Difference between revisions of "User talk:Nl6720"

From ArchWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Regarding "Undo revision 574893" and "Undo revision 574894": re, close)
(github link styling suggestion)
Line 94: Line 94:
 
:You don't need to memorize all the rules, just know where to find them. The related articles box in [[Help:Style]] links to most of the relevant pages.
 
:You don't need to memorize all the rules, just know where to find them. The related articles box in [[Help:Style]] links to most of the relevant pages.
 
: -- [[User:nl6720|nl6720]] ([[User talk:nl6720|talk]]) 08:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 
: -- [[User:nl6720|nl6720]] ([[User talk:nl6720|talk]]) 08:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Improving style on external github links ==
 +
 +
This might be a question better directed at the bureaucrats or site admins, but I'm curious as to your opinion on this as one of the most active maintainers of the site, and you seem to be particularly involved when it comes to link styling. According to [[Help:Editing#Links]], "It is often more useful to give the link an alternative label rather than displaying the URL." (regarding external site links). However, I noticed that on any section that lists a number of applications, such as [[List of applications]], virtually every single one of the external links uses the URL instead of an alternative label.
 +
 +
For sites that are specific to an individual application, I think it is appropriate to show the full url. However, for common sites that are used as a homepage for a number of applications, such as github repositories, it might be a better styling practice to set an alternative label like "github" or "github repository". [[Help:Editing#Links]] is not particularly strict on external links, but I personally think it would look significantly cleaner this way. Let me know what you think, I'd like to potentially bring this up with others as well. Also let me know if there's someone specific (such as a bureaucrat or admin that specializes in styling) I should discuss this with.
 +
 +
If the others are on board with this suggestion, I'd be more than willing to start applying this to a number of different pages. I think it would make for a good starter project for me to work on. As a long term aspiration of sorts, I am interested in propsect of eventually becoming a maintainer (I know that I have a long ways to go). I think it'd be a great way to improve my skills at technical documentation, while contributing to one of the most useful sites for linux documentation. -- [[User:Aeros167|Aeros167]] ([[User talk:Aeros167|talk]]) 21:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:32, 9 June 2019

Linking a category

Regarding [1], you can use a colon to link categories:

Merge-arrows-2.pngThis article or section is a candidate for merging with Category:Boot loaders.Merge-arrows-2.png

Notes: foo bar (Discuss in User talk:Nl6720#)

See: mw:Help:Categories#Linking_to_a_category -- Alad (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! -- nl6720talk 12:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Email address

Hey Nl6720,

You've disabled email from other users, but I'd like to send you a private message. If interested, would you mind contacting me on alad <at> archlinux <dot> info (address in ArchWiki:Administrators)?

Cheers -- Alad (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I re-enabled email from other users. -- nl6720talk 13:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Clarification for: The content seems questionable too, but I know nothing about these frameworks

It's a problem I met, for which I couldn't find a solution with googling, so I had to retreat to asking at IRC. In short, it's that the default Archlinux config shipped somewhere in /etc/ overwrites variables for runtime, i.e. one can't even overwrite them manually. I thought it would be useful to many others. Probably, it may cause problems not only with "oh-my-zsh", but I decided to put info in that paragraph because I'm not sure if there is a better place.

And sorry for html formatting, markup is pretty unusual, and the formatting page is surprisingly unhelpful. I.e. how to write a link I figured out only because I thought, perhaps wikipedia.org using the same markup formatting; which turned out to be right. Hi-Angel (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

User's files are sourced after their system-wide counterparts (i.e. ~/.zshrc is sourced after /etc/zsh/zshrc), so things set in ~/.zshrc should normally not be undone by /etc/zsh/zshrc. But I guess it's possible for /etc/zsh/zshrc to define a function that changes $PROMPT under certain conditions. I probably shouldn't have called the content questionable.
About formatting, start with Help:Editing then Help:Style, Help:Style/Formatting and punctuation and Help:Style/White space. There is also Help:Cheatsheet. -- nl6720talk 10:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

GRUB UEFI install

We were amending the page at the same time, can you review my latest change to see if it is consistent with your definition of esp? -- Kewl (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. -- nl6720 (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

rEFInd

nl6720 rEFInd is able to:

  • auto-detect the kernels if the file system drivers are there
  • launch the last one booted - for this to work it needs to list all unfolded

so the following minimal configuration works:

# cp /usr/share/refind/refind_x64.efi /esp/EFI/Boot/bootx64.efi
# cp -r /usr/share/refind/drivers_x64/ /esp/EFI/Boot/
# echo 'extra_kernel_version_strings linux,linux-lts,linux-git;' > /esp/EFI/Boot/refind.conf
# echo 'fold_linux_kernels false' >> /esp/EFI/Boot/refind.conf

