User talk:Tatsumoto

Stop advertising xlibre everywhere

The maintenance team is strongly bothered by this. You are adding xlibre mentions to pages just because you can, not because it makes sense. It is plain your main goal is to just advertise this software, which is inappropriate because the ArchWiki is not your personal billboard. Cease with these disruptions at once. NetSysFire (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I understand the concern, but I do not agree that the intent was advertising.

The edits were made because XLibre is now a viable choice for Arch users and a better alternative to Xorg. In some contexts, that changes which packages or documentation are relevant. For example, pages that explicitly mention Xorg DDX packages such as xf86-video-* or xf86-input-* can be misleading for users using XLibre unless the corresponding xlibre-* package is mentioned.

A reasonable standard would be to mention XLibre only where a page already discusses Xorg-specific packages, display server choice, or compatibility details that differ for XLibre users. I do not think I have added anything beyond that. I haven't touched any unrelated pages, and I am not trying to turn unrelated pages into XLibre promotion.

If there are specific edits you consider inappropriate, please point them out. Also, please do not vandalize my previous edits just because you have a different opinion. Tatsumoto (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Please take a look at Help:Reading#Organization and ArchWiki:Contributing. Your edits stand in violation of many practices as defined in said articles. You may instead add any relevant edits to the XLibre and Xorg pages. An example would be to make an edit within the Xorg page to link the XLibre page in accordance with the non-holistic approach. Thanks. TheKnightSky (talk) 07:00, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to those pages. If there are specific edits you consider inappropriate, please point them out, and I will review or edit them. I doubt my previous edits violated any existing practices. Specifically, I edited pages dedicated to display servers and added links to a new, recently created page. I would do the same for any other new page that belongs to a specific category. For example, if a page about a new text editor is created, it needs to be added to other pages, categories, and lists where text editors are mentioned. This has been established practice. Tatsumoto (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Looking at your user contributions of this year shows two topics: 80 % Xlibre and 20 % SonicDE. The only vandalism here is the excessive interlinking of your pet peeves into every possibly relevant page. Imagine if someone was going the same with sudo-rs on every page where sudo is mentioned?

Given your dismissive reaction to an informal advice from a member of the maintenance team, I'm giving you a formal warning per the Code of conduct: "Registering just to promote your issue/cause, FOSS-related or not, treats the community as a resource and is not acceptable". Out of 97 edits, 94 of them have been on the same theme and are getting excessive.

-- Erus Iluvatar (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

If there are other implementations of sudo with packages for Arch Linux, then you need to list those together. There is nothing to disagree about. Tatsumoto (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Your reply treats this as a disagreement: this formal warning concerns your editing pattern, not the existence of alternative software. Restrict your edits to relevant, proportionate documentation work. If you continue this behavior, your account will be blocked. Erus Iluvatar (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I see that sudo-rs is being advertised on the sudo page. Following that logic, shouldn't XLibre be advertised on the Xorg page? Tatsumoto (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I've restored the mention; we do not consider a relevant mention to be advertising.

You are still avoiding the substance of the warning. Can you commit to making relevant, proportionate contributions?

-- Erus Iluvatar (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

As I wrote earlier, if there are specific edits you consider inappropriate, please point them out. If none of my edits violate existing practices, then I don't understand why you are warning me. I haven't touched any pages that didn't already mention display servers. Tatsumoto (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Did you check which of your edits have been reverted? — Lahwaacz (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I have seen the reverted edits. I think they were reverted because the person who undid them did not understand the goals behind those changes. The goal is to eliminate the incorrect conflation of X11 and Xorg. In places where Xorg is mentioned, it should be replaced with X11 display servers, with a link to a shim-like page that lists display servers implementing the X11 protocol. I specifically removed the redirect from X11 to Xorg, which was the main culprit. This is actually a long-standing flaw in the Arch Wiki. Because of it, I myself used the terms X11 and Xorg interchangeably for a long time without realizing it. I made those edits after writing the XLibre page because we now have at least two widely used display servers that implement X11, and a few more are in development, although it is still too early to list them. Tatsumoto (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Exactly! The sudo-rs doesn't need to be mentioned anywhere else where sudo is explicitly mentioned as it has already been mentioned in the sudo page (since there isn't a sudo-rs specific page and there isn't a necessity for one). This is what we mean by a non-holistic approach; the reader must read the other pages talked about in a page to understand it. This wiki isn't intended to make the reader understand the topic in that one singular page and we do not intend to change this approach.

Similarly, and as previously mentioned, XLibre only needs to be mentioned either in its own page or in the Xorg page. Mentioning it anywhere and everywhere, solely because Xorg is mentioned, is repetitive and unnecessary. Your statement of "The edits were made because XLibre is now a viable choice for Arch users and a better alternative to Xorg." and "changes which packages or documentation are relevant" doesn't mean you have to explain XLibre all over again. A simple edit like, "See XLibre for the Xorg modernizing fork" or "See XLibre#Package name mapping for XLibre specific packages." works. I have made a few edits such as these. Please take a look at my edit history or @Erus Iluvatar's to get a better understanding of these editting practices.

The maintainers and editors here prefer to keep it short and sweet, so this explanation from me here for you is uncommon and not to be expected. On the same note, the statement "If there are specific edits you consider inappropriate, please point them out, and I will review or edit them." is a bit demanding considering that it is quite a bit of work to point out why which edits are bad especially when considering that we may be doing this work on our own free time. If you are unsure about your edits or require discussion to see if it is acceptable, please feel free to reach out to members in the Discord channel, the IRC, etc before your edits. Thanks! TheKnightSky (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)