User talk:Flu

From ArchWiki
Latest comment: 13 November 2013 by Lahwaacz in topic Network Time Protocol daemon

Your style changes in postfix article breaks its content

While helping this confused user I found that you applied 'style' changes to the postfix article and this is an FYI that when changing 'PRE' to '{{ bc' it mangles the single quotes as they will be interpreted as wiki markup. I have corrected this specific instance but maybe you need to review some other articles you updated. :)

-- Spider.007 (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for reporting, this is a thing I really did not expect :(
-- Flu (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A little tip, when I used to "translate" <pre> to any code templates, I made use of Firefox's Tile Tabs extension in order to preview the new revision next to the old one, scrolling both at the same time, thus making it much easier to spot possible unwanted differences.
-- Kynikos (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sentence case section headings

Recently I've seen a lot of your edits regarding the Title Case -> Sentence case conversion for section headings: [1], [2] etc. You should make sure that you don't break any/too much links (they are case sensitive), but I understand that this can be checked very difficultly. I'm very sorry if you are aware of this. Perhaps the checking could be done with a bot?

-- Lahwaacz (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I was aware of this and I am aware of the problem. I thought that problem could be resolved the lazy way just correcting red links when they appear. It is not optimal of course and yes, a bot could be fine, unfortunately I do not know how to program one. Is not possible a "What links here" search for red links?
-- Flu (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that there won't be any red links - the page itself exists, only the URL fragment behind # is changed and fragments are resolved on client side. Take for example link to non-existent section in this talk page: User talk:Flu#foo. You can use the "What links here" search, but it does not support fragments (i.e. it lists all links to the main page and all its sections) - this is what I meant by very difficult when talking about the checking.
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I could write a plugin for Wiki Monkey, if somebody is interested in using it, it shouldn't be too difficult. In order to use it you should open the WhatLinksHere page for the article and launch the bot from that page, watching it check the links and either fix them or raise a warning if it can't fix them automatically. The only problem is that this would take some seconds for each processed article, since it would require several requests to the server, and also the bot is configured to add a delay between each request in order not to overload the server.
-- Kynikos (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just mentioning that Wiki Monkey 1.13.0 implements this function.
-- Kynikos (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Network Time Protocol daemon

I've fixed your recent edit to Network Time Protocol daemon: [3]. Also I have a style-related remark: you've replaced "ntpd" with "NTPd" in most cases, including those where ntpd referred to the binary in /usr/bin/ntpd. Please fix the article if you agree. Thanks,

-- Lahwaacz (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Section move]I expected the NetworkManager section describes a one-shot trick (without deamon),
but I see it is different:
This makes the trick a bit useless as note says suggests...
[Style] I am checking again the right cases.
-- Flu (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just edited the page, but I found no matches of ntpd binary for "NTPd" string, although some case seems ambiguous.
-- Flu (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. I don't know if that dispatcher script is really useful as I don't use NetworkManager, but I'd keep it there - it is a [community] package after all, not from AUR.
  2. I think that all four occurrences of "NTPd" in Network_Time_Protocol_daemon#Configuring_your_own_NTP_server refer to the binary rather than the entire application/package/project, but I guess it depends on the perspective.
    Other argument would be that the official documentation uses exclusively "ntpd" (lowercase). Also note that the project is officially just NTP, without the trailing "d". So my suggestion is to use ntpd when referencing the binary (and/or its config file /etc/ntp.conf) and NTP for the whole project. Then it should be also stated that ntp is the reference implementation of the protocol and that there are compatible alternatives.
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please check this edit and the next one (just a correction).
-- Flu (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, you did it the other way (you omitted the "d" and replaced it with just "ntp"). Now fixed, along with updated introduction and some clarification: [4].
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just saw ntp you referenced is a package, not an implementation, hence the misunderstanding. Closing
-- Flu (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, sorry... In any case, thanks for cooperation. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formatting Changes Bold -> Italic

Unfortunately, I'm bugging you about an edit from over a year ago. See Samba/Active Directory domain controller on February 14th, 2014. No reason was given for the change and I just made more changes. I went ahead and undid your changes for consistency purposes (I had more written in bold vs. italic for replacement text), but wanted to inquire as to why the changes were made in the first place. I've reviewed Help:Style and various other formatting articles and can see no place where one is suggested over the other. If there is someplace where that is defined as recommended format, that is fine and I'll go back and change all instances, but to my eyes, the bold does its job much better than italic. Thanks in advance. DJ L (talk)

Responding to myself, After careful review of Help:Style/Formatting_and_punctuation, I'm fairly certain that bold text is acceptable formatting given the length of many of the command blocks and the relative weight of the commands (ie: having to do many steps over again if done incorrectly). Consistency is important as well, giving justification to the few short lines where italic would normally be preferred. DJ L (talk)