User talk:Erus Iluvatar

Thank you

Thank you for your recent edit on Pipewire. I am new to ArchWiki and missed the correct formatting. Thanks for fixing it. Cheers! Darksaber (talk)

Don't worry, everyone has to start somewhere ;). If you want to read before future contributions, look at ArchWiki:Contributing#Resources. --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Minor edit mark

Thank you for your contributions to the wiki. Please mark your edits as minor when necessary, so readers can filter them with "non-minor edits" filter. Thank you. -- Thmeiov (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I should be more careful on this. Thank you for reminding me ! --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits on the Virt-Manager page

Thanks for the recent edits you made im pretty new to ArchWiki/MediaWiki and suck formatting so thanks for fixing my bad formating ShinobuNarusaka (talk)

Hi ! Thank you for contributing a new page on a subject you're comfortable with. Don't worry, practice makes perfect. To double check your content before future contributions, look at ArchWiki:Contributing#Resources. --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 05:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

$include Readline question

Hi, thanks for your work. I've seen that you have added a space in Readline#History. `man bash` (and some blogs) have no space in "$include /etc/inputrc". Do you have any reference? --Marzal (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing out my mistake: I had read the section too quickly and concluded this line was missing a space between the prompt and the command, but this is not the case. I've reverted my edit, sorry for the confusion. --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the edit

Thanks for correcting the info, and naming it the 5000 series rather than Ryzen 9 or 5. AMD Ryzen series are even more ambiguous than Intel. AMD Ryzen 5xxx series processor could be Ryzen 5(5600x), Ryzen 9(5950x), or Ryzen 7(5800x). Currently using Ryzen 9 5950x and Ryzen 9 5900x on two of my desktops, on Windows they consume 100 watts less power and my current linux setup, so was looking into that article and was thinking of making the switch from Pop OS to Arch Linux. —This unsigned comment is by Gagan0123 (talk) 2022-06-17T04:56:21. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Hi! I saw the ambiguousness of the existing wording when finishing to revert your edit, so instead of having more people tripping on it I tried to make it better :)

Good luck on your journey ! --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Signature is unknown trust

Thanks for the edits! They made it easier to find the solution. --Topcat01 (talk)

Credit where credit is due: User:Lahwaacz did 99.99% of the work, I've only fixed a capitalization issue. --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Unified Extensible Firmware Interface/Secure Boot

Hi Erus Iluvatar, thank you for improving my contributions to the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface/Secure Boot article! Especially the formatting.

Do you think it is necessary to include an explanation what all the "basic" GRUB modules are doing, in the first code block? I couldn't find any good documentation about all these modules, I only found this thread on linux.org, which doesn't have all modules however and is already outdated. The official GNU GRUB manual has no documentation at all about the modules.

Do you think dividing the list of GRUB modules into these three parts, as done in the official Ubuntu build script, is meaningful, or is it arbitrarily / nonsensical?

Thank you in advance for an answer!

DasMenschy (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi! First of all, thank you for creating the content in the first place!

Regarding the creation of a dedicated section about GRUB modules: if you are motivated to create it, an explanation on GRUB modules would probably be a great fit for the GRUB page. I'm not sure where exactly it could fit though. Depending on the length, maybe creating GRUB/Modules could be appropriate? From a quick search in the page right now, nowhere do we explain what a "GRUB module" actually is even though we refer to them roughly 20 times!

Regarding the split into three parts: as for every classification, it is arbitrary, but nothing ever is truly neutrally written anyway :P It is logical given the reference material, and IMO feels like a good starting point for a reader trying to set up Secure Boot without wanting to include every existing modules.

Thank you again for your contributions.

--Erus Iluvatar (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:Archive in user pages

Hi

I saw your edits about Archive template in user pages, I put those following the discussion here because I didn't know of a better way to delete them. What's the proper way to get rid of those then ? Thanks ! (Bonne journée !)

-- Cvlc (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi!

You're completely right to have followed the advice of User:Lahwaacz on that, I am not allowed to delete pages as a simple maintainer, I'll try to catch an Administrator to remove those.

Do you also want the User:Cvlc/Storage Layout and Alignment and User:Cvlc/Sector Size redirects deleted too?

As for a generic way to delete pages, as far as I know it is not possible even for you own pages… I'll see if we can document this properly somewhere.

--Erus Iluvatar (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

You were right about /var filling up.

