Gronky

Under Wikipedia rules mediaeval, medieval or mediæval are all acceptable and I know many Irish writers — I am one of the many — do use mediæval, sometimes mediaeval but never medieval (which grates on me the same way as color for colour and check for cheque). Personally I was taught in both school and university in Ireland to write it as mediæval. It is an acceptable variant of English in British English and Hiberno-English so please do not replace it. Once the variant is accepted, and it is, it should not be replaced under Wikipedia MoS rules. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 02:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I disagree that mediæval is an accepted spelling. The Oxford Compact English Dictionary has no entry for that word. It has entries for mediaeval and medieval and neither of those mention mediæval.

æ is simply the original way of writing ae. The letters can be written either way and both are correct. æ declined in usage in the 20th century because it was difficult to type on old typewriters. With the appearance of wordprocessing æ can be typed easily using a standard key (alt " on macs, for example) æ is once again being used by many people rather than write ae. Both are valid.

FearÉIREANN \^(caint)

I'd like to note that ae isn't always from æ, so ae cannot always be used validly. Æ went to 'ae' and then in many words was further reduced to just 'e'... make sure you know that the word originally had æ in it before replacing! We don't need to see things like "ærated"! porges 08:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Your claim that you were taught "mediæval" in school conflicts with my experience being educated in Ireland. I was never even taught to write an "æ". Since you're in your 30s and I'm in my 20s, it could be that "æ" was once on the syllabus, but has been removed. Gronky 03:18, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Individual spellings are not a matter on or off a syllabus. It is a less used variant because of manual typewriting problems, so it had to be typed as ae but 100% legitimate to use and with the appearance of word processing, as I have mentioned, many users have returned to using æ. It is also fully legitimate to use on Wikipedia. So do not remove it. Such removals will simply be reverted by the many users who, quite correctly, use it. Users are perfectly entitled to use it here. You can write the letters ae separately if you wish, but people do not have to. It is up to them, not you, to decide to use it. (If you look at the insert box on your screen you will see that Wikipedia facilitates people who wish to use it by giving œ, Œ, Æ and æ as typing options.

FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 04:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

It is cobblers, not to say insulting, to say that "no normal person" uses æ. They do. If you remove words with æ it will be treated as vandalism, reported as such as treated under Wikipedia rules as in cases where people willfully change BE to AE, or AE into BE, when it has been pointed out that the article is entitled to use the them. You clearly know less about language use and forms of spelling that can be used than you think you know. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 06:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

So, "no normal person" uses æ; perhaps not. I reverted your edit to restore æ. My comment was ‘revert in memory of George William Russell’. Perhaps he wasn’t normal; he wrote about ‘the færy world’ and those who ‘live only in the æther’, while others dwell ‘up the æry mountains’. Perhaps he wasn’t normal. He didn’t adhere to the spelling found in your Oxford Compact English Dictionary; he didn’t because he lived in Rathgar Avenue, at its junction with Kenilworth Square. I would appreciate it if you left words spelt as Dubliners would spell them, in articles about Dublin alone, rather than imposing your Oxford spelling. Thank you, --ClemMcGann 09:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what to make of you pair. I've given up on this, but your arguments are as bad FearÉIREANN 's. You claim that current English usage can be learned by looking at a single person, and then you point at someone born in 1867! I wish my political opponents argued as limply as you do.

Mr. Russel might have been normal, I didn't know him, but according to Wikipedia he hasn't written anything in at least 70 years. (Being dead is similar to an extreme case of writers cramp.)

Dubliners, in general, don't use "æ". Please don't cite a special case in the mistaken belief that it proves the general case. You will find more uses of "brang" and "brung" in Dublin than you will of "æ", but neither are acceptable as modern standard English. The Oxford English Dictionaries are probably the best known dictionaries to todays residents of Rathgar Avenue anyway. Gronky 00:48, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

A bit over a month has now passed and the above discussion is not in progress, but I've since thought of two examples that are better than "brang" and "brung". They are "me" used for "my", and "giz" used for "give". Anyone that has never either heard or said "giz a go of yer bike", and "wouldya geroff me bleedin' bike!" either didn't grow up in Dublin, or didn't have a bike. But neither "giz" nor "me" (as a possesive adjective) have a place in Wikipedia. Gronky 21:36, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Please bear the following in mind next time you're in the vicinity of the Proinsias De Rossa article, and indeed in general:

1. You should write accurate edit summaries avoiding personal attacks. Your edit summaries on the Proinsias De Rossa article are not accurate and accuse me of apparent vandalism and random deletion of sentences. This is not true.
2. I explained on the talk page why it was desirable to make some of the changes: you had introduced a section to the article on De Rossa's work as an MEP but left the material relating to that which was already in the article under another heading. Instead, under that heading, you included detailed information on how De Rossa voted on one of the hundreds of topics he has voted on during the course of his career as an MEP. (If the articles on members of parliaments included details on their voting or speaking on every issue that came up they would be unmanageably long.) I also fixed an ungrammatical sentence, which you then changed back to the ungrammatical version.
3. You never responded to what I wrote on the talk page but made another revert with another questionable edit summary.
4. When you're making significant changes (and the ones you made count as significant) you shouldn't label them as minor. See Wikipedia:Minor_edit Palmiro | Talk 16:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure how I missed it, but I didn't see your comments on the Talk page until now. If I had I would have replied. So that much is my fault.

1. I wrote an accurate edit summary. Since you seemed to be a proper wikipedian (not a troll) I wrote that I was reverting "what looks like vandalism".
2. Will reply to this on the Talk page
3. see above
4. I was reverting what looked like vandalism, that seems non-controversial/minor.

Gronky 21:15, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I see I am not the first person to take issue with your habit of making an edit, and then using the summary for that edit as a forum to reply to someone instead of summarizing what the edit is. Your edit had nothing to do with my edit, or the GNU toolchain which is what I edited. It doesn't seem appropriate to try to offer a rebuttal in the summary. If you have something to discuss, use the discussion page. Perhaps something like "mention that GNU utilties are more stable than proprietary unix" would have been a more accurate summary of your edit?

As to your actual edit, GNU utilities are not proven to be better than anything, "better" is a subjective term, and therefore cannot be proven. Since you decided to go with "stable", your summary rebuttal doesn't even make sense. None the less, I do not believe that the GNU utilties have been proven to be more stable. Your reference shows that 5 years ago, the GNU utilties were proven to handle random input better, but I don't think that is the same thing as "stable", and is nowhere close to "better". And of course they were only compared to the notoriously bad utilties in proprietary systems, not against any quality software. Personally, I think that paragraph sounds weird now with two seperate and different quality statements, maybe if you want to have information on the quality of GNU utilities we can come up with a whole seperate paragraph just for that info?

Also, you seem to have a very GNU-centric mindset, so please keep in mind that many people consider the GNU utilities to be junk and not worth using at all. In fact, people even go out of their way to create free, secure and reliable alternatives to GNU utilties, see the BSDs for instance, particularly OpenBSD. Remember that your personal opinion of the GNU software is not factual information about GNU software. So if you do want to keep quality information in the article, keep in mind that it will need to contain both points of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generic Player (talk • contribs) 18:07, August 30, 2005

The last person to take issue with my edit summaries turned out to be correct, and I issued an apology in a subsequent edit summary.

In this case, my edit summary was slightly imperfect, but I think you're over reacting. I didn't mention you by name, and I didn't say anything derogatory. The imperfection was that I appeared to be rebutting a previous edit, but in fact there was a slight difference in what I and the previous edit were talking about. Edit summary space is limited so a full explanation wasn't possible. The Edit summary should be read in at least one of two contexts: time (recent edits) and the edit itself. I don't think I'm significantly in the wrong here.

Regarding what you call my GNU-centric mindset, I disagree. I try to correct mistakes in Wikipedia, and many of my most researched topics centre on software freedom. It's one of the very few failings of Wikipedia's development model that widely held misconceptions are often given the same status as facts. So I often fix controversial mistakes, sometimes this requires discussions on Talk: pages, sometimes this can be avoided by writing detailed edit summaries, sometimes my corrections are wrongly reverted and I just have to move on. For Wikipedia to be high quality, widely held misconceptions must be dispelled outside in society too. So I spend time in the real world trying to build awareness of free software and the factual history and present of it.

