I've just moved content from one location to another where it is more appropriate. So lets begin with 1. [[Bash]]. I have created additional page Readline and moved in there everything that has something to do with it. Now it's much more clear that Readline is responsible for your shortcuts, macros and history management. So next time a user wonders how to delete a word on the command line he will know where he should look for. Note, that information about interacting with command line hasn't disappeared completely from Bash page. It is introduced briefly and then the link to Readline page is given. 2. I've created new stub article Command shell. This article should introduce users to the notion of shell, its tasks in operating system. Also, all flavors of shell which can be found on Arch wiki should be briefly discussed there. 3. Command line tools -- I've changed nothing in there.  4. Core Utilities -- as the name of the article already states it, the article is about core utilities. So examples how to create aliases and functions in bash (!! core utilities have nothing to do with bash) have nothing to do there. So I've moved them to [[Bash#Aliases]] and [[Bash#Functions]] where they fit just perfectly! 4. Now about this 2 weeks discussion about obvious thing. I'll just repeat and add some new points. a)the environment variables are NOT bash specific and users of ALL shells should be aware of them; b)only some random environment variable were listed there and there was not empty intersection with [[Environment Variables]] page. So I think it's pretty obvious that corresponding content from bash article should be moved to [[Environment Variables]] article. At least, I am sure the discussion of this question should not last 2 (!!!) weeks. Lets keep discussions short!
:In the future I will add comments to my changes. And thank you for telling me how to leave my signature. It was lat in the night yesterday and I was lazy to look for this macro. My fault.
:Hope everything is clear now and you'll appreciate my contribution. Yours [[User:Aroko|Aroko]] 16:18, 12 October 2011 (EDT).
::You should not be surprised that somebody noticed your work, you have edited a public article after all, that is why you have to think well before editing articles, especially when doing major restructuring.
::About [[Command Shell]] are you planning to add content in it? It can be a good idea, but it is pointless to create a stub and just expect others to work on it.
::About [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Commandline_Tools&action=historysubmit&diff=165217&oldid=165099 Commandline Tools], you have removed it from [[:Category:Command shells (English)]]: is there a particular reason why you did that?
::Overall you have had good ideas, but I have had to correct some mistakes you have made, and restore some content that you had indeed lost: please next time double-check your edits and be more accurate, so that we can learn to trust your edits more in the future.
::About discussions, I would like you to understand, and this is very important for our peaceful cooperation on the wiki, that a 2-week-old open discussion is ''not'' old at all, nobody here ''works'' as a wiki editor, so everybody answers when he finds the time to do that, and those who are waiting for an answer should just patiently wait. In this particular case you should have better first added a reply to the discussion, then waited at least one day or two, and only then you could have started performing the edits, but only because it was clear that the discussion had ''almost'', though not ''finally'', arrived to an agreed decision.
::-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 19:20, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, I do not know much about other shells, so I expect other 12,000 people to help me with [[Command Shell]]. However I will write introduction part in the near future. Also, I think the existence of this stub is important. It shows where the content is missing.
:::Ah, right I removed [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Commandline_Tools&action=historysubmit&diff=165217&oldid=165099 Commandline Tools] from [[:Category:Command shells (English)]]. Hmmm.. the reason is simple, command line tools have nothing to do with shells (The only thing they have in common is that CLI tools can be run in shell). They should fall into category of apps or similar.
:::So about discussions. Do you realize that long discussions are a big barrier for new users to change something? And not even because they should hang around for weeks waiting for replies, but because they firstly need to read those loooong conversations. So I think it's completely ok if someone experienced enough comes and says: "Hey guys, you are wasting your time here. The solution is simple and it looks like this." Actually now I doubt the wiki collaboration style is effective at all. A lot of newcomers come and start to ''discuss'', disappear for a week then ''discuss'' again. It would be much better if there are people responsible for some parts of the wiki and new users send patches to them. Responsible people (are experienced enough) can quickly decide whether the change should be accepted without long discussion. Once a person sent a number of reasonable patches this level of indirection can be omitted. [[User:Aroko|Aroko]] 05:37, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:::P.S. I'm sorry I've missed that paragraph about insecurity of ''.'' in PATH. I'll try to be more careful.
::::There are many things to be done on a wiki, it is not as though we all sit perched in front of our screens refreshing a certain talk page until a discussion is concluded. Consider it a triage system; important things are discussed more urgently, less important things are discussed less urgently. Sometimes conversations die off. Only in this triage system, the patients can be resurrected! (As the bash issue was.)
