Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
> > It's already been translated into several languages - you just click the > drop-down. > All the Asturians out there can finally be appeased. We're talking about the *new* text string, Einstein. You know, after "File Request" is changed to something better? That's not how AURweb development works, and TUs don't have anything to > do with that. In cases like this, I believe it should be. This change is a no-brainer and it'd only take the right person a few minutes. If a TU isn't high-ranking enough, so be it. I am pretty sure you don't actually want the fix, or you would have > submitted a fix yourself. A four-line fix of a couple text strings... I wanted to leave it to someone higher up, so that I wouldn't have to go looking through the codebase. I didn't see the point in reinventing the wheel at my end. Instead you started a flame war on the mailing lists. Are you telling me > you genuinely thought that was the best way to get results? My intention was to post the first message and leave it at that. Since then, I've had a constant stream of belligerent buffoons finding every possible reason to block this change. I can hardly be blamed for not wanting to let such imbeciles win out over common sense. I think I was officially diagnosed with mild Asperger's... > I'm pretty sure though that I posted a patch [1] instead of arguing. Be grateful that you're not bipolar-1. You got off lightly with mild Asperger's. Thank-you very much for submitting the patch. I'm sure it will be for the better (assuming it's accepted). Is it possible your analysis of the situation is wrong? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I wasn't suggesting that those with Asperger's aren't intelligent. As mentioned in an earlier message: "There are plenty of highly intelligent people working at NASA who have that condition." Because a bugtracker ticket is a formal request for a resolution, and > you are guaranteed to get at least enough attention to merit either an > "OK" or a "NO", from someone who is actually responsible for taking care > of the AUR website > And because any-random-TU can't just edit the website willy-nilly, there > is an actual project with a maintainer. > Anyone can contribute. :) In the beginning, I was unaware that the Bugtracker could apply to the AUR website itself. Maybe I should've done my research first, but I was in a hurry at the time. Then, after battling hard to stop a bunch of idiots ruining a good idea, I didn't want to start the whole thing over again somewhere else. Since it appears your primary goal here was to pick a fight, I'd think > you'd be thrilled at the opportunity to bicker over the dictionary, you > ingrate. Again, I see it in the reverse direction. Several people in this thread were trying desperately to find little flaws in my statements, and I felt it necessary to make them look foolish (in order to stop their nonsensical campaign to shut down a good idea). I'm not ungrateful towards people who help me out (like you). Some others, on the other hand, only wanted to shut the whole idea down and leave things as they are/were. The way I see it, I was just doing what I had to do in order to get this change pushed through in a timely manner. Anyway, thanks again for your efforts. I am grateful for the time you've spent on this. Now that this problem is solved, "respiranto" is welcome to get back to telling his elaborate jokes (if he so wishes). I won't be replying further to this thread, unless someone says something directed at me.
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
I didn't want to reply all, but good job :) - Justin
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
On 11/23/2015 03:19 AM, Xavion wrote: > I think you're still missing the point. I'm simply trying to defeat all of > the goons who are arguing with me, because that puts me in the best stead > to achieve my goal. My view is that it's absurd how hard you guys are > trying to prevent me from pushing through this incredibly simple fix. I am pretty sure you don't actually want the fix, or you would have submitted a fix yourself. A four-line fix of a couple text strings... Instead you started a flame war on the mailing lists. Are you telling me you genuinely thought that was the best way to get results? > I find it amusing that I'm trying to make things easier for people who are > confused by (part of) the AUR website, while you're trying to convince me > that I've got mental health problems and need to seek counselling. It > looks like that Asperger's comment really hit the spot. I think I was officially diagnosed with mild Asperger's... I'm pretty sure though that I posted a patch [1] instead of arguing. Is it possible your analysis of the situation is wrong? > As mentioned in my last email: "Also, I don't know why creating a ticket on > the Bugtracker should be a complementary requirement. My view is that a TU > should have made the necessary change immediately after reading my very > first message." Because a bugtracker ticket is a formal request for a resolution, and you are guaranteed to get at least enough attention to merit either an "OK" or a "NO", from someone who is actually responsible for taking care of the AUR website And because any-random-TU can't just edit the website willy-nilly, there is an actual project with a maintainer. Anyone can contribute. :) > Firstly, that's quite a long sentence for someone who seems to idolise the > dictionary. Secondly, what you've written directly above provides no > reason not to remove the ambiguity of "File Request". If they're searching > for a file to download, seeing "Lodge a Request" or "Make a Request" would > act as more of a deterrent than "File Request" does. Since it appears your primary goal here was to pick a fight, I'd think you'd be thrilled at the opportunity to bicker over the dictionary, you ingrate. [1] https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-dev/2015-November/003866.html -- Eli Schwartz
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 19:19:53 +1100 Xavion : > As mentioned in my last email: "Also, I don't know why creating a > ticket on the Bugtracker should be a complementary requirement. My > view is that a TU should have made the necessary change immediately > after reading my very first message." That's not how AURweb development works, and TUs don't have anything to do with that. So get in line, or even better, send patches: https://projects.archlinux.org/aurweb.git/ https://bugs.archlinux.org/index/proj2?due[0]=141&do=index&order=id&sort=desc --byte (still waiting for #46645 to finally land in production) pgpw06b7tSEMX.pgp Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
On 23 November 2015 at 08:43, Xavion wrote: > > > > I almost forgot about the translated versions of this string. After > > all, aurweb is offered in multiple languages… > > > > That's already been noted in this thread. If no translators are available > right now, Google Translate would suffice as a temporary solution. > It's already been translated into several languages - you just click the drop-down. All the Asturians out there can finally be appeased.
