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.

On 20 November 2015 at 16:22, Mark Weiman mark.weiman@markzz.com 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.

On 11/21/2015 01:40 AM, Ben Oliver wrote:

On 20 November 2015 at 16:22, Mark Weiman mark.weiman@markzz.com 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

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

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

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

On 21 November 2015 at 20:16, Xavion xavion.0@gmail.com 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

I almost forgot about the translated versions of this string. After all, aurweb is offered in multiple languages…

On 23 November 2015 at 08:43, Xavion xavion.0@gmail.com 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.

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

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.

I want that file too. Come on, just give the damn file already and let's get this over with.

cheers! mar77i

There's plenty of room for it to be "File a Request", and it would be more grammatically correct. Your English is pretty good, just like that of the other ESLs who've contributed to this thread.

Honestly, I think it's a joke that we even need to have this discussion. Anyone who argues against making this obvious/simple change for the better would have to be profoundly stubborn or just plain stupid.

It looks this thread is on it's way to become spam...

Why? Is it because you don't like watching me romping to victory?

You got a couple of spam requests this month. I went back a couple of months and coudn't find any requests related to you.

That indicates exponential growth.

If it really was a Problem, I guess the TUs would want to change that themselves. Afterall they are the ones that would be really affected by that problem.

Prior to my opening of this thread, I don't think the TUs realised why they were getting these "file requests". This is the main reason I opened it.

I don't think english speakers are the problem here. For all the others, there is something called different translations. And whatever you do, if you have some kind of input form, you'll get spam.

I am a native English speaker and even I had to do a double-take when I first saw "File Request". For the record, both natives and ESLs have reported having difficulty interpreting it.

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.

See my earlier email about leading a horse to water.

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.

They are both systemic flaws that need to be fixed.

This is a case where ignorance is causing an issue and I only think it is a trivial problem (or lack of).

IMHO, the fix (i.e. "Lodge a Request") is even more trivial than the problem itself.

Following the argumentation that every written expression must be possibly

put in a correct english sentence, the whole table would have to be changed to:

_The_ Package Actions

View _the_ PKGBUILD / View _any_ Changes Download _the_ snapshot Search _for_this_package_in_the_ wiki Flag _this_ package out-of-date Vote for this package | Remove _my_ vote Notify _me_ of new comments | Disable _any_ notifications [ Manage _the_ Co-Maintainers ] File _a_ Request [ Disown _this_ package ]

No, only the confusing ones should be changed. I thought this would've been pretty obvious.

Some changements may not be strictly necessary to form a correct english

sentence, however the extracted part of that sentence would then lack the respective syntactical context, e.g.: "Dear Server, would you please disable notifications completely for me?" Probably this sentence could be simplified while maintaining its correctness, but stripping of some semantically necessary information, more precisely which notifications are to be disabled.

I don't see the point in all of that. We just need to change "File Request" to "Lodge a Request" (or similar).

Though I am not a native speaker either, so any improvements or corrections

are welcome.

I don't know why anyone would bother. It's all collateral that can be flushed away.

... 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.

It's true that ESLs are forced to pay more attention to specifics than natives are. However, there are also times when ESLs miss the boat completely (through lack of know-how).

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.

That's where you're wrong, Pal. The (English) Wikipedia article on the "double negative" lists exactly the example I provided for you ("I'm not feeling bad" versus "I'm feeling good"). So, back to my original point: "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".

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.

You seem to be about as clued up on this as Marky Mark is. As mentioned in an earlier email: "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".

On 11/21/2015 11:22 PM, Xavion wrote:

There's plenty of room for it to be "File a Request", and it would be more grammatically correct. Your English is pretty good, just like that of the other ESLs who've contributed to this thread.

Following the argumentation that every written expression must be possibly put in a correct english sentence, the whole table would have to be changed to:

_The_ Package Actions View _the_ PKGBUILD / View _any_ Changes Download _the_ snapshot Search _for_this_package_in_the_ wiki Flag _this_ package out-of-date Vote for this package | Remove _my_ vote Notify _me_ of new comments | Disable _any_ notifications [ Manage _the_ Co-Maintainers ] File _a_ Request [ Disown _this_ package ]

Some changements may not be strictly necessary to form a correct english sentence, however the extracted part of that sentence would then lack the respective syntactical context, e.g.: "Dear Server, would you please disable notifications completely for me?" Probably this sentence could be simplified while maintaining its correctness, but stripping of some semantically necessary information, more precisely which notifications are to be disabled.

Though I am not a native speaker either, so any improvements or corrections are welcome.

Honestly, I think it's a joke that we even need to have this discussion.

I agree.

Anyone who argues against making this obvious/simple change for the better would have to be profoundly stubborn or just plain stupid.

I do not agree.