If you have an actual problem with any of my edits (one that you can put in words instead of labeling them collectively as being "GNU-centric"), then do bring it up - here or on the pages Talk:page. I'll stand by my edits if I'm right and I'll apologise when I'm wrong. Gronky 21:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I did put it into words, you are replying to them even. Obviously cutting and pasting the same thing I already wrote isn't going to help, so I'll try to explain what the words mean.

Paragraph 1 is simply me asking you to summarize your edit instead of commenting on someone elses summary. You started your summary with "actually", clearly making it a reply. The fact that your edit didn't really involve mine just makes your reply out of place, its still a reply though, not an accurate summary of your edit. Summaries are for summaries, talk pages are for discussions.

Paragraph 2 is my actual problem with the article as it stands. Please read it again, you seem to have skipped this and headed straight for paragraph 3. Basically, the paragraph seems odd as it is, with 2 seperate mentions of quality issues, and not entirely balanced mentions at that. I think either removing the comments about quality altogether, or making a seperate paragraph to fully cover the quality issue would make the article better, that's all.

Paragraph 3 is just a friendly reminder that other people feel quite differently about GNU software, since I wasn't sure if you were aware of this. Its not a "problem with your edit". It just seems like your edit was added because you like GNU stuff and want the article to say its good, not because its important information. Maybe its just my imagination. Generic Player 00:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi Gronky,

I noticed Njyoder (talk · contribs) hostile behaviour on the Richard Stallman article. I would like to point out that this user is on personal attack parole from a previous RfAr[1] for precisely this reason and if you feel he is unfairly making personal attacks against you, you can report him for such. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing this out. Gronky 13:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thank you on correcting Dillo to be correct from a "GNU/FSF way". Let's continue making wikipedia a bit more aware of Free Software and the GNU project.Rvalles 23:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. One of the very few flaws in Wikipedia's model is that widely held misbeliefs often get treated as fact (or ethical items can be overshadowed by technical items). I do my best to correct articles that contains mistakes about free software. Gronky 14:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

(by that, in relation to the Dillo article, I mean that many people have seen the technical side of Dillo, but have not be informed about the ethical/social aspects of it - and so the article represented it purely as a technical project. Gronky 14:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC))Reply

There have been a few new candidates for speedy deletion added over the past month or two. A new CSD I5 allows for unused fair use or unfree images that have been on the site for seven days to be speedy deleted. So, if you re-upload the image and use it in an article, you should be okay. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 01:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot. I was under the false impression that the image was actually used at the time. Gronky 01:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reinserting it. I was partial to that picture myself. 172 | Talk 05:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

BTW, I just saw your userpage. Please try to get on better terms with Jtdirl. He is an extremely high regarded scholar who has taken out a considerable amount of his professional time from his schedule and spent large sums of cash (internet fees run up huge phone bills in Ireland and most of the most of the world outside the U.S.) for nearly three years in order to write and edit thousands of articles according to the highest standards of professional encyclopedias and sourcebooks. It would be a great loss if he did have to leave for good. So please comment on the specific actions that you question, not the person. 172 | Talk 05:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

It's certainly a hard situation to write about, and I'll try rewrite that section on Sunday. But I do place the establishment of a minimum standard of decency above the contributions of any Wikipedian, even a prolific one. Gronky 13:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I spent a lot of time working with him in 2003 and 2004. I'm sure that his intentions were good, with other editors baiting him the whole time... I'm glad to hear that you intend to rewrite the userpage post. 172 | Talk 14:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you changed the phrasing in the Black box article from

The opposite of a black box (e.g. an open source program) is sometimes known as a white box, a glass box, or a clear box.

to

The opposite of a black box (e.g. a free software/open source program) is sometimes known as a white box, a glass box, or a clear box.

Could you please explain to me the difference between the two versions? - It seems to me that your addition is redundant. Thanks, Nihiltres 17:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

It would be redundant if "free software" and "open-source software" were practically the same thing. This is something that I indeed think is the case, however, Wikipedia currently has seperate articles for each. "open-source software" is in fact simply a marketing term for free software (those are the words of the promoters of "open source", Open Source Initiative), and it's a term popularised 15 years after "free software"s original name (which is, "free software"). Unfortunately, the general public cannot be assumed to be aware of this, and there are many misconceptions arround "free software" and "open source", and this is further worsened by a number of companies heavily pushing the "open source" term upon general public. I believe these companies can write what they like in their press releases, but Wikipedia deserves better.

Fixing Wikipedia in a year is not practical, since Wikipedia is in part a reflection of the current beliefs of society - correct and incorrect. So I will not try to correct Wikipedia, which is why I didn't replace the reference to "open source" with one to "free software" (even though I think it would be correct, and I welcome others to do so). What I will do is whenever Wikipedia uses the marketing term, I'll put the original name beside it. Just so Wikipedia doesn't confuse people into thinking "free software" and "open source software" are different. Separating the two names with a slash, I think, shows they're two equivalents. Joining them with an and would make them seem like two compatible, but not necessarily linked, conditions. (I've written this in a hurry, I'll clarify anything if you ask.) (oh, and I fixed the "open source" link since the page open source used to be about software, but now information about software is on open-source software.) Gronky 23:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Egad. I'm using Firefox and the text on this page get progressively smaller with every FearEireann signature. -Joshuapaquin 01:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've tried to fix his html. I haven't seen the problem you describe, despite using Firefox, so I can't check if I fixed everything. Can you let me know if the fonts are fine now? Thanks. Gronky 03:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I must say I support you on your GNU-related edits. It's sad to see people calling Linux an operating system. Also, someone is trying to remove Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GNU/kFreeBSD on the ground that it's not an operating system. Thought it'd be good to let you know.Geronimooo 13:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note, I somehow forgot to add GNU/kFreeBSD to my watchlist. I've given my opinion on that Afd page now. Fixing Wikipedia will take years since Wikipedia is partly a reflection of society's views - correct and incorrect - but bit-by-bit, when everything is explained as it's being done, I'm glad to see that progress is being made in correcting the representation of GNU and similarly misunderstood topics. Gronky 14:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

As a note that both of you should take into account, Because of changing GNU/FreeBSD to GNU/kFreeBSD the article became even less relevent, because at that point it only applies to one system, where as at least before it could be said to include two GNU/FreeBSD hybridized systems. Janizary 06:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

The name is definitely not clear, and I think the solution is to step back and think about what the article is being written about. Rather than have seperate articles for each distro and flavour of GNU on BSD kernels, maybe it would be best to discuss them in one article where they can be compared and contrasted, and where duplicate information can be found and removed. I've left a more detailed comment on the Afd. Gronky 14:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

NetBSD isn't Free Software, you shouldn't go randomly changing to FSFisms in the articles about systems that entirely do not agree with the FSF. You can't just go adding stuff that is GNU to articles, because that's adding point of view to them, which is really bad when it's not even the subject's point of view. Janizary 06:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

NetBSD is free software. There is no dispute over this, even NetBSD software that is covered by their license with the advertising clause is free software [2]. And I never said that NetBSD agrees with FSF.

Is your actual issue that you think Wikipedia's NetBSD article shouldn't say that NetBSD is free software because The NetBSD Foundation disagrees with FSF? If so, I think you should ask yourself if such an outside political disagreement is really a correct reason for selectively removing facts from Wikipedia. (I won't revert or re-edit.)

Maybe you would be happy if the article said NetBSD is "freely redistributable", which is their term for free software / open source software. ... The NetBSD Foundation does not use the term "free software" because it associates that term with Free Software Foundation, an organisation whose philosophy it does not agree with.

That would be factually correct, and proper. Gronky 14:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Update: www.netbsd.org actually uses the term "free software" [3] [4] and it uses it in the free-as-in-freedom sense since it says "While most free software will compile on NetBSD 'out of the box" which would make no sense if "free" meant "zero-cost" (since zero-cost software is usually not compilable). Gronky 14:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Gronky! I believe we have not yet finished our discussion. I had an "epiphany" recently, and I realized that perhaps, you should go ahead with your "overseas filipino communities" suggestion, or whatever title you see fit. Good luck, and Merry Christmas! :) --Noypi380 07:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I haven't forgot, but I've been busy. I will come back. Maligayang Pasko! ;-) Gronky 04:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've been working a bit on the article recently and would like to get some feedback, could you let me know what you think needs adding/is missing etc. from the article. Thanks - FrancisTyers 17:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

You've certainly filled it out! It looks very complete and I have no suggestions right now, but I'll check back the next time something Leprechaun-related enters my mind. Gronky 04:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks :) Its going through peer review too, so if you have any thoughts, check out the peer review on the Talk page. - FrancisTyers 11:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Why is Free Software not a subset of Open Source software? —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Here's a GNU page that agrees with what I said: [5] (look at the diagram). Also, according to FSF, the Netscape Public License is free software [6] but according to Open Source Iniative it is not an open-source software license.