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
> > I almost forgot about the translated versions of this string. After > all, aurweb is offered in multiple languages… > That's already been noted in this thread. If no translators are available right now, Google Translate would suffice as a temporary solution.
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
I almost forgot about the translated versions of this string. After all, aurweb is offered in multiple languages…
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
Greetings, Marky Mark. I was wondering whether you'd show your face in
these parts again. I'd like to start by listing a few fragments of the
emails you've sent me recently. I removed the "uc" from the middle of
"f**king" in order to keep things relatively clean here. I've also noted
my replies below your statements as I wouldn't want the likes of you to get
the final word.
Begin {
I really do not care about what you think about me, so if this is how
> you make yourself feel validated, I feel sorry for you.
I just think you're arguing for the sake of arguing. I don't think you
even believe in what you're saying. No-one could be that stupid.
I don't know about making myself feel validated. I'm just trying to get
the desired outcome as quickly as possible.
Are you twelve or are you just a petulant man-child who never got
> attention from your parents? You feeling this strongly about a f**king
> word is absurd.
I think you're still missing the point. I'm simply trying to defeat all of
the goons who are arguing with me, because that puts me in the best stead
to achieve my goal. My view is that it's absurd how hard you guys are
trying to prevent me from pushing through this incredibly simple fix.
Of all seriousness, when I said I felt sorry for you, I meant it. I
> would consult a counselor if I were you since you desperately need help
> with your mental situation.
What I find is that, whenever people finally admit to themselves that
they've lost the argument, they start changing the subject and trying to
make me feel small. Given that I can see that this is what they're doing,
it has no impact on my state of happiness.
I wish you the best of luck in life and that you may find the help you
> need.
I find it amusing that I'm trying to make things easier for people who are
confused by (part of) the AUR website, while you're trying to convince me
that I've got mental health problems and need to seek counselling. It
looks like that Asperger's comment really hit the spot.
} End
Now Mark, I was hoping that'd be the last I heard from you, especially as
you'd sincerely wished me the best of luck in life. However, it looks like
you've not only come back, but that you've done so with a new-found
authority. BTW, if you're displeased that I've listed the above fragments
here in public, be thankful that I didn't just forward them onto Jackson
College instead.
That's one of the functions of the bug tracker, to report bugs and make
> enhancement suggestions. On the bug tracker, there's even a "General
> Gripe" task type that this would be probably best for.
>
> Here's a link to creating a task for aurweb: https://bugs.archlinux.org
> /newtask/proj2
>
As mentioned in my last email: "Also, I don't know why creating a ticket on
the Bugtracker should be a complementary requirement. My view is that a TU
should have made the necessary change immediately after reading my very
first message."
> They may have set up an Arch Linux system, but that doesn't mean they
> understand how Arch Linux's build system works or even how to use git
> to download the PKGBUILD or click a link that has the word download in
> it.
>
Firstly, that's quite a long sentence for someone who seems to idolise the
dictionary. Secondly, what you've written directly above provides no
reason not to remove the ambiguity of "File Request". If they're searching
for a file to download, seeing "Lodge a Request" or "Make a Request" would
act as more of a deterrent than "File Request" does.
> I think all that can be said about this issue has been said and with
> that, we should not entertain this issue here anymore.
>
I disagree with that completely, and you of all people have Buckley's
chance of shutting me up. I think we should leave this thread active until
a TU finally gets off his rear end and changes "File Request" to "Make a
Request" (in the interim). However, as you've obviously had enough of this
thread, I would suggest that maybe you should move on from it!
