User talk:Roy 043

File:Std_SetAppearance_taskpanel.png
Why did you change this image to a larger version? What is in your opinion better with the new image you uploaded? I have the problem that on my 15 inch laptop I often use it is hard to read the Wiki pages, especially because images are too large. Therefore I consequently only depict what the user has to see to understand the functionality. Thus please compare

https://wiki.freecadweb.org/images/archive/a/a1/20210918143420%21Std_SetAppearance_taskpanel.png

with

https://wiki.freecadweb.org/images/a/a1/Std_SetAppearance_taskpanel.png

The first image is smaller and only contains the dialog itself. The Close button and the tabbar are waste of space since all dialogs have these, so dialog-specific info is provided for the costs of a larger size. Therefore I think the image I uploaded improved the situation.

thanks and regards Uwe --uwestoehr (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear Uwe,


 * I disagree that the button can be removed from the screen shot. It is essential part of the task panel. Other task panels have different buttons for example. I have uploaded this screenshot twice. The 2nd version of the image has clearly visible frames. That is another important element that is missing from your version.


 * But I have to admit that this 2nd discussion about this image and this page really, really annoys me. To put an end to it I have now decided to remove the image from the page. That way we both don't get what we want.


 * --Roy 043 (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * >It is essential part of the task panel. Other task panels have different buttons for example.
 * But why do you think so? I have to work at work on a laptop screen and it is sometimes hard to read the Wiki pages because of the large images. Often there cnnot be done anything, but an OK/Cancel/Abort/Stop etc button is not providing info about the feature. Therefore it can be omitted an I try to omit them because it improves the readability on laptop screens.
 * > But I have to admit that this 2nd discussion about this image and this page really, really annoys me.
 * What discussion are you referring to? I cannot see a discussion page for the image
 * > To put an end to it I have now decided to remove the image from the page. That way we both don't get what we want.
 * Boah, this is childish! Who are we? Playgroud kids or adult developers who should be able to discuss, have disagreements and find a consensus?


 * I told you why I see a topic differently and you don't want to take this and replay but be immediately annoyed. I don't understand this. I mean i would understand when i would have reverted something. But no I just contacted you here, that's all.


 * --uwestoehr (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I was referring to a previous discussion in the forum. It is that discussion where you accused others of playing 'pingpong' (while you were still holding the bat behind your back so to speak). Do you remember? If you want to use the adjective 'childish' you may want to consider your own attitude then and now. I know that your are very stubborn, and do not easily accept the ideas of others. I can point to another discussion in the forum that can attest to that. You even once went so far as to undo an edit that fixed a grammatical error in one of your contributions. You equate your own ideas with progress, reaching a consensus with somebody who thinks like that is impossible.


 * Note that removing the image has the additional advantage that you are no longer tempted to 'beautify' the layout...


 * --Roy 043 (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * > I was referring to a previous discussion in the forum. It is that discussion where you accused others of playing 'pingpong' (while you were still holding the bat behind your back so to speak). Do you remember?


 * Maybe the best is that you write me a private message via the forum. I don't remember this. Sure, I made mistakes and I will do so. I am just a human. But how can I become better when nobody tells me when he is upset? Please shout immediately, not months later. So please send me a private message with the discussions you refer to or post them here.


 * What I remember was a discussion that you were opposed to use the tag. I argues that the Wikimedia guys introduced it for good reasons. I use it heavily in the Wikipedia and needed it on some Wiki pages here too. And I also explained you that there is no need to change every formula. Time by time people will use it when it is convenient. In this discussion you were rude since you just reverted my additions. I also did not lie that you did not reply to my technical argument but argues towards rules and that things have always been so. But OK, this has been resolved and that's why one has to speak about. That time I was pissed and I immediately contacted you. I think that is the way it should happen, shouting immediately and then draw a line and focus forward.


 * > Note that removing the image has the additional advantage that you are no longer tempted to 'beautify' the layout...


 * But this is what I mean with childish. You made a change and I only asked you why. As result you removed an image to that the readers don't have any image at all. This is not adult behavior. We don't write the Wiki for us developers, but the the readers. Every image is better than no image of course! And I don't see what is wrong to debate if it is necessary to include the OK/Close buttons? I also cannot understand why you insult me for this:
 * > I know that your are very stubborn
 * This is insulting because you don't know me. We never had a chat or so, not even shared a private message. And calling someone stubborn because one does not like to debate is not OK. I try to argue with valid arguments from my experience and knowledge.
 * So please let's have a normal conversation and of course please put the image back. You dont need to like me, I think when we both have the reader's experience in focus we can work together. I mean we only have to ask yourselves, what is the nicest layout, does the layout fit to different screen, is the info suficcient to understand a feature, outdated, too long, too short etc.