These are not absolute proofs since they rely on interpretations by GNU, FSF, and Open Source Initiative - but then again, all such judgements rely on interpretations by someone, and those groups are the most accepted judges of the most authorative definitions of the terms we're talking about. Gronky 03:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Wow, I made that suggestion nearly half a year ago, and then completely forgotten about it (along with the ~1000 other posts I've made). And then, not haven't gotten a message since the summer, today it says "You have new messages." I'm glad you started the portal, I mean - since the German and French Wikipedia both have one, surely the English Wikipedia should have one (considering Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, ... all speak English). I'll try to contribute as much as I can, but I go college so that's why I mainly stopped contributing to Wikipedia since September. In fact, much of what I know about free software comes directly from Wikipedia articles. I put up a picture and "did you know" on Portal:free software. It's not much, but it's a start. Great job on what you did so far! -Hyad 06:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

You've probably seen me (admittedly) trolling on the Richard Stallman talk page. My own observation is tending to lead me to believe that your degree of regard for Richard Stallman is primarily emotionally based, and non-objective. I'm willing to acknowledge that my own dislike of some elements of his behaviour probably is also; but I've noticed that certain people's unreasoning worship of him is as much the cause of my dislike of him as his own attitudes/statements at times.

My primary grievances with him are that a) he seems very much to try and insist that his philosophy is the only one that can be legitimately followed, and that b) despite the size and number of his genuine contributions, as I noted on the talk page, for some inexplicable reason, he and his followers such as yourself continue to attempt to take credit for things for which credit does not honestly belong to him. Given that, on reflection I can see that my problems are with some specific behaviour here...I do not know the man personally, and would not try to claim that I do.

These are not reservations which I alone hold, either...I have seen them noted by a considerable number of other people in the past as well. I will also acknowledge having been gratuitously provocative on the talk page at times, but said provocation has been a product of genuine frustration and confusion; this man has genuinely done much to be respected for, but recognition for that which he genuinely has done on its own does not seem to be enough for him. I also do not understand why he seems to be so deeply threatened by the idea that other people wish to hold beliefs which are not necessarily in conformity with his own. That to me genuinely does not seem conducive to the kind of freedom which he claims to want people to have. I cannot help but assume that surely a part of any meaningful freedom would have to be the freedom to disagree with him. Petrus4 22:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't follow that article any more, so I hadn't seen your comments until now.

It's a topic I've done a lot of research on. I've read and listened to probably almost every available English-language article, essay, interview, and recording of his talks and the post-talk Q&A sessions. I also follow a number of mailing lists which he is active on. I've met him in person and talked to him 1-to-1, briefly, a number of times - despite doing my best to minimise such contact.

I know his philosophy quite well, and I know, in detail, a lot of things he's done, and I know many of his limits.

The reason I don't follow that article anymore is that no matter how much I rebut or clarify or explain, a new person just arrives the next month and the process has to start again, so I'm almost wasting my time when I do so - and because I know how inneffective my effort is, I hold back from putting in a full effort anyway.

If you've any specific, short questions which you'd like to ask of a person who knows Stallman well, here's a fine place, but I don't know how to fix that article's environment. (I ask for "short", not because I'm unwilling to devote the time for long questions, but because there are so many confusions that piecemeal is the best way to examine this topic.) Gronky 21:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Cyberjunkie has nominated for deletion the template that gives your portal round corners. He's trying to delete 3 templates I created. Please help maintain selective design amongst portals and support these three templates. Here's the link: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Portal:Box-header-round. They are listed sequentially. There isn't much time left, and it's lucky I found out at all. --Go for it! 03:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you're welcome to comment. However, please disregard Go for it!'s inflamatory remarks and, more so, please understand that I am absolutely not "attacking" anything. Happy editing, --cj | talk 10:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for notifying me of this. I can see reasons to agree with both sides of the debate, so I've left a comment. Gronky 22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I saw this edit - do you have an proove for this? Just a source would be enough for me. --Liquidat 14:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I don't know of any publicly-accessible source. I also don't know of any publicly accessible source which supports the previous statement. For what it's worth, I'm certain my edit is correct. Gronky 20:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

So you have non publicly accessible sources? Does that mean, that there are closed ones? --Liquidat 00:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

That means they are private sources, ones which have not been published online and therefore cannot be accessed by the public. Gronky 12:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Slashdot provided a source today: A FOSDEM speech by Stallman (see the first line). I'll add this to the article as a source. Gronky 20:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

If a misunderstanding is held by a large enough section of society, it will sometimes be wrong in Wikipedia - and when someone tries to fix it, they may be out-numbered by people who are sure that their misunderstanding is correct.

One example that people talk about is that if Wikipedia was started hundreds of years ago, it's article about Earth would say that the Earth is flat.

There are many modern-day examples related to the GNU operating system, the GNU project, and free software.

Hi Gronky, I saw this on your user page, but I did not click the top right edit button there to say this: I am aware of this type of thing elsewhere in life and in Wiki. Like the origin of the name White Rhino, which I think I have fixed. Then while being a Wiki user I discovered that my long held belief that the maiden name of Simon van der Stel's wife form Stellenbosch was Bosch, is a misbelief. Then in 1986 I was tought about Groupthink and we see today that George Bush junior is guilty of allowing it to occur.Gregorydavid 07:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Don't links like this [7] belong on the Talk pages, not the actual articles themselves? AlistairMcMillan 20:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

They belong on the article pages, I'm sure of that, because they're part of the information/navigation/markup content of the encyclopedia, not part of the development project. I haven't been able to find any Wikipedia guide for what pages to add the tag to, or where on the page to put the tag, but adding the free software portal tag to pages about free software seemed obvious, and the "See also" section also seemed like the logical place. Gronky 21:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for helping on the Chavez corrections ! Sandy 14:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think you misread the article. OSI Certified is a strong trademark of the Open Source Initiative. Please do not disparage this mark further. Open Source, even though unregistered, and aruably currently unregisterable, is a weak trademark of the Open Source Initiative. We might not prevail in defending it in court, but there is no harm in our claiming it to be a trademark. RussNelson 03:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem in adding my recent Talk:FOSS history discussion to Alternative terms for free software. However, were you asking me to reduce/compose/insert the info into the main article, or simply copy the gist of what I wrote in Talk:FOSS into Talk:Alternative terms for free software?

BTW, do I know you, as in "have we ever talked by phone or any other non-electronic-text medium?" No specifics needed, just some of your style of argment sounds familiar. I, stupidly yet gleefully (I clearly have masochistic tendencies), have decided to be me. Not enough experience in online role-playing in my background, I suspect.

I was amused by the aptness of your comments to the effect of "if you don't reply, the most negative interpretation ends up 'winning' the discussion... thus forcing a lot of self-defensive work instead of real composition and addition to Wikipedia." I have, um, discovered that the hard way lately... 8^) It's too bad, really, since the same amount of effort applied to adding to content would often be far more beneficial to everyone in the long term. It's not that different from free software: adding new code to fix problems in free software is in the long term a much more powerful approach than doing nothing but critiquing code and leaving the (often much harder) constructive work to be done by others. It also sort of conflicts with the original admonitions of Wikipedia to "be bold!" and "feel free to add!", doesn't it? Cheers, Terry Bollinger 04:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The information should go into the article. The alternative terms for free software article was made because there was a growing number of articles about terms such as "open source software", "FLOSS", "FOSS", "Libre software". Reading the articles, I noticed there was not just innaccurate information but there was even conflicting information between each article. And of course, there was buckets of content duplication, usually at mediocre quality (presumably due to the divided contributor base). So putting these things into one article means the duplicate stuff can be removed (and the best version kept) and the conflicting stuff will be apparent and can be squared up.

Looking at the FOSS article, it seems it would be better if the content was merged into alternative terms for free software and made a redirect. What do you think?

