Talk:MEPIS/Archive 1

Propose stopping the rollbacks and requesting arbitation

Chealer, please stop rolling back all my changes. If you have a point edit only the section that needs to be changed (don't remove valid edits) and explain why you did that. In cases where you have an opinion and I have another: for example what links have to be or not in Mepis Wikipedia entry we need to ask a third party, rolling back all my edits is not a solution (besides we are both going to infringe 3 rollbacks policy 3RR). I explained all the edits I've made, both in edit summary and in the discussion page. Your rollbacks are abusive because:

• are indiscriminate: you revert all the changes no matter if the points made are good ar bad
• are too many and too often: infringing 3RR.
• are based only on your opinion (that's why I propose to solve the issue through arbitration, if you want so... without continuing the lame edit war). Otherwise the edit war will continue as long as I see that you promove POV and misinformation and you remove the links that are relevant and important -- probably we'll both get banned. -- AdrianTM 19:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Adrian, I'm not rolling back all your changes. Since this started, it is true that I didn't always go with the minimal changes to fix your edits. This is both because that took me less time to fix the article, and because most of the changes done that I didn't backport from your versions and that weren't plain wrong were of doubtful pertinence. However, you look reasonable (except for those links ;) ), and I'm going to continue to answer your questions if you wonder why I don't integrate specific changes. About the need for a third party for the links, I don't think this is needed, since it's a minor issue. I won't look for a mediator, but won't oppose if you can find someone that interested in the article. However, my guess is that if anyone really cared about this article, the History part would be made decent first :). Now about your accusation of abusive rollbacks:

• my rollbacks are not indiscriminate. In most of my "rollbacks" of your edits, I have acknowledged some improvements you did.
• I haven't infringed 3RR. If you are referring to what happened on the 12th of April, an anonymous editor started by rollbacking my changes with the justification "reverted malicious rollback". An anonymous rollback with an erroneous justification is vandalism, so my rollbacks were not the kind that 3RR concerns.
• my rollbacks aren't based only on my opinions, but on facts. If you disagree, please explain why.

Anyway, I would welcome arbitration if you can find someone competent and willing to do that.--Chealer 23:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

OK you did it again, you rolled back all the changes instead of correcting things that you considered need to be changed. I'm rolling this back, I already explained all the points and all the changes. 3RR is not strictly about the number it's also about the intention, we are both going to infringe that if we continue like that.

I will look to see what are the options for arbitration, I'm kind of new here. I think that's a "request for comment" tag or something like that. -- AdrianTM 00:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Superfluous links

"new round of superfluous links killing"

What is superfluos about mepislovers.org and the wiki page? They are important sites of the Mepis community. I don't like that people that hate Mepis and Mepis community deface this site on a regular basis.
AdrianTM 03:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

mepislovers.org is superfluous since it is already linked directly from MEPIS' official site's main page. Wikipedia is not a backup for a product's official site. The mepislovers wiki is superfluous since it is, again, directly linked from mepislovers.org's main page. If mepislovers' wiki is so important that 2 clicks is too much, please make mepis.org aware of that instead of adding links to Wikipedia. --Chealer 13:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Then according to your idea all the pages that are linked to other pages are superfluous. Sorry to hear that Internet is superfluous. I've been just using this criteria:

• is the page relevant to the subject?
• is the page important enough? (both Mepislovers and Mepislover Documentation Project Wiki are considered pretty important by the community members)

Mepislovers it's a site that's not managed by Mepis and that's the case for Wiki too, however they are important sites for Mepis users. Now, if there's a link to the sites somewhere in other site I don't think it make them superfluous. But if this is a clear Wikipedia policy than I would agree for the links to be removed. -- AdrianTM 16:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you're missing something pretty simple. The criteria you mention are fine, and probably make mepislovers stuff good candidates. But we don't add every link possible. For example, links to MEPIS forums, download page, screenshots, etc. could be added. The problem is that by doing so, we would make the article a mere backup of mepis.org, and duplicate the maintainance effort. If people don't care to visit the official site, they will unlikely care to visit mepislovers.--Chealer 22:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand why you rollbacked my changes, I didn't readded the links although I made the point that they should be added. Also it's incorrect what you put there, Mepis uses Debian sources. Mepis repos has a limited number of packages (around 10) that doesn't change the fact that the rest of the packages ARE Debian and Mepis upgrades from Debian. Also the claim that Mepis has less documentation is false since Mepis uses the excelent Debian documentation and has a user guide for things that differ from Debian -- why would that make the documentation poorer? -- AdrianTM 23:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• I still think that Mepislovers and Community Wiki are links that are relevant and therefore should be included, it makes no difference that Mepis.org has a link to Mepisloves, moreover it doesn't have a link to the Community Wiki. I would like to hear other people opinions about this issue. -- AdrianTM 23:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

