Difference between revisions of "User talk:Lahwaacz"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Civility: new section)
m (Fork Bomb: closing)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Fork Bomb ==
== <s>Fork Bomb</s> ==
[[Fork_Bomb]]: This new article worries me a bit, as it provides an example of how to do one. [[User:Carlduff|Carlduff]] ([[User talk:Carlduff|talk]]) 21:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
[[Fork_Bomb]]: This new article worries me a bit, as it provides an example of how to do one. [[User:Carlduff|Carlduff]] ([[User talk:Carlduff|talk]]) 21:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:04, 24 February 2014

Fork Bomb

Fork_Bomb: This new article worries me a bit, as it provides an example of how to do one. Carlduff (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

But it also contains some information regarding prevention, so I'm fine with its existence. I can't comment on the factual accuracy though. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


RE: Revision [1]

A dependency of Thunar is libxfce4ui. A sub-package of libxfce4ui is xfce4-about. For confirmation see: [2]. So I would not describe my work as being "useless" or "inaccurate". There are however many useless and inaccurate articles on this wiki, which seem to be ignored in favour of putting my contributions under a microscope instead.

OK, there has been a slight misunderstanding with the xfce4-about - it is not a (sub)package in Arch terms, I'd say it is a binary/executable that is part of libxfce4ui. I was looking for an Arch package under that name.
First of all, why recommend some application when the user is discouraged from installing it in next sentence? Also, I'd say that an average Arch user knows about the dependency chain, and checks which dependencies are installed if he cares.
You are not under a microscope, it just happened that Openbox is in my watchlist. Believe me that I check all pages from my watchlist equally. True, I don't check all new edits in Special:RecentChanges, that's just beyond my powers...
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I am trying not to allow personal bias get too much in the way of contributions, which is why I listed a range of FMs without specifically recommending any of them, including those without their own wiki pages. A warning was placed about Thunar as although it is an excellent FM (I personally prefer SpaceFM), the exo and xfce4-about menu entries can irritate users like myself who want a "harmonious"-looking desktop. Experienced users would know this; I'm just trying to be helpful for others like myself who want to learn.
Of course I understand being corrected when I neglect to adhere to the guidelines, but sometimes the amendments do seem a bit over-critical. It has seemed at times as if it is being done of out irritation than anything else (as apparently evidenced by being called "usless"). Personally, I would rather just be told to go away if I am considered as being provocative in some way. Carlduff (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


[Moved to ArchWiki talk:Reports#User:Idomeneo1. -- Kynikos (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)]


Sorry for [3]: since the double redirect fixes were very recent I wrongly assumed no chages had been done meanwhile (didn't preview the edits...) :P -- Kynikos (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


Lahwaacz, re Transmission

Before you nitpick another editor's contributions with a string of inappropriately sarcastic edit sumaries, consider the fact that you did not even contribute this material to the Wiki.

Nor did you ever remove some of the stuff that existed before, like "Consult google for additional options."

Idomeneo1 (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)