Outside of Wikipedia, I don't think we've met, yet. I used to use my real name for many sites, but when a pest started bugging me on multiple sites, and when I started wondering about a contribution and how it might relate to organisations I'm affiliated with, I decided to start using nicknames for certain activities. Gronky 09:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I thought you might be interested. Best wishes, Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

You write:

Could you expand the Code Sourcery article a bit? Due to your connection, you probably shouldn't comment on how good or bad a company it is, but objective things such as:

• how old it is
• who are the top management
• where is it based
• how many staff does it have
• how many developers does it have
• Is all the software it develops released as free software, and if not, what approximate portion is
• does it have a free software policy
• what are it's main products or services, current and past

Thanks. Gronky 19:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

In view of the need for verifiability to cited public sources, I think that the same principles as in WP:AUTO apply here and I should not do more than correct obvious errors. But to answer some of your questions (and you'll need to find public sources for anything you wish to include), the article should be at CodeSourcery and personally I doubt the utility of leaving a redirect at the mis-spaced Code Sourcery, founded 1997, Chief Sourcerer Mark Mitchell (GCC Release Manager), "based" Granite Bay, California but this is hardly meaningful or significant for a completely distributed company, 19 staff (all technical) but I don't think you'll find a public source to cite for this figure, the bulk of Sourcery G++ is free software (there are proprietary debug stubs for connecting to proprietary interfaces on various boards, and proprietary Eclipse plugins) as is all of Sourcery VSIPL++ and QMTest (the C++ ABI Testsuite is the one purely proprietary product, and there is internal code not released at all), I don't know what you mean by a free software policy (all changes to the free software components are contributed upstream where acceptable upstream; we are an FSF Corporate Patron [8]). Joseph Myers 00:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've taken the liberty of changing my sig html up a bit. Is this better for you?  — JT (TRAiNER4)  [T·C·E] 22:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Gnu-55x55.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 08:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's the default message for notifications on images for deletion. I would assume that it has a different color because an image you uploaded possibly being deleted is considered important. --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sadly even that is no consensus. Rich Farmbrough, 12:49 5 October 2006 (GMT).

I created an amendment for fair use in portals, as well as submitted to village pump, see here: Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals#Also. It would be great if you could express your support there. ddcc 21:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it was probably inappropriate. My bad. Neilc 11:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

dear gronky! i said something ok Karl Marx talk page about your concerns. you might want to read it. --Arash red 06:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't know any "X Windows". I guess you mean the X Window System. -- mms 21:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's what I mean. I thought it was sometimes shortened to "X Windows", but I'll try to be clearer in future. Gronky 21:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Maybe some just drop the "System". But this would lead to "X Window". The "s" at the end – I suppose – comes from the association with Microsoft Windows. "You know, these Linux people have their own Windows GUI called X Windows". -- mms 21:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Savane, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. -- Ezeu 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

In an edit you wrote that "licence is the noun, license is the verb". If so, why than GNU General Public License? -- mms 09:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Some dialects of English use "license" for both the noun and the verb. The North American dialects do this, the UK/Ireland/India/Australia dialect doesn't. WP policy is that both dialects are acceptable and that changing from one dialect to another for no reason is not acceptable. Gronky 09:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I should clarify. It's just USA English that uses "license" as the noun, Canadian English uses "licence" - so I was wrong to say that North Amerian dialects use "license" for the noun. Gronky 16:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, actually I changed it because of the redirect.  :) I prefer British myself. (Not a native speaker, though) 80.233.255.7 15:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

A lot of people who speak dialects that are closer to British English than to American English get spellings wrong such as using "license" for the noun, etc. Or maybe this is just something that's happening to the software community because most of the legalese around software starts in the USA. Either way, there's a policy against changing redirects that are equivalent to the pointed to article, so I police that as a slight counterbalance to the common spelling mistakes which pull WP in the American English direction. Gronky 15:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm one of those people. I do prefer to use British English, even though I haven't bothered to actually learn it, so I really appreciate if somebody cares enough to speak up about it. Hell, I only found out about the actual difference between "licence" and "license" from the discussion above.

For one, I didn't know there's a policy for that. Thanks for pointing that out. 80.233.255.7 15:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not all linux contain GNU. So GNU/Linux is only a subset of Linux that has GNU tools. Micropolygon 13:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

All unix-like "Linux distros" contain more GNU than they do Linux. Gronky 13:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

there are linux distro with no GNU. Micropolygon 13:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Unix-like ones? Which? Gronky 13:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The one i made. Micropolygon 13:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Which is...? Gronky 13:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

NoGNU-Linux. Micropolygon 13:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Besides, the main article is called "Linux", not GNU/Linux, so we should follow that standard.Micropolygon 13:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Read the article. Both names are in use, and the current state of the article being named "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux" is in current debate on the Talk page. Every article has to pick a name, but that doesn't mean that every topic only has one valid name. Gronky 13:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The article says a Linux with GNU libraries can sometimes be called GNU/Linux, so Linux is the name for all Linuxs, while GNU/Linux only refer to Linuxes with GNU. Micropolygon 13:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

All Linux-based operating systems have GNU libraries. Maybe it's possible to boot a computer with Linux and without GNU, but you won't have a Unix-like OS, and you won't be able to run any of the applications whose pages you're changing to say Linux instead of GNU/Linux, so you're actually making those pages incorrect. Gronky 13:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

(Deindent)... Wouldn't NoGNU-Linux be better off as Unix-Linux? 92.0.138.3 (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, no, it doesn't mess with talk page archiving at all; it combines a lot of the talk page template clutter (templates related to peer reviews, FA and GA status) into one {{ArticleHistory}} template. It can be done by hand, but GimmeBot does it automatically; I'm just doing the prep work. For a sample, look at Talk:The Simpsons. I think you'll like it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Gronky. I think that a little more work on Linux would bring it to Featured Article status. I would be grateful for your comments here. Thanks. Axl 12:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't aware of that, thanks for pointing it out.

Dsigal 02:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It was curious that they were all the same. Thank you. MichaelNetzer 22:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Gronky! Since it has been a month since you nominated the Free software portal for peer review, I hope you received good feedback on how the portal could be improved. If you would like, you could keep the portal listed at the portal peer review for more suggestions for improvement and ask the Wikipedians here for feedback. Also, if you think the portal is ready, you could nominate the portal for featured status. Either way, I hope you've received helpful reviews! Cheers, S.D. 16:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The peer review the portal got was great, it's a big improvement. I've removed it from the listings on the peer review requests page. I think it will be nominated for featured status in a few weeks. Thanks. Gronky 12:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Glad to hear it. Good luck with the nomination! Cheers, S.D. 12:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see. I apologize, I meant no harm. Geekman314^{(contact me)} 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am contacting everyone who participated in the discussion that became inactive in December. Due to the length of the previous discussion, I have proposed a new amendment and you like you to weigh in so that we may actually have a consensus on this matter as it doesn't seem there exists one either way. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria

Ok, well I'm glad you corrected the nouns that were in the body. The reason I edited in the first place was because the title spelling did not match its usage within the body, so I corrected the spelling that I was familiar with so that title and usage within the body were consistent. Question: For differences like this, what is typically done in Wikipedia? Why is the Wikipedia page at Color spelled the American way, for instance? Thanks. Jeff schiller 13:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your message on my talk page. Please see my reply here. Cheers--Edcolins 17:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

According to wikicharts صفحهٔ اصلی which you created is one of our top 1000 most popular 'articles' :) Haukur 10:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm. Having looked at the wikicharts info for portals, especially the data for previous months, it seems the algorithm is a bit buggy. Interesting though. Thanks. Gronky 11:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you want Gnu/communism to be discussed for deletion, there are three steps you need to take. See WP:AFD. -- RHaworth 16:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reminder :-) I just got called away from my computer after doing step #1. Steps #2 and #3 are done now. Gronky 17:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Gronky. Yes, the abilty to write a good article is important, but it seems to me the Wiki editorial gang is going for style over substance with a decided preference to delete/revert rather than taking the time to improve the entries. The fact that Francis has trouble seeing the connection between the Children of the Code site and spelling reform verifies this opinion in 50ft tall letters.