::::The wiki system works. But with a limited number of ''regular'' contributors, some things don't move at breakneck speed.
::::In contrast, I think your "patches" system introduces more hierarchy than is productive in a wiki, and is an even larger barrier to entry, since new users wouldn't feel like they have much real creative <s>control</s> autonomy or importance. | [[User:Emiralle|Emiralle]] 06:11, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::Well, wiki system works. It's obvious it works ''somehow'' otherwise it won't exist. But does it work in efficient way? That is the question. The patches system is the system used in all open source projects. Sending patches does not limit your creativity. It does not allow loooong discussions and produces high quality content. As I said once you have shown you are reasonable enough you can gain full control and be extremely creative. I understand some things need time. The question how to structure articles about applications is of that kind. But it's nonsense to have that long discussions about obvious things. Can you even remember after two weeks what was it all about?! You'd probably need to skim the whole disscussion once more each time... This is contra productive. Some notion of a ''experienced'' user should be introduced. He makes quick decisions. Be it a patch system or some another one. Feel free to suggest your approach. Approach that is efficient. Take a look at my recent changes. I've shuffled a couple of articles in half of an hour. And I'm sure you'll agree with those changes. How much time would I need to do the same starting a discussion each time? Multiply number of major content moves by two weeks and you will have the answer.
:::::To summarize, yes existing approach is the most democratic one. Yes, the barrier is probably the lowest. But it's not efficient. I propose to find an efficient approach. [[User:Aroko|Aroko]] 08:17, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Let us see if [[Command Shell]] will attract the interest of somebody then.
::::About [[Commandline Tools]], its category ([[:Category:Command shells (English)]]) is already under [[:Category:Software (English)]]: if you can find a better category, please let us know, but meanwhile you cannot leave an article uncategorized ([[:Category:Request:Merge]] and [[:Category:Stub]] do not count as normal categories).
::::The way the ArchWiki has been working until now is evidently very effective, just take a look at the amount and quality of information that is available. Among the 12,000 users, you are the first one I read complaining about a supposed "inefficiency" of the way changes are discussed and put into practice: if you do not like the way we are working here you are perfectly free to set up your own wiki.
::::You are dreaming of "responsible people" to take care of the development of the articles, but that is exactly what I told you does not exist here: there are not people "working" as wiki editors, so discussing changes, even if for a long time when needed, is the best and safest way of improving the wiki with the agreement of the community.
::::-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 08:53, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::Hmm.. it seems impossible to me that you have read all the comments of those 12,000 users. So I take the statement "Among the 12,000 users, you are the first one..." as being unreliable. Yes, I'm dreaming about "responsible people". After all there are responsible people for software packages. Why the same principle cannot work here? In fact I can be responsible for the subset of articles about command shells. That's fine the other articles haven't yet got any responsible people I'm dreaming of. As time passes they will. ''Do it discussion way'' fallback will always exist.
:::::"if you do not like the way we are working here you are perfectly free to set up your own wiki" I was expecting this coming. So all you are saying is that you have lived good so far. A lot of information is there. And only that's why things seems to work well. Well, I agree with that. But looking in some discussions brought me to an idea of improving efficiency. So instead of discussing ''new'' approach you tell me go away. It's not in the spirit of your ''discussion'' way isn't it?
:::::To the good end. You have seen my changes. I've done them in half of an hour. You've said they are good. Now, how much time would it have taken if I'll start discussion each major content move? I ask you to think not only about changes being made at all, I ask you to think about changes being made in reasonable time. [[User:Aroko|Aroko]] 09:28, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::Ok, let us start from the ABC: "Among the 12,000 users, you are the first one '''<u>I</u>''' read complaining [...]" means, literally, that of all the comments written by the 12,000 registered users that <u>I</u> have read (where "I" means me, myself, [[User:Kynikos]]), you are the first one '''<u>I</u>''' read complaining [...].
::::::"Why the same principle cannot work here?" - Because, as I have already said, we do not have trustworthy users willing to be involved in such a project. I hope now it is clear enough to stop discussing this.
::::::"How much time would it have taken if I'll start discussion each major content move?" - As I have already written, you should have first outlined your idea on [[Talk:Bash]], for example, then waited some days to see if somebody was still interested in discussing, and <u>then</u> you could have performed the edits, and everybody would have been perfectly fine with that, including me.