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
On Mon, 2015-11-23 at 11:39 +1100, Xavion wrote: > > > > Can we just make a poll or something and post it on the feature > > request for > > this? There is a lot of noise and talk and generally shitty > > behaviour all > > around; I (and I assume many others) are signed up to the mailing > > list for > > AUR related news; not petty arguments over english semantics. > > > > If you think this thread has become sh!tty, how about you just ignore > it > from now on? Also, I don't know why creating a ticket on the > Bugtracker > should be a complementary requirement. My view is that a TU should > have > made the necessary change immediately after reading my very first > message. That's one of the functions of the bug tracker, to report bugs and make enhancement suggestions. On the bug tracker, there's even a "General Gripe" task type that this would be probably best for. Here's a link to creating a task for aurweb: https://bugs.archlinux.org /newtask/proj2 > > I was just proving your statement: > > Honestly, I think it's a joke that we even need to have this > discussion. > > > You were also taking the focus off the main issue: that "File > Request" > (only) needs to be changed at this point. > > > > Since when are jokes considered a waste of time? > > > > Maybe that was another attempt at a joke. I can't really tell > because I > don't find them funny (no offence). I'm just trying to get a simple > problem solved here, and I don't see the point in turning it into an > elaborate joke. > > There's a difference between _understanding_ the syntactical > semantics of a > > statement to _knowing_ the meaning of an English word. > > (By syntactical semantics I mean the semantics that can be derived > > from > > the syntax.) > > > I wasn't suggesting there isn't. I just assumed ESLs learn about > "lodge" > being used as a verb before they learn all that other crap you were > going > on about. > > Does it harm you to read these two mails? > > > Again, I never said it does. I'm simply of the opinion that they're > a > waste of time (for you as well). > > You miss my point. > > If somebody interpretes a deletion request as a way of getting > > something, > > then he does either understand no English at all, so should get > > used to use > > a dictionary, or lacks the ability of setting up and running an > > Arch system > > completely. > > Nor would he be able to use the package on another distribution, by > > the > > way. > > > No, I got that the first time. The issue I have is that two Archers > in the > last fortnight have misinterpreted "File Request" with respect to my > packages alone. I highly doubt that either of them would've bothered > to > create an AUR account and lodge these requests if they didn't already > have > a running Arch system. They're not total morons. They may have set up an Arch Linux system, but that doesn't mean they understand how Arch Linux's build system works or even how to use git to download the PKGBUILD or click a link that has the word download in it. > > I want that file too. > > Come on, just give the damn file already and let's get this over > > with. > > > FWIW, I consider that to be a fair bit funnier than the > aforementioned > jokes. > > > > I totally concur. This discussion is getting less and less > > productive > > with each round of emails. > > > Again: Don't like it? Don't read it! > > On the OP's proposal though, IMHO, if such user mistakes happen often > > enough, a change is certainly warranted. If they, however, occur > > only > > occasionally, then probably the issue shouldn't be high priority. > > Free > > projects like Arch have only so much available resources, after > > all, > > and lengthy discussions tend to eat those resources up quite fast. > > > This necessary yet trivial change would take the right person only a > few > minutes to implement. The fastest way to render this thread obsolete > would > be to do so without further delay. The string could at least be > changed to > "Make a Request" (which no-one seems to have a problem with) as an > interim > measure. I think all that can be said about this issue has been said and with that, we should not entertain this issue here anymore. Mark Weiman
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
> > Can we just make a poll or something and post it on the feature request for > this? There is a lot of noise and talk and generally shitty behaviour all > around; I (and I assume many others) are signed up to the mailing list for > AUR related news; not petty arguments over english semantics. > If you think this thread has become sh!tty, how about you just ignore it from now on? Also, I don't know why creating a ticket on the Bugtracker should be a complementary requirement. My view is that a TU should have made the necessary change immediately after reading my very first message. I was just proving your statement: Honestly, I think it's a joke that we even need to have this discussion. You were also taking the focus off the main issue: that "File Request" (only) needs to be changed at this point. > Since when are jokes considered a waste of time? > Maybe that was another attempt at a joke. I can't really tell because I don't find them funny (no offence). I'm just trying to get a simple problem solved here, and I don't see the point in turning it into an elaborate joke. There's a difference between _understanding_ the syntactical semantics of a > statement to _knowing_ the meaning of an English word. > (By syntactical semantics I mean the semantics that can be derived from > the syntax.) I wasn't suggesting there isn't. I just assumed ESLs learn about "lodge" being used as a verb before they learn all that other crap you were going on about. Does it harm you to read these two mails? Again, I never said it does. I'm simply of the opinion that they're a waste of time (for you as well). You miss my point. > If somebody interpretes a deletion request as a way of getting something, > then he does either understand no English at all, so should get used to use > a dictionary, or lacks the ability of setting up and running an Arch system > completely. > Nor would he be able to use the package on another distribution, by the > way. No, I got that the first time. The issue I have is that two Archers in the last fortnight have misinterpreted "File Request" with respect to my packages alone. I highly doubt that either of them would've bothered to create an AUR account and lodge these requests if they didn't already have a running Arch system. They're not total morons. I want that file too. > Come on, just give the damn file already and let's get this over with. FWIW, I consider that to be a fair bit funnier than the aforementioned jokes. > I totally concur. This discussion is getting less and less productive > with each round of emails. Again: Don't like it? Don't read it! On the OP's proposal though, IMHO, if such user mistakes happen often > enough, a change is certainly warranted. If they, however, occur only > occasionally, then probably the issue shouldn't be high priority. Free > projects like Arch have only so much available resources, after all, > and lengthy discussions tend to eat those resources up quite fast. This necessary yet trivial change would take the right person only a few minutes to implement. The fastest way to render this thread obsolete would be to do so without further delay. The string could at least be changed to "Make a Request" (which no-one seems to have a problem with) as an interim measure.