rod smith was so kind to add the "extra_kernel_version_strings" option end of 2017 so rEFInd could handle the kernel naming conventions in arch. and with it, rEFInds problem of finding the correct fallback image was fixed, and the necessity to provide a configuration. there is no editing of a file necessary, no additional boot parameters, no tinkering with nvram, etc. currently i find really hard to detect out of the description that this works. i am inclined to break up the text slightly different - not focussing on "manual" and "scripted", and "configuration" but more in "install into EFI default location", "install in rEFInd location", "secure boot". currently the section "scripted" contains secure boot, shim, editing files. what you think? --Soloturn (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The first sentence of the section mentions the refind-install script so it should be obvious that the whole section is about using the script. Just in case I've now renamed the section to avoid any confusion. Secure boot is under the "Scripted installation" section because refind-install provides a way to automate installation on Secure Boot enabled systems. I'll repeat, the whole section is about refind-install and its provided options.
extra_kernel_version_strings was added to support multiple kernels without version numbers in their filenames, unless I've missed something rEFInd still doesn't support automatically detecting and matching fallback initramfs images with their respective kernels.
I've removed your "minimal configuration" because it mixed installation (i.e. getting rEFInd binary to the ESP) and configuration (editing refind.conf), those sections are split for a good reason. Before drastically changing an article, you must first discuss it in the article talk page (Talk:REFInd in this case), please read ArchWiki:Contributing#Announce article rewrites in a talk page. Also I would not accept adding echo 'extra_kernel_version_strings linux,linux-lts,linux-git;' > /esp/EFI/Boot/refind.conf to rEFInd, the /usr/share/refind/refind.conf-sample file has a lot of comments explaining its content, it's more useful to copy the sample and edit it. -- nl6720 (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

ok, will try. i had enough difficulties with boot loader installation. so much that i took the time to address it with the software itself, and the wiki page. i even asked rod if he would be able to adjust refind a little to make it configuration-less. but he thought using the 2 lines are appropriately minimal - and no editing of a config file would be necessary. while coding arch kernel names into rEFInd would be a bad idea. --Soloturn (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Closing. Any further discussion will be in Talk:REFInd#add a paragraph with simple installation. -- nl6720 (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Firewall Limiting

Hi Nl6720,

Thank you for the improvements to my solution to the firewall. Could I just ask, why is it you chose to explicitly list most the packet types opposed to allowing them all? Is there a security concern when the ones you omitted?

Sainty (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I compared Wikipedia:Internet Control Message Protocol#Control messages and Wikipedia:Internet Control Message Protocol for IPv6#Types with the ICMP types with names in nftables proto.c. I skipped those listed as deprecated and the one I didn't think should be needed. AFAIK only the redirects can potentially have security issues, so I skipped those too. I doubt it's really that much safer to specify only those ICMP types so it could just be considered a personal preference to allow only those that could be needed. -- nl6720 (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Closing of several discussions in one edit

Please use one edit per discussion removal. See [2] -- Alad (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry! Somehow I overlooked that rule in Help:Discussion#Closing a discussion. -- nl6720 (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

dm-crypt hooks

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Dm-crypt/Encrypting_an_entire_system#LVM_on_LUKS

>that is obvious since the examples provide full HOOK lines and "udev" is not listed in the example with the "systemd" hook

It is not obvious. The obvious ones are the ones that are highlighted.

How about highlighting udev too so it becomes obvious? —This unsigned comment is by C0rn3j (talk) 09:55, 27 December 2018‎ (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

I think it would actually be better to remove bold from systemd, it's not a hook that needs to be added when using full system encryption. Also, you added the note to only one "Configuring mkinitcpio" section, while all of them have the same issue. -- nl6720 (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
The style of the HOOK examples now match (Special:Diff/560861, Special:Diff/560863). Closing. -- nl6720 (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

firefox edit

special:diff/572054 you could save yourself some writing and link to Desktop_entries#Modify_environment_variables instead -- Ubone (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I didn't notice that section. Thanks! -- nl6720 (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding "Undo revision 574893" and "Undo revision 574894"

I mistakenly had "fixed" the link syntax on the "Persistent block device naming page". Thanks for mentioning the specific style page rule that was in violation (Help:Style#Hypertext_metaphor), that was quite helpful. If you could do that in the future as well for any mistakes I make, I'd greatly appreciate it. In the meantime I'm going to make sure I extensively read over the Help:Style page before attempting to correct style usage, but given how extensive the styling rules are, there's a decent chance I'll make a few mistakes along the way. Linking to the specific rule definitely provides me with good constructive feedback. --Aeros167 (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I usually link the rule of the style issue I'm fixing, unless I'm feeling lazy, but I can't just write "style" in the summary when undoing an edit. And having a proper edit summary is also a wiki rule: ArchWiki:Contributing#Always properly use the edit summary.
You don't need to memorize all the rules, just know where to find them. The related articles box in Help:Style links to most of the relevant pages.
-- nl6720 (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Improving style on external github links

This might be a question better directed at the bureaucrats or site admins, but I'm curious as to your opinion on this as one of the most active maintainers of the site, and you seem to be particularly involved when it comes to link styling. According to Help:Editing#Links, "It is often more useful to give the link an alternative label rather than displaying the URL." (regarding external site links). However, I noticed that on any section that lists a number of applications, such as List of applications, virtually every single one of the external links uses the URL instead of an alternative label.

For sites that are specific to an individual application, I think it is appropriate to show the full url. However, for common sites that are used as a homepage for a number of applications, such as github repositories, it might be a better styling practice to set an alternative label like "github" or "github repository". Help:Editing#Links is not particularly strict on external links, but I personally think it would look significantly cleaner this way. Let me know what you think, I'd like to potentially bring this up with others as well. Also let me know if there's someone specific (such as a bureaucrat or admin that specializes in styling) I should discuss this with.

If the others are on board with this suggestion, I'd be more than willing to start applying this to a number of different pages. I think it would make for a good starter project for me to work on. As a long term aspiration of sorts, I am interested in propsect of eventually becoming a maintainer (I know that I have a long ways to go). I think it'd be a great way to improve my skills at technical documentation, while contributing to one of the most useful sites for linux documentation. -- Aeros167 (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)