User talk:Chealer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, "Chealer" and welcome to Wikipedia. A few tips for you:

• Peruse Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and associated pages, such as
  • Wikipedia:How to edit a page
  • Wikipedia:How to write a great article
  • Wikipedia:Naming conventions
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style
• You can experiment in the Wikipedia:Sandbox.
• Sign talk page entries with ~~~~, which is automatically converted to a name and date.
• If you have any questions, see Wikipedia:Help, or you can a question at the Wikipedia:Help desk.
• I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian.. -- Infrogmation 03:12, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 A "snapshot" of its own data center (moved section) 2 Re: testing 3 Old discussions 4 xterm edit. 5 Nudge 6 Date formats 7 Comparsion articles 8 Reverts in Advanced Packaging Tool 9 MedCab case 10 Linus Torvalds 11 A Hard Day's Night 12 List of Benevolent Dictators for Life 13 Hi from mikeh0303 14 Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can 15 sidux 16 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Synaptic about.png) 17 gNewSense

[edit] A "snapshot" of its own data center (moved section)

Thanks for alerting me to your action. If you feel it has no place in the article, I won't contest your opinion. —Vespristiano 03:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: testing

Um, the /releases/ web page is only named as such, its text clearly states "The “testing” distribution contains..." (emphasis mine). Actually I think I wrote that. I'm a Debian developer who had long been the main editor of the English part of the web site. Maybe it needs fixing nowadays, but what I wrote in testing (Debian) is accurate because that's how things are in practice. Debian tests the new distribution to become a release - it is not "a release" like 'stable' is. In fact, heavens forbid that anyone would treat it as a release - Debian had to miss version 1.0 because a vendor treated one such test version as a 1.0 release, and screwed it up. --Joy [shallot] 08:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that you should complain at debian-www about this conflation of terms WRT "release". As for the word "distribution", it is fairly consistently used in two ways: one is to refer to the whole software produced by Debian, and the other is to refer to individual pieces such as "testing" or "stable" or "unstable". --Joy [shallot] 17:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Old discussions

Please don't make sections like that. Old discusssions should be archived, not put at the bottom of a page. New comments go at the bottom and anything else is cofusing for the readers. pschemp | talk 22:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Samsara apparently felt the same and did the job. I've added some sections and adapted the description.--Chealer 02:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort, but things have to stay in chronological order when archived, you can't just pick and choose parts and move them, it messes up the GFDL and makes the conversations hard to follow. In the future please, if you don't kno whow to archive correctly, let someone else do it. That particular talk page is not excessive in length and was fine before you moved stuff. Just let it be please. pschemp | talk 02:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. #wikipedia told me that would have to wait for mediawiki 2.0 and LiquidThreads... anyway, if you know better than them, I'd appreciate to know how to archive correctly. The page was actually considered as having a problematic length by mediawiki. As for "messing up the GFDL", remember we're talking about Talk pages ;)--Chealer 04:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"may be problematic" doesn't mean it is. plenty of article and talk pages have that notice, its really fine if they are like that. pschemp | talk 04:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you say that ""may be problematic" doesn't mean it is", but anyway the reason I want to eliminate/hide/mark old discussions is to help editors, not to satisfy mediawiki. The less there is, the faster it will be to see if an issue was already raised or not. If you can't tell me how to do it cleanly, I'll just drop it.--Chealer 04:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I did tell you how to do it clearly. They go in an archive, in CHRONOLOGICAL order in an exact copy of the way they were written. Nothing is pulled out of it original order. If you put a section in, all the sections above it, in order, have to go with it. And that particular talk page is just fine, so please just leave it. pschemp | talk 12:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, except that doesn't allow to mark any dead discussion as dead, but only those so old that all older discussions are dead. Thanks anyway.--Chealer 19:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. But that is the way its set up now, so that's what we do. The software is not configured for anything better. pschemp | talk 19:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] xterm edit.

I believe you're wrong. Both are terminal emulators, and whilst they do not share the codebase, they have similar features. I've therefor restored the link in question. vidarlo 13:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

So, according to you Eterm are xterm have more similar features than xterm and most others terminal emulators?--Chealer 16:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, they do not, but they are similar, and someone interested in xterm might be interested in eterm, and thus we should have that link. However, I'm not gonna revert another time, for it is not a big matter. But generally, wiki-links is a Good Thing(TM). vidarlo 14:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That's just a general statement. Links can be superfluous as any other content. In this case the page already links to terminal emulator, so there's no need to link to each of them.--Chealer 15:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nudge

Please respond to Talk:Enlightenment (X window manager), I would like some level of consensus to develop. Dysprosia 07:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date formats

It's generally considered polite to discuss changes if you're re-reverting edits from established users.

"estanblished users"? Heh

There's nothing wrong with the September 7, 2006 date format, and it reads better for unregistered users than the ISO one does.

How do you know?

Complicated links should be reserved for places where the target is ambiguous; if a redirect goes straight to the target site then it's best keeping the link simple.

How do you know?

It's policy. wikipedia:piped links.

And where does that page say that?

Your recent reverts smack of pettiness. Chris Cunningham 09:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering yours, I fail to feel much remorse.--Chealer 18:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think so. Regardless, there's no reason we need to trod on each others' toes over this. WP:DBAD. Chris Cunningham 19:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree...hopefully you understand the reciprocity this implies. Regarding the reference to DBAD, I'd point you to meta:Don't be a dick.--Chealer 20:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparsion articles

Why are you removing links to the comparison of linux distros and live distro articles? If nothing links to them then they will be orphaned. They are relevant to all the distro articles are they not?-Localzuk ^(talk) 11:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Comparison of Linux distributions is linked from Linux distribution. It is a basically useless page, so there is no need to link to it directly. With the link from Linux distribution, there is no chance that it is orphaned.--Chealer 18:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Pages should strive to be linked to by more than just one page.