They may well be relevant, but it does make make a difference that mepis.org has a link to mepislovers. About the absence of link to the community wiki, I told you what you should do about that in my first answer. Sorry, but Wikipedia articles aren't replacements forcompany websites.--Chealer 00:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Re-added the links and categorized them, please be kind and check Ubuntu and Debian wiki entries to see that they have community links too. Take a close look at Ubuntu site, they have: Ubuntu Official Website, Ubuntu Wiki, Ubuntu Forums, Ubuntu Help, Ubuntu FAQ Guide which are all linked between themselves, even more some of them are on the same server. I think that settles the argument. -- AdrianTM 06:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm rollbacking this again. I don't care particularly about Ubuntu's article needing improvement if it really does. I certainly intend to review Debian's article eventually, but this is something that will take some time...particularly if you think of the number of people that could start an edit war ;) Feel free to go ahead before I do. Note: I am not arguing that MEPIS's article links section was worst than most other distros. Articles about distros tend to be maintained by users of the distros, and these people seem to think that adding external links makes the article look more serious, ignoring the fact that it grows the article superfluously.--Chealer 00:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm rolling this back, they are relevant links, stop removing them, almost all sites on Internet are interlinked that doesn't make them superfuous. Those sites: [1] and [2] and are separate from MEPIS, but they are relevant and important. -- AdrianTM 19:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Adrian, but as I already mentioned, this is not about the relevance or importance of these links. If you can't understand the reason I gave, I suggest considering yourself as lacking the necessary skills to maintain the links section of the article.--Chealer 20:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That's valid for you too, if you don't understand that Internet is a collection of interlinked sites and that doesn't make them superfluous. If you don't understand such a basic thing you should not edit Wikipedia -- AdrianTM 20:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Understood on my part. I also understand that every page on the Internet does not link to every page covering a similar topic on the Internet, but instead links in a structured way, in order to reduce the number of links people will have to parse.--Chealer 20:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)--Chealer 23:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia principle is to add information not to remove. Also, people prefer to have a direct link than to jump from page to page. How about leaving relevant links in (you alreaded admited that they are relevant) and let people decide if they can parse them or not, if they follow them or not, that is according to adding info principle of Wikipedia, where is the harm? Are 5 links too hard to parse for you? -- AdrianTM 22:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about adding information. It is about adding some when something is missing, and removing some when there is too much. These links are part of the "too much", for the reasons I mentioned in my first answer, so I'm going to rollback again.--Chealer 00:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That's your opinion, my opinion is that the links are not "too much" the Wikipedia principle in this case is to leave info rather than deleting. -- AdrianTM 15:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not just my opinion, I explained why these links are superfluous in my first answer. There is no such Wikipedia principle. If you think there is, please provide a reference. I'm sorry to see that your opinion disagrees with the facts, but I guess you'll have to get used to it.--Chealer 18:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you claim is not only your opinion? I didn't hear anyone else complaining about superfluous links. I agree to take this into arbitration to hear what a third party has to say about it. As for Wikipedia principle I draw it from the fact that Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge -- you need to add info not to remove (as long as it's correct and relevant and you already agree that it is). So that's your opinion, that's my opinion, why would your opinion be better than mine: I will add back the link. But I do agree to take it to be reviewed by a third party. -- AdrianTM 18:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not only my opinion because it's a fact. I have mentioned in my first answer why the links were superfluous. I'm rolling back until you can find a third party or can explain why Wikipedia should link to sites in its MEPIS article that even mepis.org doesn't link to.--Chealer 23:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Too much spacing. RESPONDING AT THE TOP LEVEL.

Chealer said: "It's not only my opinion because it's a fact."

• It's your opinion that's not a fact, you have to learn to make difference between your opinions and facts.

