User talk:Artagnon

Thanks for the reworking of Comparison of X Window System desktop environments. It looks better (quite ironically, now including considerable uncited material, but at least we have material there for others to cite in future!)

What's missing for me is some kind of "pros and cons" or actual comparison of the managers. In other words, rather than actually comparing, it names in principle a handful of generic areas which differ between different managers, and names the default s/w with each. But the real comparison of them is not yet done, nor is there information to do so in the article.

For example, are all technical (as opposed to look/feel) differences between different windows managers essentially quantified 100% by considering what packages they run by default and what libraries they draw on, or are there for example speed and functionality, or usability/hookability differences? There's no "pros and cons of different WM's" or ... well, anything that actually compares them beyond the default s/w list. It's a good rewrite but the core of what I was hoping for isn't yet there :-/

I ask this as a non-linux technical user seeking to understand linux before diving in, so these are questions that seem important within the "comparison".

Thanks :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better :) Its starting to look like a comparison, now. The table and top tag help. (Tables are often sorted alphabetically rather than subjectively BTW.) Here are some more specific suggestions you might like to try out; I'm not sure how one quantifies them, it's mostly that I don't myself actually know what one would consider notable information in a comparison!

1. A "compatibility and interoperability" section. if the appropriate libraries are loaded, can any desktop do the job of any other? Or are there compatibility and interoperability issues with some?
2. Degree of configurability, "out of box" usability, complexity of setup, expert level needed, stability etc (high/medium/low - it won't have a measurement but surely they can be relatively ranked for things like this and some basis or examples given?)
3. Well known pros and cons (if any)
4. A specific section "KDE vs. GNOME", given these are the most common two desktops provided to newcomers or as defaults? Sample screenshot of each, description how each organizes its desktop (notable differences?), comparison of visible capabilities built into each (multiple desktops, etc) ...

Any use? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, now this starts to have some "bite" to it :) Nice work. This is more what I had hoped someone would be able to create. Current comments and suggestions:

1. "A "compatibility and interoperability" section. if the appropriate libraries are loaded, can any desktop do the job of any other? Or are there compatibility and interoperability issues with some? -- I'm not sure this is very relevant as there are few compatibility and interoperability issues today." -- then create a section on that topic, and note this. The fact there are no/few issues, or what they might be if any, is still useful to know.
2. Style - a bit "editorial"... some slang ("eyecandy", "way more software", "can be a pain"). Slightly more encyclopedic tone is good (wikilink eyecandy, "contains 5000 packages compared with GNOME's 250", "is complicated by")
3. Try to source some of it at least, or else someone'll maybe wipe it out for zero sources later

Good work :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Artagnon, thank you for your encouragements regarding my edits to

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Wzdftpd itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

re Wzdfptd

Your {{

WP:CORP. You can recreate the article if you have these reliable third-party sources to cite. Herostratus 20:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Bee GNU/Hurd

A {{

db-author}}. mms 20:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair use rationale for Image:GeorgeSecretKey.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale

.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 09:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About to change

E-mail client

somewhat

Hi Artagnon,

I think the

E-mail client

article is seriously misleading in its use of the acronyms MTA, MDA, MSA, MRA. I'm going to amend that one of these days.

Please have a look at the relevant

talk page

for more details on my point of view.

Cheers
ale 19:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Proposed deletion of Awesome (window manager)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Awesome (window manager), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Generally unreferenced, no tenable claims to notability, and no improvement on N for months now.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's

dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page

.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the

12 December 2008

(GMT)

Image copyright problem with File:Def Leppard Vault albart.jpg

Thanks for uploading

Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation

linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Retchmail

I have nominated Retchmail, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retchmail. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Psychonaut (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Awesome (window manager)

ping 21:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

File source problem with File:Awesome logo.png

Thank you for uploading File:Awesome logo.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Awesome (window manager)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard

to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on

deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion

. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. --> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 05:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited

Junio Hamano, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Git and Hacker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject

.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Artagnon&oldid=1141635488"