User talk:Alonbl

No author section

Hi, please don't add author sections as the MediaWiki software already saves on commit the author. You find the page history by clicking the ⧼vector-view-history⧽ page tab. Regards Astaecker 14:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

We need some kind of maintainer for pages, it cannot be as regular media wiki, the technical information must be correct and maintained. It is not forced into, but at least you have someone to contact.

What do you think?

Alonbl 14:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of maintainership, but there are also downsides. We had some discussions before opening the wiki and the consens was to see how it works.

I suggest, you simple have an eye on the pages (see also Help:Watchlist) and add a note on the discussion page, so people can contact you. --Astaecker 14:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Won't do. If wiki won't be maintain it won't be any good. Properly maintained is that there is a contact for the page.

Getting notification is not enough. A proper policy should be applied to maintained pages.

If anyone can start messing with stuff I will not participate.

--Alonbl 14:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this the basic idea of a Wiki? Anyone can "mess with it", by which I mean: improve it. I don't see why no one else should also work on these articles. I've already spotted a lot of things of which I think they could use some improvements in your articles. I don't mean your articles are bad, they cover some pretty good topics and provide some knowledge, not everyone has, but the structure is partially very messy (listing a lot of irrelevant information such as make.conf excerpts etc.). I don't want to demotivate you and appreciate the effor to contribute very much, but we all should work based on the same principles.

--Eliasp 17:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

For some people it is relevant, for some it is not, because of this there is no single RIGHT or WRONG, and many pages can be written on same subject. The OpenVPN_Server is a great example, it relates to the other articles, and provides a complete set of instructions at the face of same vision.

BTW: Providing a single article about a subject with all theoretical options only confuses people.

If you write some more articles in more organized matter, I promise I match.

--Alon Bar-Lev 18:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You can resume the discussion (probably on IRC) and see how today's opions are.

Astaecker 15:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I won't waste time for convincing people. These are my term to contribute document and knowledge, need decision so I know if I can continue. --Alon Bar-Lev 15:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The maintenance and upkeep of articles is done by people who simply care about them. If you want to take care of these articles, actively, then I applaud your effort, but I don't see how a "Author" head, or an {{Author}} template(like g-w.com has) is in any way helping with that. /Ni1s 16:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

People will know who behind, what is whole page set of a complete setup, line of though and usage. Unlike wikipedia of information, there are many ways to do the same thing, each in face of a different goal. So you can have 4 separate OpenVPN setups, each is correct, but different.

What good about a formal wiki is that everyone can share their configurations, separately and jointly. Still signing their work and part of broader picture that they may have.

--Alon Bar-Lev 18:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the narrative matters. But the goals, how the instructions are layered, the "flow" of the articles should be explained(if needed) in the introduction. One can't realistically be expected to know how the original commiter envisioned the article. And an author signature doesn't really help us with that either. /Ni1s 19:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

WOW This is stupid to discuss in wiki! Write to me alon.barlev@gmail.com.

Right, Look, I've wrote more documentation than all of you in two days. Be patient all will be in good shape once I finish. Of course I accept suggestions.

But in order to get users' cooperation you must accept that there is gentoo formal documentation which is managed by documentation project, and there is a wiki which will be manage by users.

Users should decide what is important to other users, so ease up the control freak.... BTW: This is why I retired from Gentoo, as the culture somehow is that we know better than users.

So be prepare for Alon's views and Nils view of Gentoo, each will probably use same tools and skills and produce a completely different setup. In time there will be also relation between the two as the differentiation will appear.

Each targeting different potential audience.

--Alon Bar-Lev 18:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

There will be no manually added author section in articles here. Contributions are listed on the history and this is a public wiki. If you don't like people editing your contributions, please start a private web site. I shall remove your author tags, and I ask you to not add them again. Thanks. --A3li 19:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC) (Administrator)

I thought we are finished with this discussion. PLEASE DELETE MY PAGES!!! NOW! --Alon Bar-Lev 19:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why you are upset. The principle of a Wiki system is widely known, it is a collaborative editing platform. You can feel free to watch over an article you have created, but you don't own it. I would like to stress that we very much appreciate your contributions, but to keep a quality standard in the articles (something that you noted is important to you) we follow the usual convention of not adding meta information about articles manually.

I'm also a bit surprised by that childish behavior you're displaying. Edit wars and rage-deleting your pages is something I cannot let you do, hence I banned you for a week. Please take a moment to calm down and reflect the situation. If you are willing to work together with us towards a better Gentoo, I'd be glad to have you back editing pages, however if you still feel you are entitled to exclusive authorship of your contents, then this platform is not the proper place for you to contribute. Thanks --A3li 20:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Use nowiki inside RootCmd instead of pre

Just a quick note, nowiki I think is what you want when putting long command incantations and pipes within RootCmd or Cmd templates. Also, '\' (ie. signifies no newline within Bash Scripts, Bash Shell, C source code), is primarily used within files so lines don't extend beyond 80 (or so) chars. This helps with printing and others viewing the files on small terminals. However on Media Wiki, Media Wiki wraps lines to fit users' monitors. Also, using '\' on websites within shell commands hinders the reader/user to easily copy & paste your commands all at once. In short, my thought is just to use one long line of commands within "RootCmd", "Cmd" and other similar templates.

Cheers on the nice long write-ups you're performing! (ie. "Linux Disk Encryption Using LoopAES And SmartCards") I'm just browsing along and fixing the small things if I can. ;-) --Roger 20:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much!

--Alon Bar-Lev 20:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome!

--Roger 21:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)