Chealer said: "why Wikipedia should link to sites in its MEPIS article that even mepis.org doesn't link to"

• Till now your position was that you removed the links because they were redundant because Mepis.org links to then, now you say the opposite. Please make up your mind. I told you what are my criteria: if the link is relevant and if the link is important, also if other similar pages have the same kind of links (see Ubuntu and Debian). These sites: mepislovers.org, Wiki Documentation project and LinuxQuestions MEPIS section are relevant and I consider important: Mepislovers has thousands of users and Documentation project has 274 registred contributors and 60000 views only for the first page. Most of the people consider those sites damn useful. Why do you claim that anyone looking for relevant external links about MEPIS would have problems to parse 3 (three) additional links (to the mere one that you had the "goodwill" to leave in the links section)? Again, I think Wikipedia is about adding info not about removing it (at least if it's not false or misleading) -- AdrianTM 01:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

I think the two links in question (i.e. a fan site and another Wiki) are both appropriate for the article here. Mind you, the link to screenshots seems a bit much. This isn't an advertising site. Fagstein 20:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I accept to keep the link to MEPISlovers. However, it's more a fan site and its wiki than a fan site and another Wiki, so I'm removing the link to the wiki.--Chealer 00:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Spreading FUD and using non-NPOV language

• Chealer, please stop spreading FUD, making comments about Mepis viability is exactly that, it's not more than a speculation, I don't think there's a place in Wikipedia for speculation, how about writing facts? -- AdrianTM 23:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• non-NPOV language example: "In addition to the disadvantages when compared with Debian already mentioned" That's has no place in Wikipedia, especially that the differences enumerated didn't show only disadvantages. In order to keep a NPOV I would recommend using a form like "in addition to the differences enumerated, Mepis..." -- AdrianTM 23:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the formulation I chose is non-NPOV. The formulation I chose reflects that the following items are not just differences, but disadvantages when compared to Debian, while the one you suggest doesn't. I don't think your suggestion is interesting, but I certainly won't spend my time to rollback such a trivial change.--Chealer 01:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There are couple of advantages mentioned in the list: LiveCD, better Wifi support out of the box, newer packages, etc. Saying "in addition to the disadvantages" is not a Neutral Point of View, also some people don't give a damn about free software, the availability by default of some pieces of software is a good thing for them -- here you inject your point of view about free software which is not necessarily the point of view of other people. I just want to have the facts: it contains free software and it contain non-free software, by making a remark like "in addition to the disadvantages mentioned" you clearly don't respect Neutral Point of View principle of Wikipedia. -- AdrianTM 22:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• another example of FUD: by saying that Debian has better hardware support than Mepis and not making it clear that that's about computer architecture not about different x86 computers. Actually Mepis in my tests has better hardware support for x86 -- AdrianTM 00:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I can provide example here, Wifi drivers that are not accepted by Debian because they are not free software.

Sorry Adrian, but I won't have a technical argument mixed with an accusation of FUD. I'll just assume that your argument is erroneous, unless you care to separe your argument from FUD accusations.--Chealer 01:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Chealer, let's stick to facts not opinions, assumptions, or speculations. Viability of Mepis company is a speculation and therefore is FUD. Don't worry people that prefer fully community developed product will be able to read that Mepis is developed by a company and Debian by a community, by making this point you violate NPOV principle again in adition to spreading unwarranted FUD -- AdrianTM 22:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

This sounds like another debate that can be solved by citing sources. If these are really disadvantages, then we should have some objective source that cites this. That said, we should probably just note the differences and let the reader decide for themselves that these are disadvantages. Fagstein 20:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Packages origin

It's not true that Mepis doesn't use Debian repos. To represent the facts better you could say that Mepis packages are Debian with a very small exceptions. Another correct way to say it is that Mepis uses a mix of custom packages and Debian packages, it upgrades also from both Debian and Mepis sources. Planly saying "Mepis doesn't use Debian repos" is incorrect and misleading. I also think that we need to leave there the info about switching to Ubuntu repos which is important piece of information and relevant to the discussion. -- AdrianTM 19:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the info about switching to Ubuntu repos is relevant in the comparison with Debian section, since it only concerns MEPIS alpha, and I would guess that prospective MEPIS users would find MEPIS stable releases buggy enough. If you assert that MEPIS alpha is the choice of a large proportion of new MEPIS users, though, I will reevaluate this. In this case though, the modification you propose should explain why the change which is described as future is currently relevant.--Chealer 23:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's relevant info. There is need to mention that because that's a big change and it affects exactly the thing that we discuss: the stability and how up-to-date packages are. I think Wikipedia should inform people, not keep the information from them only because the official release will be available in 1-2 months. It's also clearly stated that it refers to the next release not the current one, readers will not get confused. I think that when you compare two things you can say something like: "and starting from the next month, X will be [...] than Z" I think that's legitimate especially when the change is important. It's also not a speculation about the future, it's a fact -- the proof is the fact that MEPIS developement is based on Ubuntu and there's a plan to release MEPIS based on Ubuntu in June ("SimplyMEPIS 6.0 is scheduled for final release around June 1, 2006" [3] AdrianTM 01:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Stability comparison