::::::-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 10:23, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I'm sorry, I do not feel the discussion should end at this point. You claim there are not enough trustworthy users willing to do it. (As probably anyone didn't believe in the open source developing model.) The point is there is not any announcement that some users can become trustworthy. So if we'll think out this idea and announce it maybe there will be some. Maybe not. Why are you so sure there won't be any? We could also start with a subset of Wiki articles and see how this approach works. I do not see any risk here. This experiment can be done, if unsuccessful it will be close. How about I'll become a trustworthy user as to edit Bash related stuff? I feel I'm capable of doing that. [[User:Aroko|Aroko]] 10:41, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::You? Trustworthy??? No, seriously, you can start a forum thread about this if you want, nobody prevents you from doing that, but if you just had waited only some days you would have got a reply in [[Talk:Bash]] for sure, at least from me, but also the other two users who were discussing there, Emiralle and KitchM, are quite active, and would have probably answered you in reasonable time.
::::::::-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 10:51, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Aroko, take a look at [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Special:ActiveUsers&limit=500 the list of active users]. I agree that it would be perfect if everyone had just a couple pages to look after but it's not the case. "Just doing it" often breaks things and then the already overworked volunteer wiki editors have to fix them because somebody was too eager to do what he thought was right. -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 10:52, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::[[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] I'm continuing our discussion here. Ah, it's in [[Help:Style]]. I must admit it's not easy to find this article. As normal user will probably start with [[Getting_Involved#Wiki]]. So consider referencing [[Help:Style]] there. You are completely right. It will be a mess if _any_ user will edit the page. However if the user has knowledge of the topic it shouldn't be a problem. Taking into account my last shuffling considering Bash, I think, you will agree. Considering those errors I've made. The only ''serious'' one I acknowledge is removing of the category. Now I'll read [[Help::Style]] and follow them. Thanks you pointing me at it. The passage about the security . in PATH I could have dropped even if the discussion were before. There were some typos also. So you see the devastating mess hasn't taken place, although several articles were literally shuffled.
::::::::Ok, then I think the term of ''trustworthiness'' should be defined at first. For me it's no vandalism, reasonable restructuring and editing with the knowledge of the field. For you ''trustworthiness'' is the ability of a user to discuss each his move. I do not feel obvious things should be discussed. Yes, I also think a thread should be created on the forum where others can take part in the discussion, not only three of so of us.  [[User:Aroko|Aroko]] 12:25, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::[[User:Karol|Karol]] I'm glad you partially agreed with me. The only question is how do we sort out people that ''just do it'' and do it right. Once it's answered we're done. So let's try to figure out how this question can be answered. Wikipedia already has something similar. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy [[User:Aroko|Aroko]] 12:25, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Just take a look at the mess of an edit you have just done on this talk page: what do you think users can understand from continuing an unreferenced discussion here all of a sudden? And then you are messing with indentation, and double blank lines, and you still forget to sign your replies (and I guess you also forget to preview your edits before submitting them).
::::::::::You are missing some very important qualities to become trustworthy to the community: experience (you are missing '''a lot''', believe me), patience, respect, tidiness, ability to accept suggestions from experienced users, ability to admit doing something wrong.
::::::::::About [[Help:Style]], remember it is still under development in some parts, especially code formatting templates.
::::::::::-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 11:56, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Yes, I still forget to sign... I just haven't used to it yet. Normally you do not need to sign your messages. Be it a forum, a messenger or whatever.
:::::::::::After all this is '''my''' talk page. I do not expect the others to understand everything here. And in the beginning it was clear whom I'm speaking too... You can argue here, so I'll try to reference conversations in the future not giving you this favor.
:::::::::::Just to let you know. I admitted all my previous mistakes. I didn't admit this ''first discuss then do'' strategy, because I do not agree with it. As long as you agree with my contributions (so far you did) I feel I can continue. It only seems to you that I'm inpatient. Indeed I'm patient enough when it's needed. I carefully edit pages and do look at previews several times. I'm trying to be tidy as good as I can. If one shuffles a lot of text something can slip out. Now, that you have shown me ''not'' yet official set of rules (however you've already managed to warn me with fire because of braking them) I'll obey them as much as I can. So do not expect to find any blank lines, uncategorized articles or whatever is forbidden there. As of this discussion I feel it's getting personal. So I suggest to end it. I'll start a forum thread corresponding my idea of ''trustworthy'' users. Of course feel free to say last word if you want to. [[User:Aroko|Aroko]] 12:25, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
==hwclock --show==
Hi, can you explain [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Time&curid=7949&diff=172975&oldid=172482&rcid=203772]? I can run that command also as a normal user, but there could be some problem I'm not aware of... -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 12:01, 11 December 2011 (EST)

Latest revision as of 00:35, 2 March 2012