I think all of you need to reread the Whats Great About Wiki essay. You have obviously strayed far away from the ideals touted there.JO 753 04:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Ht-//dig, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. mms 18:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this notice. Unfortunately, I don't have knowledge to add to that article, and it looks like development stopped in early 2005, so it's less and less likely that someone else will come along and improve the article. So I can't argue against it being deleted. To preserve what little information is there, on the off chance that someone does come along wanting to have a go, I've put a copy on Category talk:Free search engine software. Gronky 07:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Usually the nom counts as a Delete vote, and really does not need to vote. When people say "per nom," they mean that the reason why they are voting Delete is the same reason stated in the nominating statement. Panoptical 20:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you semi-reverted my change to the wording of the mention of TG4. I was hoping we could discuss this and come to an agreement so that we're not simply reverting each other. To me this explanation seems unnecessary for a couple of reasons. First, it's mentioned higher up on the page so doesn't come completely out of nowhere. Second, someone has since added a link to that same mention. If someone is confused as to what TG4 is, they can simply check the link. Furthermore, the wordier explanation seems to break up the flow of the language to me. I'd like to hear your own viewpoint so that we can perhaps come up with some form of compromise. —Leftmostcat 09:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would agree with you based on your first reason but that, as far as I can tell, there isn't any mention of TG4 or Teilifís na Gaeilge until the Daily life section which is further down. Gronky 08:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. You're right there. What are your thoughts on the link? To me it seems sufficient to link it, as any user unfamiliar with TG4 can read further about it. —Leftmostcat 04:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Gronky 09:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. If you are interested in free software, you might also be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Free Software. Hope you enjoyed France! --Gronky 12:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey Gronky, I'm a new article writer. I have written an article on GGobi and am looking for any helpful feedback. It is free software so I thought you might have an interest in it. Thanks for the help in advance. Lynn08 03:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've done a little clean-up. The article still needs a more encyclopedic writing style. Some of the sentences are like a project homepage (subjectively promoting GGobi), and I removed one sentence that was like a HOWTO. Hope that helps. --Gronky 10:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, sorry for the late reply. It's good to see Wikipedia users who do know the history of GNU and understand the difference between GNU/Linux and Linux. To me, the fact that links to GNU/Linux are being removed seems like being contrary to the Wikipedia's objectives of developing useful educational neutral content, as talking about "Linux distributions" is not neutral (it's openly anti-GNU) and neither useful nor educational (it makes people believe wrong things about the status of GNU and fails to help readers understand what a GNU/Linux distro is composed of) and is also unhistorical. It's very bad that some have resorted to some sort of "delinking war" to remove GNU/Linux links, as this makes Wikipedia biased. I just hope there are enough people here who know the GNU history and understand the extend of GNU code in every GNU/Linux distro (bash, grep, libc, emacs, gnome, just to name a few GNU software programs found in nearly every distro), otherwise those who don't know it or are biased against it may succeed in making Wikipedia less neutral :( NerdyNSK 22:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

At Portal talk:Free software you wrote, "I've finally finished the tabs, and I can't find nicer tabs in any portal. These ones rock - and to top it off, I think they're even the best documented tabs." <-- can you point me to the documentation? I'm looking for something like Wikipedia:Portal/Instructions. Thanks. --JWSchmidt 14:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there is anything like Wikipedia:Portal/Instructions for tabs. The only documentation I know of is the code itself of each portal and the comments in the code. When I made the tabs on Portal:Free software, I copied the code and comments from other Wikipedia:Featured portals that had tabs. I think I managed to simplify the system a little and I think I added a little bit of extra commentary, but that's as good as it gets. Tabs are a pain to set up, but once they're done, they never need maintenance, so they're worth doing. Hope that helps. --Gronky 21:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

It gets too complicated to lay out the full story in the lead. It goes 1987-1997 Labour MP for Glasgow Hillhead; 1997-2003 Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin; 2003-2004 Independent MP for Glasgow Kelvin; 2004-2005 Respect MP for Glasgow Kelvin; 2005- Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow. The whole story is set out in the article and probably isn't worth summarising in the lead. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 21:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok. I think I've now managed to fix the ambiguity problem without adding any more dates. Thanks for the note. --Gronky 22:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

And you've done a good job. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 22:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

see User_talk:Lentower#A_Merge_of_Free_Software_and_Open_Source_Software.3F.3F for my reply. I prefer that these talk page discussions be on a single page. Lentower 18:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Gnash-logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Gronky, your help is needed in the mentioned articles. Jimmi Hugh thinks talking about proprietary software is just propaganda and does disgrace Wikipedia. --mms (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link. I'll make sure to contribute, as free software is very important to me, and we need to inform everyone about it. P.S. how dare that person change all the GNU/Linux links to Linux (unless it was about the kernel). Afarnen (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would you support keeping the current article's text, but using the target article's name? If there is nothing to merge from the target article, what do you think should be done with it? If you don't think that is the better name, should we delete it or redirect it to wherever the current article eventually is? --Karnesky (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I don't see any benefit in renaming Alternative terms for free software to "Free and open source software", and the reason is that that name says nothing about the scope of the article. How could any wikipedian ever know what would be appropriate to add? How could anyone else ever argue that something added is innappropriate or off-topic? The current name is quite specific, and has 2.5 years of proof of being resistant to topic-creep and off-topic info.

For one reason or another, various people have perceived a problem with the term "free software" over the years. There have been efforts to find an acceptable alternative, and that's what this article is about. Among the alternatives, "open source" has been the most popular - that should be (and is) in the article.

As for the Free and open source software article, I've never understood it's purpose. It has no original content and has been stagnant for months. It survived a proposal for deletion on a 5:4 decision. 3 of the 5 who supported keeping it did so on the grounds of waiting and seeing if it improves, but all the followed was 3 months of stagnation. Personally, I don't see any value for Wikipedia there, and I don't see a future for it. --Gronky (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

All of the non-English articles are some variant of "FOSS" or "FLOSS." Multiple people have expressed reservations about the current name, so I do think it is a weak point about the article. Although the term "free software" has a longer history than the other terms mentioned in the article, it is not so popular in current usage that it eclipses all of the other terms. It'd be nice to have a title that meets any possible WP:NPOV objections. --Karnesky (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The only such option I can think of would be "Alternative terms for free software, such as the term open-source software" (or "including" could be used instead of "such as"), but it's quite a mouthful. --Gronky (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The objections seem to be both about "alternative" and about giving a preference to "free software" over the others. So, how about "Terms for free, libre, or open-source software?" (I personally dislike "libre," but this is a reasonably short phrase that lists Stallman's preferred language to appeal to both "free" and "open source" fans & includes each of the post popular terms). We might even remove "Terms for," as the article also touches on licenses, etc. --Karnesky (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually, if you read the interwiki articles, they're not about the same topic. For the five I can read, four are solely about the term "FOSS" (or "FLOSS" or both in some cases), and the other is about the general concept of FS/OSS. A few years ago, Wikipedia had an article about FOSS, another about FLOSS, another about Libre software, another about FS/OSS, and another about some Hindi term for free software. Seeing that this was stupid, I made a unified article to discuss the common idea of alternative terms for free software. --Gronky (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The German & Sinhalese articles both FLOSS & FOSS; the Italian WP still has separate articles for FOSS & FLOSS. I do think all pages are of a similar scope--describing terms that seek to combine "free" and "open-source" software & none give a bias towards one of those terms. I think it is a telling deficiency that the English article stands out in this way. --Karnesky (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Errr, strongly agreeing with the premise of personal attacks (even in part) isn't that much better than making them onesself. You're better than that. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was trying to clarify that despite also being a strong critic of your behaviour on Wikipedia, after years of working together I don't agree with paragraph 4. In hindsight, paragraph 1 was unjustified too. --Gronky (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Gronky, I restored the links you removed from the Ohloh description in Free software movement. I don't see how linking to metrics and quantitative analyses (i.e. a factual description of what ohloh does) means saying how great the service is. --DarTar (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

User:Mike92591/draft

I want to complete it and use it to substitute the "Release changes under a different licence" columns in Comparison of free software licences but, I'm not sure on how to order them, any ideas? I was thinking that there has to a better way then just putting them alphabetically. Also, if you know someone who has a good bit of legal knowledge, please ask them too. Mike92591 (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

On Portal talk:Free software a recent comment of yours refers to "one Wikipedia, Thumperward" - did you mean "one Wikipedia editor"? Guy Harris (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for catching this. I forgot the 'n' of Wikipedian. Fixed. --Gronky (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

You might be interested to know that this business is being discussed on the administrators' noticeboard, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_trying_to_use_Jimbo_comment_as_a_club. Sarah 13:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've asked you to refrain from this kind of canvassing action in the past; I'm pretty sure that doing so on your user page is against policy. There's no need for this, and I don't see that it's likely to persuade anyone who wasn't previously convinced that I was in the wrong. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you use {{User GNU}} on your user page, it will be listed in category:Wikipedians who use GNU. I was surprised that there is still no category:Wikipedians who use GNU/Linux. --mms (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

please, aid to neutralize and to improve this article that is in favor of being erased. It is a popular distribution in Latin America and that is entering Europe, and the European Union even contracted the creative company of Rxart to work in project MANCOOSI. excuse my English please. Thank you very much, I hope that it can help me.--190.49.162.85 (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've fixed some of the English and added a reference showing that it is available pre-installed on computers in Argentina. That should fulfil the requirements of notability. If you want to improve the article further, my advice is to add more references (like the info in the <ref> tag I added to the intro). References are a good way to prove that the topic is notable, and they are a source of information for other people who want to add more info to the article. --Gronky (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much to help me, I will consider your advice. Ah this one my usuary name, already I registered myself.--Bostokrev (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Free-software-badge.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Optigan13 (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Fedora (GNU/Linux distribution) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 12:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The lists are generated by a bot based on the talk page templates used for the RfC. The description is provided in the template usage. The bottom text at Template:RFCsci list explains the template usage and warns that edits made directly to the page will be overwritten by the bot. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd appreciate it if you took the time to inform me in future before rewriting my RfCs. I'm sure you're aware that editing other users' comments is frowned upon at the best of times. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Time was the one thing I didn't have, it's not "your" RfC, and being careless with the time of Wikipedia's review team's is inconsiderate.