 * --uwestoehr (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, you have called me childish and now you call me rude (BTW you misrepresent that discussion). Nice going. Are you really serious about wanting to have a constructive discussion?


 * But in the end there is an impasse. You just repeat your arguments. And I reject them.


 * The fact that you, personally, use a small screen caries little weight. What about all the pages that are much, much longer than the page we are discussing? How do you deal with those if you don't like scrolling? Screens range from smart phones to 4K, taking 15" as a reference is then rather arbitrary.


 * I, and I think most other editors, will typically include the full dialog or task panel in a screenshot, because it is simply the most obvious choice. It is almost bizarre that you insist on chopping off the buttons.


 * Bottom line for me is that the page in its original state was more than good enough. And your edit did not improve it in any way. Apart from the image, the layout you introduced was simply appalling.


 * For the record the discussion I was referring to: https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?t=49174
 * And you used the word 'pingpong' when you undid Vocx's edit: https://wiki.freecadweb.org/index.php?title=Std_SetAppearance&oldid=730550


 * --Roy 043 (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Names of props in the GUI start with a cap
Hi Roy, thanks for having a look at my edits and for some useful hints, but this coment in the headline puzzles me.

The properties' names in the property editor do not start with capitals and as far as I know (or rather believe...) that resembles the orthography of the python code and should therefore be carried over into the wiki descriptions.

Is it a convention that I haven't stumbled across yet?

FBXL5 (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I see now that this is not handled consistently in the SheetMetal Workbench. F.e for a bend you have:
 * Bend Type
 * angle
 * base Object
 * The name of the last property looks weird of course and gives you an idea of the algorithm used to populate the Property editor.
 * I'll revert my mod.


 * --Roy 043 (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It definitely looks weird...


 * FBXL5 (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

We are documenting V0.20
Question regarding: https://wiki.freecadweb.org/index.php?title=Std_Base&diff=next&oldid=877729 You write there "we are documenting V0.20", but the vast majority of users use FC 0.19.x. Now the Wiki hides an important feature for > 90% of the users. That doesn't see correct. --uwestoehr (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Please follow the standards!
Why did you do this?: https://wiki.freecadweb.org/index.php?title=PartDesign_AdditiveHelix&diff=next&oldid=872236

You talk about a standard. Where can I find this standard and who developed it? I cannot find a standard that defines that we use as text the same internal name of the referred Wiki page.

My opinion is: The Wiki is to inform people and not to bother them with internal names. Let's therefore please keep it simple.

--uwestoehr (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Uwe, there has been a discussion about these standards and the GuiCommand model page on the forum. And if you take a look at the PartDesign pages you will notice that in most cases the SeeAlso links follow the standard (which is actually the standard for links in general BTW). The standard is very much based on how previous editors have done things. It is not the opinion of a single person.
 * --Roy 043 (talk) 08:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointer to GuiCommand model. However, I cannot see in this page that we must use for the link text use the internal name. I mean, look at the DocNav of PartDesign_AdditivePipe. For good reasons we us a simple text for the link and not the whole internal name. So why can't we do the same for the "See also field"? In fact the DocNav acts as a "see Also" too.
 * > The standard is very much based on how previous editors have done things. It is not the opinion of a single person.
 * That is clear, but what I don't see is that things can be changed. When it was not done right, or let's say "convenient for average reader/users", we can and even should change this.
 * --uwestoehr (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Math and Nowiki
I see that you change tags to, for example here: https://wiki.freecadweb.org/index.php?title=Sketcher_BSplineDecreaseKnotMultiplicity&diff=856101&oldid=854468 But this is not the intended usage. nowiki is typographically spoken verbatim. But math follow the myth typography guidelines (half spaces around operators, italic variables etc.). So math should be used for equations. nowiki only for text to be unformatted.