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
On 22/11/15 23:38, Justin Dray wrote: > Can we just make a poll or something and post it on the feature request for > this? There is a lot of noise and talk and generally shitty behaviour all > around; I (and I assume many others) are signed up to the mailing list for > AUR related news; not petty arguments over english semantics. I totally concur. This discussion is getting less and less productive with each round of emails. On the OP's proposal though, IMHO, if such user mistakes happen often enough, a change is certainly warranted. If they, however, occur only occasionally, then probably the issue shouldn't be high priority. Free projects like Arch have only so much available resources, after all, and lengthy discussions tend to eat those resources up quite fast. Cheers, Luchesar
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
I want that file too. Come on, just give the damn file already and let's get this over with. cheers! mar77i
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
On 11/22/2015 09:50 PM, Xavion wrote: It was intended as a reductio ad absurdum. I assumed a statement to be true and proved its absurdity. Great, but I still can't see how it wasn't a complete waste of time for all concerned. I was just proving your statement: Honestly, I think it's a joke that we even need to have this discussion. Since when are jokes considered a waste of time? You've got all of that knowledge, yet you want us to believe that you've never seen "lodge" used as a verb. There's a difference between _understanding_ the syntactical semantics of a statement to _knowing_ the meaning of an English word. (By syntactical semantics I mean the semantics that can be derived from the syntax.) Then you must be saying that the two times this has happened to me in the last fortnight were purely fictional. Does it harm you to read these two mails? If somebody though does so, we can in almost all cases not expect him to be able to follow or have followed the Installation- or Beginner's Guide. Yep, so don't send him back to the Wiki for more reading. Just change "File Request" to "Lodge a Request" or "Make a Request" and be done with it. Two alternatives would be "Request Modification" and "Administrative Request", but maybe the longer words would cause problems for the ESL community. You miss my point. If somebody interpretes a deletion request as a way of getting something, then he does either understand no English at all, so should get used to use a dictionary, or lacks the ability of setting up and running an Arch system completely. Nor would he be able to use the package on another distribution, by the way.
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
Can we just make a poll or something and post it on the feature request for this? There is a lot of noise and talk and generally shitty behaviour all around; I (and I assume many others) are signed up to the mailing list for AUR related news; not petty arguments over english semantics. - Justin
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
> > I am not a native english speaker and have never heard of the word lodge > as a verb before. I find that hard to believe, given the lengths you've gone to with your other point. It was intended as a reductio ad absurdum. I assumed a statement to be true > and proved its absurdity. Great, but I still can't see how it wasn't a complete waste of time for all concerned. Furthermore, all these expressions are actions, constituted by the verb of > the action and a noun - the respective object. > Accordingly the meaning of the discussed statement should be obvious in > the context. > You've got all of that knowledge, yet you want us to believe that you've never seen "lodge" used as a verb. > If not, as it has been said before, I can't imagine somebody sending a > deletion request with the serious intention to request a file. Then you must be saying that the two times this has happened to me in the last fortnight were purely fictional. If somebody though does so, we can in almost all cases not expect him to be > able to follow or have followed the Installation- or Beginner's Guide. Yep, so don't send him back to the Wiki for more reading. Just change "File Request" to "Lodge a Request" or "Make a Request" and be done with it. Two alternatives would be "Request Modification" and "Administrative Request", but maybe the longer words would cause problems for the ESL community. Seems to me that "File a request" would satisfy all concerned and > be more correct semantically than "File Request", though I doubt it > will stop confused users from clicking on it.. "The word "file" has a double meaning with respect to the AUR, while "lodge" does not. This is because the AUR's central topic is "files", but it has nothing to do with "lodges". Moreover, the use of the word "file" - even though it may be correct - is what's causing all of the confusion. I'm constantly amazed that so many people are unable to understand that. Possibly one could remove "File Request", and replace it with 3 > links: "File a deletion request", "File an orphan request" and "File a > merge request". The space is there, and I suppose that this would > remove any possible confusion of its usage. I think they want it to remain one link for two reasons: to keep the list concise, and because separate links would take them to the same "request" screen anyway.
