User talk:Misfit138/The Arch Way v2.0

From ArchWiki
Latest comment: 28 July 2013 by Misfit138 in topic Deletion/merge request

Openness and Freedom are missing

The ideals espoused in the v1.0 Openness and Freedom are missing from this version. These are principals of what Arch is and I believe it is a bug to omit them. What is this v2.0 for anyway? Is there some other place a discussion of this is taking place? --EnigmaCurry (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The main author is a wiki admin and I guess it's his take on the Arch way. -- Karol (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion/merge request

This entire article is stupid. Random users shouldn't be allowed to just make up new philosophies and then lock the main article with links to this drivel. (Quoting clever people does not make you witty or intelligent.)Earnest (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Supporting your ideas with words like "stupid", "random users", "drivel" doesn't make you "witty or intelligent" either, more the opposite I'd say. Flaming is not allowed here so please rewrite your post using a respectful language. -- Kynikos (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remove the link to this article from the "The Arch Way" article please or unlock it so we can make up new ideas about arch and link to our random articles. Thanks. Earnest (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that having two The Arch Way articles is confusing and unneeded, and not simple at all. I've moved this article under Misfit138's user page, and marked all its translations for deletion. -- Kynikos (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a case of one "making a reply before hearing the matter". The Arch Wayv2.0 was in fact originally to be a collaborative effort, inspired by another user and in harmony with the "worse is better vs. MIT approach". Unfortunately, the user who urged me to start the wiki page disappeared from my radar screen, the page was largely abandoned and the concepts were never merged into v1.0, nor did they replace the originals. That page was not locked by me ever, or in recent memory at least. I do see that it was recently locked, due to "vandalism", by another admin. Earnest, it is true that I, like many other Arch "old timer" admins have moved on to other things, but have some respect, please. Misfit138 (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]