The time that Wikipedia's RfC team will give to this question is limited. The interested people, as a group, can only ask the same question once every 3-12 months, so this service is a shared resource. You took the decision to expend that shared resource unilaterally (a similarly frown-worthy offense), but that doesn't make it yours.

As for time, Rfcs probably get most of their attention in the first 24hrs, so waiting for a dialogue with you could make it too late for any fix to be effective.

These problems could have been avoided by letting others review a proposed submission, or it probably could have been written neutrally by a single person if due care was exercised. Neither were.

I didn't want the time of the Wikipedia Rfc team to be wasted, and I didn't want the group's shared resource to have been wasted, so I fixed the problem right away. --Gronky (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, okay didn't notice, soz.--Darrelljon (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

you may want to format those merge tags right (i.e. start a merge section and add text saying why it is a good idea and then make sure that the links point to that section in the talk, it is covered in the how to on merging.) If this little hint isn't enough just ask and I'll find some links for you. Pdbailey (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the pointer. I didn't know this had been added to standard procedure. Done. --Gronky (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

One more thing, you may want to list it at Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers. Pdbailey (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good day Gronky,

His method is to block all users who disagree.

He left me this message:

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bald Eeagle (3rd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As you know this person has been provoking and in violation of wikipedia rules because I do not agree with him. WP:BITE

His behavior cannot cannot be accepted. It is a completely wrong from him to aim to block users that do not agree with his POV. --Grandscribe (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

see:User_talk:Mike92591/proposals/guideline_for_names_related_to_Linux#Question_from_Gronky Mike92591 (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see we just lost this logo due to licensing incompatibility with the BSD Daemon. Not much way around that except to create a new version sans daemon, unless you know anyone who's in a position to grant an exception on copyleft for the GNU head. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Fisl-logo.jpeg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Gronky

I have been very busy on some projects beyond Wikipedia. I just want to say hello.

Keep up the good work!

--Grandscribe (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've been busy too in the last few weeks, but I'm still around. If there are any attempts to minimise or wipe GNU and free software from Wikipedia, I'll do what I can. --Gronky (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

We really need to get this sorted out. If there's really no way we can come to an agreement on whether to use "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" then we should attempt a rephrase which avoids this. I've posted to the talk page there, and Grandscribe agreed with the compromise, so I'd appreciate if you could help out with this. Likewise for other cases where the use of "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" might be contentious. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

You are the only person who thinks that "GNU/Linux" must be wiped from Wikipedia (modulo articles that discuss the term itself). So there is no imperative to rephrase a fine sentence that refers to an OS made of GNU and Linux as "GNU/Linux". --Gronky (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Let's have a look at some of your mass-reverts:

• [9] (the article now uses both "Linux" and "GNU/Linux")
• [10] (the article now uses both "Linux" and "GNU/Linux"; the deleted sentence is banal and pointless)
• [11] (you removed an instance of "GNU/Linux", even though it's part of the OS's proper name)
• [12] (you removed a needed cleanup tag without explanation)
• [13] (you restored a dubious statement and removed the citation challenge)
• [14] (copyediting lost, along with the point that all modern systems are covered and not just the few given)
• [15] (the article now uses both "Linux" and "GNU/Linux")
• [16] (the article now uses both "Linux" and "GNU/Linux")

And so on and so on. That's just in the first few; your reverts were indisciminate and lowered the quality of a significant number of articles. Rather than contacting me about it, or taking it to a wider forum, you immediately contacted another user to tell him that my edits were "vandalism", while mass-reverting (both things which you go out of your way to deride on your userspace soapbox).

Anyway, it's reasonably easy to keep track of these edits individually. Due to your refusal to follow the norms of the project in respecting a consensus which you disagree with, I'll have to argue each one of these changes on the individual article talk pages. They are almost all straightforward copyedits, so I don't imagine any of them will be controversial, but it'll take me some time. I do not expect you to continue to refer to content disputes as "vandalism", nor to continue to use your userspace to attack other Wikipedians, especially when you're doing so with a quote from Jimbo Wales which is so logically fallacious that there's a well-read essay on the subject which you are aware of. Should this continue, I'll be forced to take this to a user conduct RfC, as this obstructionism in the name of preserving your point of view on articles is a significant impedance to the improvement of our free software coverage (not least because it appears to be your primary contribution to the project at this point).

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your edits are unjustified, widely criticised, and your bully tactics of ignoring the community process are completely unacceptable. --Gronky (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you two really think that "Linux" is incorrect and should be referred to as "GNU/Linux" in all instances, how about you have some balls and try to get the "Linux" article moved. Instead of running around quietly editing all the links to point to a redirect. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Renaming the article about the operating system has been under discussion for years. There is broad support for using the two terms in Wikipedia. What I actually did was to undo the quiet edits of another editor who's hobby is to replace one name with another name without ever mentioning it in his edit summaries. I put some info on this here: User:Gronky#GNU.2FLinux_is_a_fine_name. --Gronky (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Don't really give a damn. Please don't make indiscriminate drive-by edits. Especially edits that just make articles more inconsistent. Please by all means, if the think the articles are wrongly named, then work towards building consensus to have them moved. Changing articles to point to redirects, or changing them so that they end up referring to the same thing in two or three different ways does not improve Wikipedia one iota. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that the "consistency" is a fake consistency manufactured by one soap-box editor (Thumperward/Chris). He's been widely criticised but nobody has enough time to undo is nuisance edits. --Gronky (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Template:Latest stable software release/GNU requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 16:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you copy pasted Les Snuls from the french language wikipedia.Ok I see you're translating it now. You know you can always do this as a user sub page so you can use the wikiengine. Shadowjams (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I know my method has drawbacks (there's temporarily some French on the wikipedia), but the problem with user subpages is that if I don't finish what I started, then no one else will see that there's a half-translation that they could finish. Any ideas for other ways to avoid that problem? Thanks. Gronky (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not offhand, although tagging it over at articles needing translation's always a good way. I don't know the protocol on translations exactly, but they certainly would. Shadowjams (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

You could remove SFLC from the intro if you want (if nothing, because the sentence seems lost there), but it would be on you then to find it's suitable place. In I don't think a link is sufficient. However, there's really no need to correct "license". Thanks. --Paxcoder (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I don't think it's true that a sentence about SFLC cannot be deleted, only moved. There are many organisations that have significantly helped free software. Cygnus Solutions is surely one. FSFE is another. FFII too. iFross is another, and they brought the GPL to court and won, something that SFLC has yet to do. SFLC happens to be an organisation I really like, but they're a relative newcomer in this 26-year-old field, so it's disproportionate to rank everyone else's longstanding work below their contributions. Gronky (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Moto (programming language), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Not notable

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Cybercobra (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for your comment on my talk page. I initially figured "licence" was a mistake, since the respective category (ie. the name for the free software "license" category) uses that spelling. Anyway, thanks for clearing it up, appreciate it. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

For better and faster discussion between WikiProject Software Members a IRC channel has been created: irc://irc.freenode.net/##WikiProject-Software. For instant access click here: http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=##WikiProject-Software. Please use your Wikipedia nickname. You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Software or one of its departments. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello Gronky,

Just wanted to say it is good to see you around Wikipedia again.--Grandscribe (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Hello Gronky! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 5 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Roger Moore (computer scientist) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. André Goosse - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

you wrote:

• Was that intentional, or should there actually be two parts? If there're two parts, could you upload the other part? That would be great, thanks. I haven't seen any other recordings of RMS on patents from his NZ tour.