it's misleading to say that Mepis repos is more instable that Debian, since Mepis upgrades by default from Etch (for now, Mepis Alpha is based on Ubuntu Dapper already). That's like saying that Etch is less stable that Sarge without mentioning that Etch is more up-to-date = that's misleading, if you present a point present all the aspects not only the downsides. -- AdrianTM 00:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. Saying that Etch is less stable than Sarge at this moment is true, and not misleading. This article was more incomplete before I reviewed it. I do not use or intend to use MEPIS and it is not my intention to make it a perfect article, only to improve it. Feel free to add more, but please avoid removing relevant information.--Chealer 01:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"I do not use or intend to use MEPIS". I've been using Mepis for 2 years and Debian for a little bit more than that, I think I'm very well informed about the subject while you made same false and/or misleading changes. Your opinion that MEPIS is not as good as Debian is your right, however when you edit Wikipedia please stick to facts not opinions or assumptions. For example the assumptions that MEPIS packages might have more bugs than Debian -- what is based on? (especially that you don't even use MEPIS). -- AdrianTM 19:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You have already made a point that the article just after the review could have been more clear about the stability differences, and I fixed that. I don't think the article says anymore that MEPIS packages might have more bugs than Debian in general. It says that stable MEPIS isn't Debian stable-stable. This fact is based on the fact that MEPIS doesn't use the same release cycle as Debian, as mentioned in the article. If you want me to justify that testing has more serious bugs than stable, that will be no problem.--Chealer 19:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me if you say MEPIS is based on Etch therefore it has Etch stability which is poorer than Stable (of course) I will also add that Etch packages are more up-to-date than Stable and that Mepis will be based on Ubuntu (already has released a Alpha based on Ubuntu) which will make it both stable and more up-to-date than Stable. I added that but you rolled back -- you should allow other opinions than yours on Wikipedia, it's perfectly fine to add what you consider that's a relevant fact, it's not OK to remove what other consider relevant -- that would make the story biased (my NPOV point) -- AdrianTM 20:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed differences with Debian

I removed the difference about "On The Go" stuff in my review. This was added back by an unidentified contributor, and I'm removing it again. Just in case other people are tempted to add other similar things, keep in mind that the section lists "main differences" with Debian, not trivial differences such as an icon or shortcut.--Chealer 18:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I see that your opinion is that Mepis doesn't have any advantages over Debian. That's OK, you have your right to your opinion, however posting opinions infringe NPOV policy of Wikipedia. Please stick to FACTS, not assumptions or opinions.

On-the-go is not a link or shortcut as you liberally dismissed it, it's a important feature of the Live CD that allows people to save their home and changes to the flash drives -- it's a program (not a link) and has advanced feature such as synchronization and encrypting the information that you save on your flash drive. -- AdrianTM 19:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever On-the-go is, if it is only a feature of the Live CD, it doesn't fit as a separate element in the list of differences with Debian, as Debian has no LiveCD to compare, as already mentioned in the list of differences. Note that the current formulation of this paragraph is also very misleading, suggesting that MEPIS allows "saving the entire home directory on a USB jump drive, a user can transfer all of their personal settings, including Internet browser bookmarks and desktop configuration, plus any files, such as documents and pictures, from one computer to another.", as opposed to Debian. Perhaps the differences section should highlight that the comparison is about MEPIS and Debian as installed distros?--Chealer 20:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this section should make a comparison of MEPIS and Debian features. This is a feature of MEPIS. It's a feature of the Live CD, however it's also a feature of harddrive installation. For example I can save my home from the HD installation and go and use it on another computer (with Live CD or not). That's something that you can't do with Debian -- it's a difference in features that's why is worth to be mentioned in that section. I do think that it could be merged with Live CD line though. -- AdrianTM 20:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"MEPIS has better hardware support [...] tha[n] Debian"

I've removed a claim that MEPIS had better hardware support than Debian, and this was rollbacked. I'm rollbacking this again, until someone explains how the fact that Debian does not ship proprietary drivers in main would compensate the lack of support of alpha, arm, hppa, ia64, m68k, MIPS, powerpc, s390 and sparc from MEPIS.--Chealer 20:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

MEPIS does have better hardware on x86 architecture. That's a fact. Debian supports more architectures. That's a fact. You confuse two different issues. I explained very clear both issues without any risk of confusion, there's no need for any removal -- AdrianTM 20:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There is. The article as it is currently claims that "MEPIS has better hardware support [...] tha[n] Debian", which is false and unacceptably misleading.--Chealer 20:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed: made it clear that it refers to x86 architecture. -- AdrianTM 20:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)