After testing for 2 weeks straight and installing/uninstalling random packages, it turns out that /var does in fact fill all the way up non-stop. Maybe that won't happen for a regular user because they wouldn't be spamming packages, but that's IMO enough for me to leave behind my suggestion of removing it off the Wiki, but yet again the decision is up to you whether it should stay on Partitioning or not. Cont999 (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm a little relieved to see that I was not completely missing the mark on the usage of /var :P

I'll be waiting for the result of the ongoing discussion at Talk:Partitioning#Separate /var: IMO keeping the sections as is should be good enough, but maybe a better wording on their actual relevance (or absence thereof) for a common setup can be achieved.

--Erus Iluvatar (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the improvements you made to the pages I created! Steffo (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

And thank you for creating the pages in the first place: I'm just trying to get the form to compliment the content :)

--Erus Iluvatar (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the wiki page edits!

I intend User:Pongo1231/Arch on Steam Deck to be documentation of getting the Steam Deck UI fully working in Arch (alongside some opinionated sections like the Btrfs section), neither of which would obviously be a fit for Steam Deck. Of course I welcome any contributions to the page. :) -- Pongo1231 (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks ! I was going to link to it in a forum exchange but it was referring to the now inexistant section of the official page, and I saw a few things I would have modified if the page was an official one, so I figured it would be good to update your guide, I'm glad you're OK with it :)

--Erus Iluvatar (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for signing my message

Thanks for signing my previously unsigned message, I'm new to this wiki and didn't know about this policy! Bean box69420 (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could help :) --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Flagged Movim page

Hello, on the 26th January you flagged the Movim page for style issues, within the Known issues section. The issue described is a bug which is currently being worked on by the developer, and thus I do not see why you flagged this, maybe my wording was not clear enough? Thanks PolarianDev (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi! You're right, my message in the Template:Style is not clear: I could not find from a quick search the issue tracking the progress on the subject the section is about. In Help:Style#"Known issues" section, it is asked to provide where possible a link to the issue described. Doubled with the "As of currently" wording, this section will be harder to update in the future for other contributors.

Where possible, I try to fix or flag sections with such wording, since I encounter frequently pages where described issue have been kept for years while they were fixed only a few months after being added to a page.

--Erus Iluvatar (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, the issue is that it is not on any issue, it was an issue I have discussed with the developer over XMPP, and thus unless someone is within the XMPP channel which it was discussed in, then there is not proof. It does not fit within the Troubleshooting section, as it is not troubleshooting, it is a known issue which the developer is aware of and is progressively trying to improve. If you got a better place to put it please let me know, but currently this is the only section where it is "most relevant".

Thanks PolarianDev (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I see! It is indeed in the right place as a "Know issue", I've updated the page to reflect this. Closing. --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit and for the clarification! PolarianDev (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

And thank you for your regular contributions :) --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Erus, when I get noticed for my contributions that is not a good thing, it probably means I am contributing too much :P

I think at this point my username is distributed across the Arch Community like a DNS record propagates across the globe, and that is not a good thing cause its mainly because of the shear amount of emails/edits/questions. PolarianDev (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Unless they get reverted, I don't think there is no such thing as "contributing too much" to our wiki, unless your personal life suffers from it :D (I mean, look at my recent contributions, it's basically a mountain of minor changes sprinkled with some worthy edits.)

As for the fear of the amount of questions you are asking, maybe pop on the Arch IRC channels instead of the mailing list for the simple ones? I don't think anyone will criticize someone asking to learn (but I'm no following the MLs, so I have no idea if you're being too noisy there :P )

--Erus Iluvatar (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

On the arch mailing list? I have more posts than the other top 4 people combined. I should really get onto the IRC but it is a bit of a meh situation, I would need to setup a bouncer for me to actually use the IRC channel productively, and I get lazy. To be honest I might go do that now as it has been on my todo list for a long time now!

As for a small comment on the Movim, it seems that me reading docs actually confuse me more, I read today that commands should begin with $ but reading your change if they are in ic they shouldn't, guess I need to read more carefully, thanks for the fix by the way :) PolarianDev (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Aouch, yeah, that might be a bit much for the format.

For IRC, take a look at Quassel, I was being lazy on getting back to a proper IRC setup (weechat, bouncer, etc…) and it stuck with me: it's a Qt client which is split between a "core" that acts as a bouncer and "clients" that connect to the "core". It's not very light, but I've especially loved the Android application for it.

No worries for my revert on movim, our style guidelines are sometimes a little confusing (for example, I still can't for the life of me manage not to mix up the two styles from Help:Style#Hypertext metaphor or Help:Style/Formatting and punctuation#Executable/application names).