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 01:39:05 +0100 Johannes Löthberg wrote: > Hardly better. "File a Request" would be better though, but I don't > feel like rebuilding the translation catalogues, so I'll let Lukas > change it. I'll add my 2 cents to the flames ;) Seems to me that "File a request" would satisfy all concerned and be more correct semantically than "File Request", though I doubt it will stop confused users from clicking on it.. FWIW, though my English is pretty good, I still spent a second or two contemplating what the link really meant the first time I saw it. To be pedantic, there are several that could be improved grammatically, though this is the only confusing one, the use of capitals could also be made more consistent. Possibly one could remove "File Request", and replace it with 3 links: "File a deletion request", "File an orphan request" and "File a merge request". The space is there, and I suppose that this would remove any possible confusion of its usage. -- Joakim
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
On 22/11, Xavion wrote: Because that's not how the English language (, or any that I know of, for that matter,) works. With a name like Johannes Löthberg, I'm going to assume that English isn't your first language. Therefore, unless you have at least a master's degree in linguistics, I wouldn't recommend thinking you know more about English than a native speaker does. ... You hardly need to have a degree in anything to know more about English than a native speaker. In fact, native speakers tends to know less about their language than non-native speakers. Assuming that you are, in fact, a native speaker of English, you're proving yourself to be a prime example of this. "Doesn't" is the negative of "does", `Doesn't` is the grammatical negation of `does`, yes. "prevent" is the negative of "allow", ... while `prevent` is the semantic negative of `allow`, not a grammatical negative. and "confusing" is the negative of "clear". Again semantics, not grammar. Another example is "I'm not feeling bad" versus "I'm feeling good". Here, the "not" and the "bad" are just like the "doesn't" and the "prevent" in Mark's sentence. It is most definitely not. A double negative is a grammatical construct where two forms of /grammatical/ negation is used in the same sentence. Using a semantically negative word in the same sentence as a grammatically negated one does not in any way or form count as a double negative. Guys, how much longer is this going to continue? Maybe you have a problem with my ego, but, for Christ's sake, "Lodge a Request" is clearly better than "File Request" (in this context). Hardly better. "File a Request" would be better though, but I don't feel like rebuilding the translation catalogues, so I'll let Lukas change it. -- Sincerely, Johannes Löthberg PGP Key ID: 0x50FB9B273A9D0BB5 https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
On Sun, 2015-11-22 at 08:19 +1100, Xavion wrote: > > > > I can understand someone getting confused when they first click on > > it; and > > any of the suggested name changes sound pretty logical. But, how > > does > > someone click on that, then select deletion or merge to some other > > request > > type, enter text and then click submit without realizing 'This > > probably > > wasn't a download link' > > > > They probably go there thinking it's the only way to "request a > file". > Once they're there, they have difficulty choosing between "deletion", > "merge", and "orphan". They don't want to proceed, but they know of > no > other way to request that file :-). So, they randomly choose one of > those > options and send their unrelated request away. Essentially, they > only > proceed because they think the AUR doesn't have an inbuilt file > requesting > facility. > > I think people would be surprised at just how often this > happens. Less > than a fortnight ago, someone else did the same thing with another of > my > packages. That guy filed both deletion and orphan requests with the > following comments: > * Deletion: "Hi, Can anybody provide me this package ? Git not found. > Use > for bcm4312 . Thanx" > * Orphan: "L can't find this package , can you upload it somebody ? > Thanx" > > I liken this problem to that of gun laws in the US. If nothing is > done > about them, the mass shootings will continue. Similarly, if "File > Request" > isn't at least changed to "File a Request", the occasional Arch > newbie will > annoy/worry package maintainers with these bogus requests. Still, > according to the Gospel of Mark, it doesn't need to be changed > because *he* > has no trouble interpreting the meaning of the link in its current > form. Since there's a new "Gospel of Mark" outside of the Christian Bible that I have not written and is somehow about me (that I have not read yet, please send me a copy), it would probably say to read documentation and understand what you are using before you use attempt to use it. If this person is being serious, he should be made aware of the documentation available. Also what does the gun laws in the United States have to do with any part of this? Usually the people who use those guns are familiar with how to use one. This is a case where ignorance is causing an issue and I only think it is a trivial problem (or lack of). Mark Weiman
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
> > Because that's not how the English language (, or any that I know of, for > that matter,) works. With a name like Johannes Löthberg, I'm going to assume that English isn't your first language. Therefore, unless you have at least a master's degree in linguistics, I wouldn't recommend thinking you know more about English than a native speaker does. "Doesn't" is the negative of "does", "prevent" is the negative of "allow", and "confusing" is the negative of "clear". Another example is "I'm not feeling bad" versus "I'm feeling good". Here, the "not" and the "bad" are just like the "doesn't" and the "prevent" in Mark's sentence. Capish? Guys, how much longer is this going to continue? Maybe you have a problem with my ego, but, for Christ's sake, "Lodge a Request" is clearly better than "File Request" (in this context). Nonetheless, keep coming at me with the pointless rebuttals if you so desire.