How do you know? That depends on the case.

Just because you think it is a useless page doesn't mean it is so.

I said it was basically useless. It can be useful in some cases. However, I stopped trying to maintain that page myself and am well aware that it is of low quality.

Please stop removing it as it is relevant to distribution articles.

I won't. The fact that it is relevant doesn't mean it has to be directly linked.

If you think it is useless, I suggest you take it to WP:AFD.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I didn't state that it was useless. Removing links to pages to be deleted is a first step anyway.--Chealer 20:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts in Advanced Packaging Tool

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly.

I won't refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly if these people repeatedly undo my edits mistakenly.

If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

I won't be blocked from editing Wikipedia, since I never violated 3RR. I know what 3RR is, thank you anyway. Considering that some of the revertions I did were reverting 3RR violations, I consider your comment as an involuntary joke.

It's clear you're blindly reverting to some old version of yours, not even taking into account issues that had appeared settled, edits made by others since whatever version you're using, or any developments in the Talk discussions. DMacks

Clear for whom? Certainly not for me.--Chealer 21:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MedCab case

Hi, I'm going to be the mediator for the Advanced Packaging Tool MedCab case. Could I request that you discontinue the edit war to allow the mediation process to commence. Thanks, Addhoc 12:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for volunteering, despite the triviality.--Chealer 19:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that we're in mediation for this article, please use that process instead of making large-scale edits similar to the one that got us into mediation the first place. DMacks 16:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't do that unless you clarify what you're talking about.--Chealer 00:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, I just looked back at the history, and the changes that look familiar as triggering my comment are now dated a week or two ago. Database and/or serious brain glitch. Sorry for the time-lapse or mental screw-up. DMacks 02:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linus Torvalds

You removed a bunch of talk page commentary from Linus' article. While you did make the talk page much easier to follow and use, it is generally frowned upon on Wikipedia to remove the comments (however silly) of others from article talk pages. What one can do is "refactor", which generally involves creating an archive page (usually Talk:Article/Archive1, etc), and moving the comments to that page. Please don't misunderstand me -- I didn't revert your changes, and it is clear that your intentions are good. Best, -- Gnetwerker 18:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Hard Day's Night

I can't recall where I got the original image from, but many Beatles singles were reissued in the UK in the 1970s, so it's quite possible that that was the cover used. In any case, the second image is the original 1964 release, if I'm not mistaken, so it's best to go with that. Johnleemk | Talk 05:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Benevolent Dictators for Life

Hi Chealer,

...revert name change. there was no ambiguity

I included the adjectival "open-source" as there's no indication otherwise as to what kind of "Dictators" the article addresses; "Benevolent Dictator for Life" can suggest the kind of title an egotistical country's leader might give (or have given to) themselves...?   Regards, David Kernow (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hum, I realize I involuntarily removed a link to BDFL when changing the page description. I can't imagine someone would go to List of BDFLs without going to BDFL first, but anyway, I just re-added the link. I think the ambiguity should be fixed now.--Chealer 17:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine someone would go to List of BDFLs without going to BDFL first...

I agree and can't recall how I arrived at the page without passing by BDFL or an open source-related article first!  But that's what happened somehow and what prompted my edit. Anyway, yes, it should be fine; thanks for understanding my experience. Yours, David (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

PS Intriguing list for a non-specialist computer user!

[edit] Hi from mikeh0303

Hi, i noticed your were editing a page about knoppix linux, i would like to try that linux out but i dont know a good place to download it in english. If you could link me to a page that would be great.

Hi. I don't use Knoppix anymore, so I suggest you ask #knoppix on irc.freenode.net.--Chealer 04:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

[edit] sidux

hi! you've edited the sidux-page over again, referring to missing sources,striked it as an advert and that it's not under the gpl!the artikel has been worked over several times now, where do you see the advertising, where do you see the gpl bit and maybe you noticed, it has a future software tag, so it is clear, that the page is going to change soon anyway! what manual are you talking about this time? lots of questions, that i would like to get answered! and please excuse the lingo, i'm not english! :-) tania

I don't see a gpl bit, as I've removed it in my edit. There is no more future software tag. The manual I was talking about is the one I removed the link to. I replied about the advertising on the Talk page.--Chealer 18:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

i just put the future software tag back, cause it is a preview, the final will be released next week! ok, i just checked, it runs under gpl, mpl, bsd and public domain, so various should be ok!;) and why remove the manual link, as that was the only manual-link in there? the article is gonna get changed once again, cause the person, who rewrote it put some stuff in there, which is not relevant anymore! and what is that about missing sources? there has always been a link to the offical sidux-page, that being the source? sorry for asking, i've read the style and help pages, but being new to editing in wiki, some stuff is not so easy to catch up! --84.135.205.100 19:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The article already links to the Sidux website, which directly links to the manual. So there is no point in linking directly to the manual. For the sources, having the sidux website in External links doesn't imply that it's a reference. If Sidux's website is a reference, it could be added to the References section.--Chealer 22:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chealer, could you please explain on the Talk:Sidux-page, which parts of the article need a cleanup? Thank you, --77.181.92.161 11:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Chealer 00:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Synaptic about.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Synaptic about.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] gNewSense

Doesn't the reference to the FSF page consitute an endorsement? Reading the page in question shows that interviews with the creators of gNewSense can be arranged via the FSF, which certainly looks like an endorsement. As a friend of Paul O'Malley, I know that the FSF is supporting them financially - he's told me so himself. Autarch 12:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Mako brought the topic to Talk.--Chealer 00:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)