It was somewhat intentional, in order to generate the page. I had trouble uploading the first part of this talk, as it is 59MB, and my connections time out on uploading that. As mentioned on the note on that page, it would be appreciated if someone else could update the first part to the correct video, which is provided as a link on that page. gringer (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this edit summary: pages which are in your userspace can be flagged for speedy deletion by adding the {{db-u1}} tag to the page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I thought us ordinary editors used to be able to directly delete pages - has this changed? Gronky (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ordinary editors have never been able to delete pages AFAIK. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Gronky,

Would you like to help improve the article on GNU ?

Have a look at the article, history and discussion page. --Grandscribe (talk) 04:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I've posted a comment explaining that the GCC compiler did not guarantee pointer subtraction. Chris Chittleborough removed it saying the reference I added was cryptic. I posted it again adding another "less cryptic" reference. You removed it stating "an encyclopedia article is not the place to explain pointers, and this isn't criticism, it's a bug, GCC (and LLVM, and MSC) have hundreds or thousands of bugs".

I think you got it wrong, like I did. I also though it was a bug of GCC, and posted it in GCC's bug tracker. The guys there explained to me that it is not a bug, pointer arithmetic is just not guaranteed in some cases. So they closed my bug report as invalid because it is not a bug, it is supposed to be like that, and it won't change.

I was very surprised, obviously, and I got confirmation from them, just to make sure. And they confirmed it. I think the community should know this, but I'm having a hard time keeping the post up. The bug tracking conversation is very long, and I was very upset to realise that it was not a bug (and so it wouldn't be fixed), so I think it is easy for someone in your position to think I posted it out of spite. But that wasn't the case. I didn't lie in the Wikipedia post. I didn't distort. I didn't make anything up. I didn't take it out of context. It is a very serious deliberate characteristic of GCC that has been officially corroborated by 2 elements of the GCC bug track team and I don't know why my post keeps being removed.

What would I need to do to keep the post? Should I take out the names of the 2 guys? Should I add more of their names? Should I explain the context better? Should I make sure to point out it is not a bug and that GCC is designed deliberately like that? Should I paste the text from the GCC tracking team where they say GCC is like that by design and that they have no intention to change it? Should I remove the pointers example and replace it with a textual description? Please help me out here, I think it will be a shame if this information isn't publicized as a criticism to GCC. Even more, I think it is more relevant and more clearly backed up that the current criticism where a guy just says its crappy and buggy and more and doesn't really substiantiate his claims. My post is well corroborated, so, in comparison, I was expecting it to stick.

So could you please help me with this?

Thanks!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by RogRil (talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi RogRil,

If you want it to stick, you need to show that this is a key characteristic which defines GCC in the world, and give it a mention proportional to its global importance.

For example: when I type gcc --version, there's a blank line after the four lines of licence info. Should that get a mention in the article? Probably not. If it was to get a mention, what would be appropriate? A short sentence, or four paragraphs? A short sentence, at most.

For the problem you mention, is there anything to prove that the developer team finds it important? Or that the thousands (millions?) of users of GCC find it important? If, after twenty years of use by thousands and thousands of project, if this problem is not a widely discussed, often complained about topic, then I think it will be difficult to prove that this is an important issue, needing mention in an encyclopedia.

If it's not globally important, but is important to you, then it can be discussed on your user page here, and if you have a blog, you could discuss it there. Or if you do find proof that there is consensus in the real world that this is an important issue, then try adding a short sentence. Multiple paragraphs is surely excessive. Also, maybe it should go in one of the technical sections. The "Criticism" section might should only be used if this is a widely known, often repeated criticism of GCC. Gronky (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello again, thanks for your quick reply.

I think I know what you mean, but I don't know how to go about it. This is a key characteristic affecting the whole world because it applies to any version of GCC and affects anyone using memory mapped hardware (or that accesses addresses outside the space allocated by GCC itself). I do think it will affect all these users just like it affects me. But not because the code can be shown to easilly break today, if that were the case there would be no point in posting it, as people would surely realize it quickly. The problem is the lack of guarantee that creates the possibility that code made today (and proven to work today) may fail in the future without any warning and by itself. Since this possibility has been proven to be real (by the bug tracking team) then it is a real, valid, and necessary warning to the world, but as a warning, not more. Many like me (who program microcontrollers, handheld devices, and many other types of devices) need to know this to be able to make informed decisions. As far as I know this is the first time such information has officially been stated (at least I didn't find it anywhere when I started using GCC), so I though Wikipedia was a good place to put it in. However I don't know how to prove all that, I thought of relying on logic for it, because the issue is about GCC not guaranteeing it to work and the possibility of it failing unexpectedly, not that it doesn't commonly work (because it does). Do you have any sugestions of what I could do to show this?

The developer team doesn't find it important because GCC is all about standards, and accessing addresses outside the C variables (like one needs to do when accessing memory mapped addresses) is not in the standards (although it is necessary for memory mapped devices). So they just desmiss it, naturally, without giving much significance to it. They were clear, however, that it is deliberate and that they have no intention of ever changing it. So, again, I'm not sure what to do about it... many of the posts in the bug report were dedicated at trying to make them realize the impact, and they did, but they won't change it because it is outside the standards. The many users that use GCC for very long probably didn't have any problems, but (according to the bug tracking team) it has been a result of pure luck, as GCC doesn't make any special effort or guarantee for those cases. So I don't expect to find a large number of people suffering from the problem right now that could help prove that it may break in the future. In fact, my criticism was all about it not being guaranteed, not that I have seen it fail or can easilly show it to fail. That is what I wanted other people to know, that it is not guaranteed, because code made today could fail in the future and it will be a surprise for everyone (as well as a very big problem!!).

The issue is important to me, but I am already informed. So, for me, the motivation is rather limited. Furthermore, I will have to drop GCC altogether because of this, so I will no longer be involved with it. Any personal page I could write here (or elsewhere) would probably not get that much attention, since I'm just some random guy that won't really be able capture that much attention from anyone.

Do you have any ideas on how I should go about implementing your sugestions?

Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.132.57.247 (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello again! You haven't added any information or sugestion on how I could go about addressing the issues you point out, so I don't have any thing to add at this point. I think it is a shame, though, that you removed the information, I don't think Wikipedia (or GCC users) benefit from that at all. I realize that you originally removed it because you thought I was pointing out a bug, but after I've explained that it wasn't I don't see any point in you keeping the information out. You posted new arguments to explain why you still want to hold it off, but I don't think a "criticism" really needs to address all the points you mentioned, especially being that my criticism is very well doccumented.

Nevertheless, me (as a reader) and anyone who develops for memory mapped devices (or other similar activities) will automatically find the information I added to be critical and very important to know about. And that community is global. This is not a minor issue. So it is very hard for mee to see any strong reason for you to block this information from the general public. I don't really see how you think it can harm anyone (as is), it is all well docummented and I added more references to it. I also think that even if you don't develop for memory mapped devices (or embedded or whatever) you shouldn't automatically dismiss the information as irrelevant, because a lot of people will have a different opinion. This issue has already taken too much effort on my part, since I spent over 2 days discussing this with GCC's bug tracking team, so I'm not really motivated to "fight another battle" to get this information out.

So, for the sake of consistency, it would make sense to me if you put back the information (or instruct me to do so) and then point out where you think clarifications should be added for the various aspects you comment on. I would be happy to expand on it (to tell you the truth I made an effort to keep it short and direct, to be more in sync to what I, as a reader, would prefer, but expanding it comes naturally to me!). Maybe the community would help out and turn this into a complete and exhaustive characterization of GCC for memory mapped defices. But, as is, you just removed information that is very important, was very hard to obtain, and (from my prespective) without any obvious benefit for Wikipedia's completeness, quality of information, nor its readers.

I hope to hear from you on this! Thanks. RogRil (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please read the discussion at Talk:Hercules emulator and Talk:Jay Maynard before you ascribe to me views that I not only do not hold, but actively reject. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not saying what your views are. I'm just saying that the place for airing your views, whatever they are, is your homepage. Wikipedia is not your homepage, so your views don't decide what gets written here. Gronky (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chet Ramey until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Msnicki (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Three people - myself included - are in favor of restoring the item on drowning on the List of common misconceptions. I thought I'd let you know, to make sure you have the chance to have your say.