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
On 22/11, Xavion wrote: No double negative here. Why not? His sentence was "There are plenty of words in the English language that have multiple meanings and it doesn't prevent me or others from confusing the intent." How can "doesn't prevent", coupled with "confusing", not be considered at least a double negative? Because that's not how the English language (, or any that I know of, for that matter,) works. -- Sincerely, Johannes Löthberg PGP Key ID: 0x50FB9B273A9D0BB5 https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
> > No double negative here. > Why not? His sentence was "There are plenty of words in the English language that have multiple meanings and it doesn't prevent me or others from confusing the intent." How can "doesn't prevent", coupled with "confusing", not be considered at least a double negative? > Obviously true (the part about the double meaning) but this needn't get > personal. > The debate will go on forever if I don't make him realise in no uncertain terms that he's completely missing the point. Anyway, suggesting someone might have Asperger syndrome isn't necessarily an insult. There are plenty of highly intelligent people working at NASA who have that condition. > Perhaps getting people to consult the wiki rather than 'fly-blind' isn't so > bad? > Ensures we are all on the same page. > They won't do it, mate. People are in a hurry to get sh!t done. They want the AUR's interface to be easy to understand. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink. No matter how much you direct some people to the Wiki, they will inevitably choose to "fly blind" anyway.
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
> > I can understand someone getting confused when they first click on it; and > any of the suggested name changes sound pretty logical. But, how does > someone click on that, then select deletion or merge to some other request > type, enter text and then click submit without realizing 'This probably > wasn't a download link' > They probably go there thinking it's the only way to "request a file". Once they're there, they have difficulty choosing between "deletion", "merge", and "orphan". They don't want to proceed, but they know of no other way to request that file :-). So, they randomly choose one of those options and send their unrelated request away. Essentially, they only proceed because they think the AUR doesn't have an inbuilt file requesting facility. I think people would be surprised at just how often this happens. Less than a fortnight ago, someone else did the same thing with another of my packages. That guy filed both deletion and orphan requests with the following comments: * Deletion: "Hi, Can anybody provide me this package ? Git not found. Use for bcm4312 . Thanx" * Orphan: "L can't find this package , can you upload it somebody ? Thanx" I liken this problem to that of gun laws in the US. If nothing is done about them, the mass shootings will continue. Similarly, if "File Request" isn't at least changed to "File a Request", the occasional Arch newbie will annoy/worry package maintainers with these bogus requests. Still, according to the Gospel of Mark, it doesn't need to be changed because *he* has no trouble interpreting the meaning of the link in its current form.
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
On 21 November 2015 at 20:16, Xavion wrote: > > > > As a native English speaker, I have never misinterpreted the meaning of > > that link. There are plenty of words in the English language that have > > multiple meanings and it doesn't prevent me or others from confusing > > the intent. > > > > Actually, that second sentence of yours seems pretty confusing to me. It > looks like you've used a double negative, which gives the opposite meaning > than the one you intended. I just hope you're never tasked with > contributing to any of the Arch Wiki articles. > > No double negative here. > > > Lodge also has a noun and verb meaning. As a noun, it is a temporary > > home and as a verb, it can also mean to live in a temporary home. By > > your logic, this makes the word even worse of a choice. > > > > I'm starting to wonder whether you might have Asperger syndrome. Just > because the dictionary says something doesn't mean it fits all contexts. > The word "file" has a double meaning with respect to the AUR, while "lodge" > does not. This is because the AUR's central topic is "files", but it has > nothing to do with "lodges". > Obviously true (the part about the double meaning) but this needn't get personal. > My view is that leaving the AUR in a confusing state and forcing Archers to > go to the Wiki for answers is a pretty stupid idea. Several people have > already said that they were nearly tricked by "File Request". How many > more will need to speak up before you'll finally admit that it's necessary > to make a change? > Perhaps getting people to consult the wiki rather than 'fly-blind' isn't so bad? Ensures we are all on the same page.
