User talk:Aroko

From ArchWiki
Revision as of 23:20, 12 October 2011 by Kynikos (talk | contribs) (re)
Jump to: navigation, search

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:

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. -- 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 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 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 wait 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.
-- Kynikos 19:20, 12 October 2011 (EDT)