--Erus Iluvatar (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I have tried quassel before, unfortunately my thoughts about it aren't great, I much prefer znc + weechat, I used to have a znc instance on my rpi 4b about 2 years ago, but the SD card on it failed and when I transitioned over to my new server setup, I never got round to hosting znc again...

As for the formatting, I guess it comes with trail and error, and the issue with writing documentation is it is very subjective, some people may understand what you are writing very well, and some people (me) can get completely misleaded. I am far from the best at writing documentation, but I still give it my best :) PolarianDev (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's make "setting a cozy IRC client" a 2023 resolution then :D

I don't remember anything major to complain about in your edits (your first pages were far from THE example of "what not to do": User:NetSysFire/The worst page ever), and yes, the style is something that comes with time.

Edit: You don't need to create a blank talk page when creating a new page, btw :P

--Erus Iluvatar (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I was not sure if it was or was not meant to be there, but seeing the red "page not existing" annoys me, so I like to create it just for obsessive reasons, if this breaks conventions I will stop, the only convention I know about is to not have blank wiki pages, not talk pages so... its a shady zone I do not know the answer for.

Thanks PolarianDev (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not the definitive authority on this, I just saw it as not necessary. I don't think we have an explicit rule against it though, but I'll try to find the answer. --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Installation alternatives?

Hello, this is a question which is not really directly towards you, but I have reached my maximum capacity of emails I should send to the arch mailing list before people start complaining again, so decided to contact you directly.

For the installation section, if there is an unofficial mirror which provides the package, should I/can I link to that mirror within the unofficial mirrors page, or should these mirrors be ignored?

Thanks,
PolarianDev (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

My first thought is to point you to Help:Style#Unofficial repositories: are these giving you an clear enough answer or can we improve their wording? --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Just for clarification, if I know of repository which contains the package I should reference it within the installation, but with the following things in mind, to not advertise the repository, to not provide setup instructions, and also to prioritise mentioning the aur package, and only mention prebuilt packages as an alternative? PolarianDev (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Yup, sounds good to me: that way you do not contribute content like someone self-promoting his work, but simply provide a simplified mean of installation for the people it will help :) --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Welp this is where it gets shady, the repository which contains the package is my own repository, I started a repository like a lot of AUR packagers do to build their own AUR packages to make it easier to install (and also means people do not need to wait for the compiling of code, and easier updates). If I knew of other mirrors which added the package to them I would include them, but I doubt it seen as I am the one who wrote the PKGBUILD and submitted it to the AUR (such as onedev-docs^AUR was written completely by me. It is not to self promote, I did not make the repository for personal gain, I did it to make my AUR packages more accessible. PolarianDev (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I had already guessed as much since I remember your edit on the Unofficial user repositories earlier today :D

As long as it is worded as an alternative to the AUR package, I don't see any issue with yourself being the one adding your repository as an alternative, especially since you're not only contributing on the pages where you packaged the software (e.g. you created a page for Xournal++).

--Erus Iluvatar (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not discriminate on what I document, if I see something I use, or have experience with is not yet documented I will add a page on it, even if it is a simple installation guide. I do not contribute to the ArchWiki for self promotion, however because the packages I contribute to, tend to not have ArchWiki pages (most AUR packages seem undocumented, unless they are very popular, which is a little sad as it means they are harder for people to get information about). So anything I do adopt from the AUR will show up on the ArchWiki too if it does not already exist.

Speaking about Xournal++ I did intend to add to the page, just have not had time to getting around to doing it, thanks for reminding me :) PolarianDev (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Excellent, so full green lights for adding your repository as an alternative to the AUR package an the relevant pages :)

It indeed a common theme to see people involved with a specific topic focusing on it both in their packages and the pages they contribute to. The difference with self-promotion is usually not too hard to make after the first few edits or weeks.

The issue you describe is similar to bootstrapping: one needs popularity so that one user will be motivated and have time to write a wiki page, but having a wiki page could increase the popularity of your package in the first place. Just keep in mind that we try to have pages that are more than a rehash of the upstream documentation (IIRC we have some details in Help:Editing#Creating pages and ArchWiki:Contributing#Creating but there was a draft at ArchWiki talk:About#Refining scope that is more precise).

I did not intend to push you to get back to the page, but I'm not going to complain if you add to it :D

Unless you had more on this topic, I'm closing it :)

--Erus Iluvatar (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Nope, I have nothing more to add to this thread, thanks for the advice and the solution to my question, as always, take care! PolarianDev (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

What to do with abandoned projects?