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
> > As a native English speaker, I have never misinterpreted the meaning of > that link. There are plenty of words in the English language that have > multiple meanings and it doesn't prevent me or others from confusing > the intent. > Actually, that second sentence of yours seems pretty confusing to me. It looks like you've used a double negative, which gives the opposite meaning than the one you intended. I just hope you're never tasked with contributing to any of the Arch Wiki articles. > Lodge also has a noun and verb meaning. As a noun, it is a temporary > home and as a verb, it can also mean to live in a temporary home. By > your logic, this makes the word even worse of a choice. > I'm starting to wonder whether you might have Asperger syndrome. Just because the dictionary says something doesn't mean it fits all contexts. The word "file" has a double meaning with respect to the AUR, while "lodge" does not. This is because the AUR's central topic is "files", but it has nothing to do with "lodges". > Furthermore, I am a firm believer of reading documentation and the Arch > Wiki has a spot on the Arch User Repository page that explains how to > file requests [1] and how to grab the PKGBUILDs then how to install > them [2]. If the link is changed, I think Jiachen Yang has a better > solution. > My view is that leaving the AUR in a confusing state and forcing Archers to go to the Wiki for answers is a pretty stupid idea. Several people have already said that they were nearly tricked by "File Request". How many more will need to speak up before you'll finally admit that it's necessary to make a change?
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
I can understand someone getting confused when they first click on it; and any of the suggested name changes sound pretty logical. But, how does someone click on that, then select deletion or merge to some other request type, enter text and then click submit without realizing 'This probably wasn't a download link' - Justin
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
Sorry for top-reply, but GMail on Android has no way to change it. Anyways, I can suggest some ways: - File a Request (already suggested) - Open a Request - Make a Request I'm not a native English speaker (I'm Italian) but I think this can be a good alternative. I, sometimes, do have some misunderstanding with "File request" but "File a request" would be a really clear way of handling it. Giovanni Santini My blog: http://giovannisantini.tk My code: https://github.com/ItachiSan My code, again: https://gitlab.com/u/ItachiSan My Twitter: https://twitter.com/santini__gio My Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/giovanni.santini My Google+: https://plus.google.com/+GiovanniSantini/ My GPG: 2FADEBF5 Il 21 nov 2015 6:27 PM, Mark Weiman ha scritto: > > On Sat, 2015-11-21 at 18:31 +1100, Xavion wrote: > > If we wish to continue using the word "file" in this context, "File > > Request" should be changed to "File a Request". This would prevent > > native > > English speakers from misinterpreting our use of "file" as a noun. > > As a native English speaker, I have never misinterpreted the meaning of > that link. There are plenty of words in the English language that have > multiple meanings and it doesn't prevent me or others from confusing > the intent. > > > Having said that, I still feel that "lodge" is a more appropriate > > term in > > this situation. The main reason, and I hope you're concentrating > > this time > > Mark, is that there's no double meaning (i.e. noun vs verb). > > Lodge also has a noun and verb meaning. As a noun, it is a temporary > home and as a verb, it can also mean to live in a temporary home. By > your logic, this makes the word even worse of a choice. > > > For people who don't like "Lodge a Request", there's always "Make a > > Request". In fact, I imagine most similar websites would use the > > latter > > term in preference to either of the two mentioned alternatives. > > > > Regardless, clinging to the textbook and saying that nothing needs to > > be > > changed is too rigid and impractical. We're not doing a maths test > > here! > > This is all about practicality and cutting down on confusion. > > Furthermore, I am a firm believer of reading documentation and the Arch > Wiki has a spot on the Arch User Repository page that explains how to > file requests [1] and how to grab the PKGBUILDs then how to install > them [2]. If the link is changed, I think Jiachen Yang has a better > solution. > > Mark Weiman > > [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository#Other_req > uests > [2] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository#Installin > g_packages
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
On Sat, 2015-11-21 at 18:31 +1100, Xavion wrote: > If we wish to continue using the word "file" in this context, "File > Request" should be changed to "File a Request". This would prevent > native > English speakers from misinterpreting our use of "file" as a noun. As a native English speaker, I have never misinterpreted the meaning of that link. There are plenty of words in the English language that have multiple meanings and it doesn't prevent me or others from confusing the intent. > Having said that, I still feel that "lodge" is a more appropriate > term in > this situation. The main reason, and I hope you're concentrating > this time > Mark, is that there's no double meaning (i.e. noun vs verb). Lodge also has a noun and verb meaning. As a noun, it is a temporary home and as a verb, it can also mean to live in a temporary home. By your logic, this makes the word even worse of a choice. > For people who don't like "Lodge a Request", there's always "Make a > Request". In fact, I imagine most similar websites would use the > latter > term in preference to either of the two mentioned alternatives. > > Regardless, clinging to the textbook and saying that nothing needs to > be > changed is too rigid and impractical. We're not doing a maths test > here! > This is all about practicality and cutting down on confusion. Furthermore, I am a firm believer of reading documentation and the Arch Wiki has a spot on the Arch User Repository page that explains how to file requests [1] and how to grab the PKGBUILDs then how to install them [2]. If the link is changed, I think Jiachen Yang has a better solution. Mark Weiman [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository#Other_req uests [2] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository#Installin g_packages
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
If we wish to continue using the word "file" in this context, "File Request" should be changed to "File a Request". This would prevent native English speakers from misinterpreting our use of "file" as a noun. Having said that, I still feel that "lodge" is a more appropriate term in this situation. The main reason, and I hope you're concentrating this time Mark, is that there's no double meaning (i.e. noun vs verb). For people who don't like "Lodge a Request", there's always "Make a Request". In fact, I imagine most similar websites would use the latter term in preference to either of the two mentioned alternatives. Regardless, clinging to the textbook and saying that nothing needs to be changed is too rigid and impractical. We're not doing a maths test here! This is all about practicality and cutting down on confusion.
