User talk:Aarondonwiliams

Turboencabulator
To be honest it's not really funny but even if it was, jokes like that aren't welcome in articles. Please stop. EEng 21:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

- I will agree with what is implied above, it doesn't matter if you think something is funny or not. The article tracks a major part of engineering history, where engineering speak gets out of hand to the point that it confuses the general public. The events described are fully documented and all links are valid. Thus, the events that happened on 1 April 2021 are just as valid as the previous entries. Thank you for taking the time to comment. Aarondonwiliams (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021
Hello, I'm Nagualdesign. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Turboencabulator have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. nagualdesign 22:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

- Hello Nagualdesign, I am Aaron. Thank you so much for taking the time to send me a form note, I assume that this is because you spend a lot of time policing Wikipedia. I wish you took the time to evaluate "one or more of [my] edits" before you rolled them back, because you would see that they are "constructive".

See the purpose of the page is to track over time, how the use of the "Truboencancabulator" has evolved. The concept of the Truboencancabulator is a very import concept in the world of Engineering. It is used to show young engineers and remind older ones about the importance of speaking in terms that the general public can understand and not to obfuscate things in techno-jargon.

This specific PR is a social commentary that putting more and more things in containers is not necessarily a good thing. This has gotten to the point where people are putting containers into containers, which has led to many problems in the engineering realm. Currently people are using Docker and K8s as the magic bullet that will solve all engineering problems, and where the footprint of K8s is too large, there was an invention of K3s. To keep all of this running and manageable, other products such as Helm had to be invented. Thus like the real world event, where industry is trying to push more and more onto one ship and using infrastructure that was not build to handle it, a disaster will happen.

Other satire that is in the entry and PR that it is based upon, is the insane naming conventions that have become popular. This lead to the solution of "WD40s", which follows this naming convention perfectly. Examples K8s, k3s, I18n, Wi5s, etc. -COBOL on COGS, which shows just because you can create a framework, it doesn't mean that you should. All of this is summed up pretty well with the term "Docker Containers within Docker on a Container" - (DCwDoC).

So as you can see, the event that inspired this entry, captures the spirt of the original Turboencabulator and its satire. It then extends it into the 21st century. Hopefully in the future others will continue this and continuously remind us that we need to keep things simple.

The entry is fully documented and actually happened in the real world and the entry is a quick summary of the events. The PR is not in a made up repro, but put in a very active one. I will happily discuss any part of my entry that you find inaccurate. Once again thank you for your time Aarondonwiliams (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Turboencabulator. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)