Hello, sorry for all the questions but this is something I have seen brought up a lot within talk pages of individual software, what do you do when the software is abandoned, should you warn within the page that the software is abandoned/has not received any updates or feedback from the developers for 1+ years, is there a flag for this?

Eureka is an example of such page I have added, only realising that there has been no commits for 1+ years and furthermore when I attempted to contact the developer on github, I got no response, I emailed them directly, and still no response, so i assume the developer has no intention of ever returning to the project. Of course this doesn't make the page useless, some people still use eureka, but am I meant to warn of this or not?

Thanks, PolarianDev (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

This will depend on the project:

• a fork exist, a Template:Note in the "Installation" section pointing readers to the alternative might be good (and in some cases the fork will become the de-facto reference for the package and replace it, see yt-dlp vs youtube-dl);
• the project has not seen activity for a few years but still builds: a Template:Note in the introduction will help readers know not to start a whole setup depending on it, see SSHFS or EncFS (though on that example it's in a Template:Warning since there are possible security issues that will not be fixed);
• for very old software especially if it no longer builds and no one was interesting in picking things up, ask for the package removal from AUR and flag the page for archival, a recent example would be XWiimote.

I've discussed jokingly with people on IRC where they had the opinion that abandoned software had simply become "feature-complete" :D

--Erus Iluvatar (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the rundown of the different situations, as for the last one it makes sense that you would remove non-working software, there is no point documenting and also distributing PKGBUILDs for software which has been abandoned and no longer builds. But in this case, surely the ArchWiki page should be archived instead of permanently deleted, so that say if another developer came along and forked it and fixed and begun to maintain it, the page is not permanently lost?

As for the other two, I assume there is no set format for the note other than clearly stating the status of the project?

Thanks for the help PolarianDev (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

As I said, the package is removed from AUR (though the PKGBUILD can still be cloned, it's only the access through the web interface that is "removed") and the wiki page is archived, see ArchWiki:Archive, no history is lost when a page redirects to there :)

There have been examples of pages pulled from the archive, like VeraCrypt (though it would need some love).

I don't think we have an existing template for inactive project.

Always a pleasure to be there when needed :) --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I misunderstood what you said (like usual), it should have been common sense pages are archived, instead of all the work being lost, guess I lack common sense :P

I do not think a template is needed, a note works well enough it seems (although this is not up to me, I am only a contributor and have no say when it comes to ArchWiki conventions).

I noticed you made a ton of changes to pages I maintain, as I have had my email ping non stop, I see they are all format and reword based, I guess Erus is now my personal re-worder (of sorts) :P

Thanks for rewording the bad parts of my pages, and for the help you have provided! PolarianDev (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't be too hard on yourself, everyone skips a word here or there :D

If it was a common enough situation, nothing would prevent you to suggest a Template creation ;)

Woops, sorry for the spam, I just find it clearer to understand when splitting my edits into understandable chunks but MediaWiki does not provide the equivalent of git's squash commits. And since I watch over the recent edits like a hawk, I'm frequently the re-worder for them :P

I'm glad I've been helpful! Closing. --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Quick note, this issue has been brought up in Talk:List of applications#List_dead_projects_or_not? —This unsigned comment is by PolarianDev (talk) 2023-01-30T21:07:28. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Hah, I knew I had seen something about that topic somewhere! Though given its age, I'm not sure it's going to go anywhere trying to restart it. But I'm glad to have had the general idea right: "if it's still working let's keep it" doubled with "when even the dev suggests to move one, it's dead" --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah well, as it has been removed from the list of applications, I submitted a deletion request to the TU's for the AUR package they were arguing about as it still exists. little bit of housekeeping! (it clearly states within the deletion request to delete packages which upstream has abandoned), but personally if it builds it should be kept, but as the developer specifically recommended people to stop using it, its probably best to archive :)

PolarianDev (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Aaand it's gone ^^ --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 06:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems my request for deletion has annoyed someone else who was planning to support it... it can always be added back but its been abandoned for like 4 years or something, so I doubt anyone is going to bother maintaining it again.

PolarianDev (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Not everything we do can please everyone every time, adopting a "removed" package is not harder than for an orphaned one, don't sweat it ^^ --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

How to edit a redirect page?

Hello,

How do I edit a redirect page (to be more specific Maven/Apache Maven, while looking through pages and also the fact I want to add a guide which is Maven related, how do I change this redirect into its own page.

Thanks PolarianDev (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)