Difference between revisions of "User talk:Gen2ly"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(GNOME#Installation: Response to Indigo.)
(GNOME#Installation: re, close)
Line 45: Line 45:
  
 
: [[User:Gen2ly|Gently]] ([[User talk:Gen2ly|talk]]) 13:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 
: [[User:Gen2ly|Gently]] ([[User talk:Gen2ly|talk]]) 13:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 +
 +
:: Thank you for your response and explanation, Gen2ly. I'd say the problems resulted from the lack of communication about the what and why of your plan. I'd also say you are wrong to assume your edit push to improve the structure and overall style of the article went unnoticed. I cannot speak for the others involved, but it would surprise me if they see it differently.
 +
::For my part I do agree as well, comparatively, regarding the "detail omitted", but I don't want to go back and revisit the development of the "GNOME exercise" now. Yet, I also do not want to go over this without expressing respect for Chazza, who indeed cared ''again'' with a great teamplayer attitude and extra effort for content he originally contributed a lot to already.
 +
::In any case, the article certainly gained from the attention of all involved in my view. I hope you are content as well now with the overall result of your own efforts to improve the structure of it. I am content on top, because the "3 fundamental rules" (which are spot on imo) made it to [[Archwiki:Contributing]] en route and I don't have to go hunting the bbs thread again :) (where they were initially posted).
 +
::Let's get on and work on the content! Regards, --[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 23:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  
 
== Last warning ==
 
== Last warning ==

Revision as of 23:56, 11 November 2014

About

I'm a Linux user for about 10 years, I like the Rolling Stones, Documenting, and Bonbons. I am a wiki admin and I'm old. Though I may not stick to wiki conventions, please be kind. I appreciate conversations about their content, and it is those conversations that I'd like to focus on. Thank you for reading. Sidenote, I got a good laugh/bump from reading this:

If you're a heavy committer like me, you've probably got lots of poorly messaged commits ('works!', 'broken', 'fuck', 'woo', etc.). This is a bad habit, but I haven't been able to break it yet and I know I'm not the only one!
--resource

Mirrorlist generator link

Hi, with [1] you reverted my fix for the https://www.archlinux.org/mirrorlist/?country=United+States&protocol=ftp link: when I open it the country=United+States and protocol=ftp parameters are invalid (I had changed them to country=US and protocol=http). Does the page work correctly for you with those parameters? The server should serve the same page for everybody I think. -- Kynikos (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out Kynikos; agreed the page should serve everyone. The link was an error on my part. Repaired.
Gently (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Journal commit time

The commit=60 is a mount option, and as such cannot be set by sysctl. The Power saving page correctly refers to setting it in fstab.

I removed the rootfs kernel parameter because it applies only to the root filesystem (the filesystem under the / mountpoint), whereas setting commit= in the fstab implies setting it for every affected filesystem. Agreed?

-- Lahwaacz (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, for the explanation... it is very nice of you. I agree with you: the edit I did is unique and possibly unwarranted of an explanation... so please forgive beforehand :).
It is possible not to have a /etcfstab listing... I don't. With the use of GPT partitions, some program (udisks,systemd) is able to detect the volumes and mount them with their default options. Why would I do this? Part experimentation I would have to admit; but I also liked having the system handle my mount options. (likely what happens is that: the root filessystem is directed to via the bootloader the swap partition is detected...). Anyhow, it is a good decision to leave out. I apologize for not having reasoned this out beforehand.
--Gently (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I admit that systemd is good in automatically handling the common setups (i.e. with only one partition), but fstab is still the best for configuring options for multiple filesystems as it is a centralized config file.
Anyway, thanks for acknowledgement, closing.
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