(For information, you can directly copy TeX code into and this can be created even with Word or Libreoffice nowadays.)

thanks and regards --uwestoehr (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I started the talk here, but you moved it to my talk page, why? --uwestoehr (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Torus etc.
Good day, looking at your edit: https://wiki.freecadweb.org/index.php?title=Part_Torus&oldid=853357

Has this been changed very recently? With Version: 0.19.23756 I can create a Torus following the way that you removed. -- Hmk (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You can create a torus with the Part Primitives command. That is correct. But you cannot start the Part Torus command via the Part Primitives command. So instructing the user that one of the ways to invoke the Part Torus command is to first start the Part Primitives command, does not make sense.
 * --Roy 043 (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Misc
Dear Roy,

I do not appreciate that you removed my edit. If we want to succeed as a community we need a healthy ecosystem, from developers to educators. of course, YouTubers can ask for support from their viewers, and they do, but they can also encourage them to support developers. It should be a bidirectional relationship. if YouTubers feel welcomed, if they are treated like family then both will benefit. What you did cause a great deal of pain for a great member of our family and I hope you put the edit back. Thanks for your understanding.

Best, Foador


 * I have answered here: User_talk:Foadsf

Hi Roy,

Thanks a lot for the fixes to my edits and for bringing to my attention that I had edited an obsolete page :)

For https://wiki.freecadweb.org/index.php?title=Std_Edit&diff=next&oldid=840510, links to files on GitHub using the master branch aren't reliable (files move and code moves with time). Would you be okay with this form instead? src/Gui/ViewProvider.h (archived version)

Cheers, Suzanne Soy (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Let's avoid the problem and do away with the link altogether.


 * --Roy 043 (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Roy, This is Melwyncarlo from UserTalk. Anyway, I see you have deleted my edit this morning. That command really is faulty. While your reasoning was appropriate, I've added a small addendum notifying other users that the older command works on version 0.18. Note that it also works in 0.19. But, the new command, unfortunately, is not backward compatible. Most users use 0.18, so solely displaying the new command is misleading and confusing. I'd be glad if a note is added. Thank you very much. Regards, MFC Boy : the one and only! 12:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Ideally we would have several versions of the wiki. But that is not realistic since we simply lack volunteers willing to invest a serious amount of time. That is why we can and SHOULD only document the coming version. I will leave you addition even though it goes against this. I suppose you will remove it when V0.19 becomes final?
 * --Roy 043 (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Roy,
 * I understand what you are saying; it is silly to have documentations for several versions. I agree, it is. But I'm just talking about adding small command script addendums on the go (like my example). I'm only saying this because some new commands DON'T work on older versions. And even after the v0.19 release, many will still be using v0.18 for quite some time. And so, macro commands run on the older versions would fail. I, myself, was frustrated when the new commands didn't work in my macros (which is being run on v0.18). Furthermore, hinting about the old commands would allow programmers to write code which is backward compatible.
 * - Melwyncarlo 05:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Please improve your Scripting paragraphs Hi Melwyncarlo, I see that you are adding similar scripting paragraphs with the same code on many pages ... ... Another issue is that you are using several tricks to get a custom layout ... --Roy 043 (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Roy, regarding the custom layout (apart from my Macro AeroFoil page), I'm using the basic layout; could you please be more specific as to where I've deviated from the styling norm? Thank you.
 * Also, the run commands are as it is. It's not about being fancy; those are the simplest copy-paste commands. I've stated that you select the objects, and then run those commands. That's all there is to it. It's like doing a Control+C and Control+V using Python.
 * I guess I could add the 'addSelection' method to all those run commands to show how to select the objects using Python. But, I had added the 'Selection Methods' link instead, which exemplifies the very same concept. What do you think? Should I add a sort-of mini-tutorial?
 * - Melwyncarlo 03:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Layout - Thank you for notifying me, Roy. I'll stop using the on public documentation.
 * Scripting - I won't be doing it for any other pages. All those commands were about copy-pasting in different ways. Hence the similarity in code.
 * - Melwyncarlo 15:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Artwork Assembly
Hi Roy 043,

I don't get your point. There's no Assembly workbench bundled with recent FreeCAD versions (0.19.1, 0.20-24825) but Assembly3 is. Why shouldn't we extend a list of icons, that is hardly use for other wiki sites, with icons that are in use now for a similar task. That totally makes sense to me.

The FreeCAD version that I have used do not contain an Assembly folder which shows me that this is obsolete. Since Assembly3 is bundled now the Assembly folder should be re-added for the Assembly3 stuff or the asm3 instead.

How long do you want to keep obsolete stuff unchanged?