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
On 11/21/2015 01:40 AM, Ben Oliver wrote: > On 20 November 2015 at 16:22, Mark Weiman wrote: > >> The word file is a fine word to use and is used correctly. >> >> As a verb, file means to make application (to file a complaint; to file >> for a job; to file a request). Since this follows a definition of the >> word, I see no reason to have it need to be changed. >> >> > The 'as a verb' part is what is causing the issue, because as a noun it is > frequently used to refer to something fundamental to Unix systems. > > That said, I am surprised this has come up, and it got a laugh out of me! > 'File request', in the way it has been misconstrued here, would generally > be written 'Request file' or 'Request this file'. > > How many people are going to ignore the options above it and go to the > effort of sending a message that says 'i want this file', expecting magic > file-giving results? Probably not enough to warrant a change. > > Weirdly interested to see what comes of this. > I want to put in my 5 cents here that the use of "file" as a verb in "File Request" is not so obvious for a non-native speaker like me. I too once misunderstood the meaning of it and instead sent a email to this list because I could not find the "Orphan Request" button [1]. Not until someone pointed out that "File Request" is the button I am looking for did I noticed that the "File" is actually a verb. I didn't quite comprehend what is the meaning of "Request a file" should be in this context, but my brain is just ignoring the thing that it cannot understand. For me, a button says "Delete/Orphan/Merge Request" is far more clear about what it will do. [1] https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2015-April/030474.html -- Jiachen Yang 楊嘉晨 Graduate School of Information Science and Technology, Osaka University Blog: https://farseerfc.me/ Gmail: farsee...@gmail.com signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
I'm not surprised it's come up. I used to read it and be in a state of thinking "this means two things" but logic prevailed and I discarded one of the interpretations. The user who filed the request is obviously a troll, looking at the username.
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
On 20 November 2015 at 16:22, Mark Weiman wrote: > The word file is a fine word to use and is used correctly. > > As a verb, file means to make application (to file a complaint; to file > for a job; to file a request). Since this follows a definition of the > word, I see no reason to have it need to be changed. > > The 'as a verb' part is what is causing the issue, because as a noun it is frequently used to refer to something fundamental to Unix systems. That said, I am surprised this has come up, and it got a laugh out of me! 'File request', in the way it has been misconstrued here, would generally be written 'Request file' or 'Request this file'. How many people are going to ignore the options above it and go to the effort of sending a message that says 'i want this file', expecting magic file-giving results? Probably not enough to warrant a change. Weirdly interested to see what comes of this.
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
The word file is a fine word to use and is used correctly. As a verb, file means to make application (to file a complaint; to file for a job; to file a request). Since this follows a definition of the word, I see no reason to have it need to be changed. Mark Weiman On Fri, 2015-11-20 at 17:26 +1100, Xavion wrote: > > > > Could it not be changed to open or create request? > > > > Both seem better than someone requesting to lodge at the > > maintainers house > > :-) > > > It could be changed to "Eat sh!t and die" for all I care: just get > rid of > that word "file" and I'll be happy. I can't fathom why anyone would > use > "file" to mean "lodge" when the central topic is computer files. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
> > Could it not be changed to open or create request? > > Both seem better than someone requesting to lodge at the maintainers house > :-) It could be changed to "Eat sh!t and die" for all I care: just get rid of that word "file" and I'll be happy. I can't fathom why anyone would use "file" to mean "lodge" when the central topic is computer files.