GNOME#Installation

Hi, you, Chazza and me do a little edit circle to GNOME#Installation the last two days and I understand from your edit description of [2] that you did not fully grasp why it happened. You contribute a lot to the wiki and I just want to give you feedback on it: I adjusted your edit [3] with [4] because (1) "...; an application's description" is half-baked style/grammar and the information of the following apps not being in gnome-extra will be helpful to readers at install point. Today you follow it up with [5] and all is good, except we want to avoid "implicit" links (with "here" being the implicit bit in your edit; see Help:Style#Hypertext_metaphor). This was adjusted again by Chazza with [6]. So all is good now, if you understand the reasoning of why your quoted edits were reworded. The rule about "implicit links" is often a little neglected. Most of us know when editing it is a quick way to drop in the important information: the link and not bother with phrasing the link contextually into verbose. Still, like Chazza puts it in his edit description: for a reader it is even more informative to know where the link will lead (ideally the reader has no need to hover across it with the mouse). That's what I wanted to feedback. Feel free to close this right after you read it, if clear. Cheers. --Indigo (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

edit: I close this myself (re-open if you wish) as you read & agree, showing in your edit comment in [7]. Sure I'm +1 to the gnome-extra listing you redid in it. --Indigo (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

edit2: New approach using template App for respective list was implemented. Before you re-work that again: discussion of it takes place at Talk:GNOME#Moderation: messy removal and reorganization of content. --Indigo (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Indigo. Your discussion here is very civilized and I very much appreciate it. I will quickly explain why I have not read this section: 1) I did not see the GNOME:Talk discussion; it is inexplicable, I understand... a regular reader/contributor... but somehow it did happen; 2) by luck, I think it was good that I did miss it... I felt that its first assertion was overly-critical "messy reorganization" while admitting that there was more to go through of it. Because of these, when I read it days (a week?) later, I felt the discussion was hot. So when I did get to the discussion here, I wanted to be able to respond to it professionally.
I understand now that the discussion was a natural reaction to a large edit (and from someone that cared about the topic). From my reasoning, if you'll let me explain... I thought of the page as a high number of small edits by a good number of people. In my experience, when this happens, overall structure is something that would be nice if is had more consideration. Yes, I made the large edit with this in mind; however, I also made the edit with other peoples edits in mind, meaning that very few details were omitted. As I look back at it, I do wish I had explained this better (I reasoned incorrectly apparently overall structure considerations with care for changes in overall structure) and it is unfortunate to me that this had not been noticed. However, as I said, I do appreciate your response... it is very professional of you.
Gently (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your response and explanation, Gen2ly. I'd say the problems resulted from the lack of communication about the what and why of your plan. I'd also say you are wrong to assume your edit push to improve the structure and overall style of the article went unnoticed. I cannot speak for the others involved, but it would surprise me if they see it differently.
For my part I do agree as well, comparatively, regarding the "detail omitted", but I don't want to go back and revisit the development of the "GNOME exercise" now. Yet, I also do not want to go over this without expressing respect for Chazza, who indeed cared again with a great teamplayer attitude and extra effort for content he originally contributed a lot to already.
In any case, the article certainly gained from the attention of all involved in my view. I hope you are content as well now with the overall result of your own efforts to improve the structure of it. I am content on top, because the "3 fundamental rules" (which are spot on imo) made it to Archwiki:Contributing en route and I don't have to go hunting the bbs thread again :) (where they were initially posted).
Let's get on and work on the content! Regards, --Indigo (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Last warning

Dear Gen2ly,

With [8] you have really gone too far: you are demanding people not to edit articles extensively, even if they are doing it in respect of ArchWiki:Contributing#The 3 fundamental rules, yet you are the only user in the wiki who currently makes massive edits (or "big decisions", quoting your own edit summary) without consulting the other users first, which instead does break the basic rules of reciprocal respect and civility ([9] for example). Alad (official Maintainer), Chazza and Indigo (official Maintainer) are properly discussing and coordinating all their edits in Talk:GNOME, while you are not deeming them worthy of an answer even when they make the effort to contact you directly in your talk page. For those reading here, the bad edits linked above are only the most recent ones of several others that can be found in Special:Contributions/Gen2ly.

Of course you can ignore this discussion as well, even delete it if you want, but with the edit summary of [10] you have shot yourself in the foot: the next time you make a "big decision" without consulting other users (e.g. a massive edit like [11], or protecting an article when there's clearly no need for doing it) will result in you losing your administrative rights without any further warning. Doing it once more will lead to the blocking of your account, again without any further warning.

I hope this post is clear enough and complies with the standards of kindness that you request in the first post of this page. Best regards.

-- Kynikos (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)