Hans Adler hits the nail on the head on the talk page: the misconception is not that trashing and shouting are a part of the situation. The misconception is that they're the default, that people who don't do either aren't drowning. I may edit the item to emphasize this. Note that our article on drowning covers the issue in its lead, and mentions (with a cite) later, that most people drown without signs of distress. --Kizor 22:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello Gronky,

Can you please take a look at the Bash page and help correct the damage being done by a certain user Msnicki? He is engaged in an edit war against me and in his desperation is launching false accusations of vandalism and "blocking threats". --Grandscribe (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you're interested in editing free software articles and wanted to say hello. I'm interested in free software, software development, and legal aspects of computing and hope we can collaborate in the future. I'm active in WP:COMP, I've edited a lot of software articles, and about a year ago substantially rewrote proprietary software. It's better, but still needs plenty of work and better sourcing.

I noticed you changed instances of "license" to "licence" in proprietary software to correct recent changes, but I couldn't find any recent versions which used the other spelling. (Except in the link to free software licence which is itself inconsistent with software license.) Could you clarify? I noticed the note about "licence" being the correct noun form in non-American Englishes on your user page, though it seems that WP:RETAIN would apply. – Pnm (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Pnm,

Here are the links:

• [17], January 2009
• [18], February 2009 - around this point the page developed into a real non-stub article
• [19], March 2009
• [20], April 2009
• [21], May 2009
• [22], June 2009
• [23], July 2009 - here's where new material was added, ignoring the WP:RETAIN rule, changing to USA spelling

The spelling probably changed back and forth a few times since then, but I fix it every now and again. Gronky (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

It looks like the spelling has been stable for over two years, though. – Pnm (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You chose the WP:RETAIN rule :-)

Rather than being stable, it had a mixed licence/license spelling:

• [24], Jan 2010
• [25], Feb 2010
• [26], Mar 2010
• [27], Apr 2010
• [28], May 2010
• [29], Jun 2010

And even after that point, there was still an instance of "licence" in the article.

Gronky (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

What's at stake? USA spelling is already greatly over represented in Wikipedia. This is a global project, and we need as diverse a contributor base as possible, so writers from other countries should feel equally welcome. Respecting other people's spelling systems is one part of showing them that they're welcome and that it's their project too. That's important. Gronky (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I didn't choose the rule; I went to it for guidance. The 2010 and current versions are only mixed because they contain wikilinks to other articles which use licence in the title. I don't see how we can resolve the spelling difference; seems like it'll look like a spelling error to one of us. I agree that non-U.S. writers should feel equally welcome. It seems like you're saying that using American spellings is hegemonic, and that using spellings which are more popular everywhere else helps to counter that. It's an interesting approach, and I can see how asking American contributors to write using more international English could help globalize them, but it's not at all what MOS:ENGVAR is about. I find aspects of the style guide a little strange and can't say I'm content with the way this guidelines are essentially agnostic about English dialects, but I'm also not convinced the merits of your affirmative approach justify ignoring the guideline. – Pnm (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm, I actually hadn't thought about what effect a requirement to write in British English might have on contributors from the USA. But it's not important (to me). I'm not trying to change the USA contributors, or anyone else. My concern is making everyone feel welcome. I'm trying to foster a diverse contributor base, rather than trying to diversify the thinking of the existig contributors.

The current situation of having most articles written in USA English is good for people in the USA since they'll feel at home and they know that Wikipedia is something for them. But the situation is obviously inversed for people outside the USA.

The number of articles in British English isn't so large, and there are people who go around Americanising the spelling of articles, so the percentage is getting smaller. I think that's a negative change, and it happens to be against WP:RETAIN, so I undo such changes.

I added the smiley because you pointed to the rule, but you then propose ignoring it and using a rule of not changing things which have been stable for some time. Such a system might be worth proposing, but it's not the current rule. Gronky (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm totally lost. "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary." Haven't the last two years established just such a usage? – Pnm (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Stephen J. Joyce, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ulysses (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

The discussions you are looking for are linked from Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/old template talk. While I hope you won't succeed in reintroducing spoiler warnings in Wikipedia, I still wish you happy editing. —Kusma (t·c) 18:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Genuine thanks for that useful link - but I what I'm looking for is the page with the votes which lead to the deletion. I'd like to read the rationales and see the strength of the consensus.

After more thought, the problem could also be addressed with a better policy about putting plot info in appropriately titled sections (as kinda said in Wikipedia:Spoilers). That could be almost as effective, and would avoid the problems which I read on the page you linked. Gronky (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

The final deletion discussion was here, endorsed at DRV here. Discussion of the spoiler wars at Requests for Arbitration was rejected twice (links go to final version before removal). As you see if you read through all of this (I suggest you don't if you value your time), the spoiler discussions were long and contentious (and I can't neutrally report on them, I am clearly on the "anti-warning" side that won in the end). A place where the warning debate still comes up quite often is Talk:The Mousetrap. I think that there is now a strong consensus for the current guideline, but changing it in 2007 was a major effort. Changing it back probably will be even harder, as Wikipedia has grown, and its inertia has grown even more. —Kusma (t·c) 07:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I can only assume that you have not regularly monitored such articles. Squad lists are typically updated within any press conference/release of details, and all parallel articles have equivalent sections entitled current squad. The Euro 2012 squad is preserved on a template and in the article listing all 16 Euro 2012 squads; the listing on the RoI nft article will be changed at the time of squad announcement for the next match. Kevin McE (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

The article United States v. ElcomSoft and Sklyarov has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Material is practically a duplication of Dmitry Sklyarov. A redirect to that article would suffice.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 86.181.48.171 (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Do you still wish to move portions of this article per the talk page? or can I remove the move tag? Op47 (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nicolás Maduro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Universal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Check the talk page and you'll see my response. The courses are different.Prof Wrong (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome to consider my poll in favour to rename the Linux article to GNU/Linux, posted by the end of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Linux#Linux_is_a_.2AKERNEL.2A.2C_Not_an_OS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medende (talk • contribs) 12:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done.[30] I was looking for your poll yesterday but couldn't find it. Maybe it would be good to put a title on that subsection of the discussion. Gronky (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've tolerated your continued soapboxing up until now because it indicates to most editors that you're quite happy to personally attack those who disagree with your POV if you think it aids your cause (and because your need to soapbox and canvas editors demonstrates quite how little support you have), but I could summarily remove that list based on WP:POLEMIC if I so desired. Don't bank on us abandoning NPOV on your say-so any time soon; I've remained an editor in good standing (even made admin, despite blatant off-wiki canvassing to FSF affiliates during my second RFA) even when you appealed directly to Jimbo and when someone from the FSF tried to get me fired, so I dare say that your position isn't anywhere near as strong as you continually repeat it to be. The next time you go around fragrantly canvassing editors in an effort to blacken my name I'll open an RFC/U on your behaviour: I shouldn't have to take time off improving the encyclopedia to deal with your harassment and POV-pushing every few months because you see Wikipedia as an ideological battleground. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I feel bullied, stalked, and harassed by you, and this has gone on for years now. In the end, I reduced my time on Wikipedia to avoid you.

I never tried to interfere with your off-Wikipedia work or life, I've never canvassed editors off-Wikipedia (even when you did so), and I don't remember ever appealing to Jimbo. Jimbo did post on my user page in 2009, saying that your removal of "GNU/" was a "pretty obvious - and dramatic - action to push a particular POV", but I didn't see his comment til months later.

The only reason I tolerate your behaviour (rather than abandoning Wikipedia altogether) is that I am such a firm believer in this project. My edit history confirms a 9-year record of contributing to a very wide range of subject matter. I hope you haven't driven many others away. As you confirm by your links, I noticed recently that you reverted all of one new contributor's edits to an article. I had already posted a friendly message to that user's Talk page suggesting that some cleanup was needed. We (the community) could have worked together to improve the article. I think your approach is far too heavy handed and risks making Wikipedia a closed and dwindling community when we need new editors. Gronky (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

You have for years maintained a piece of polemic on your user space describing me as a disruptive POV-pusher intent on falsifying the history of free software and the FSF. At every opportunity, you wave this polemic around at new editors or on talk pages in order to sway people into siding with you. At every stage I've followed process, opened communication and tried to use the correct channels to gain consensus on these content matters while you've fished around for political support and personally demonised me. There's no doubt in my mind at all that it was this soapboxing and canvassing which led other editors to pursue me off-wiki, and claiming plausible deniability there is as absurd as playing the victim while continuing to indirectly pursue me through public polemic and canvassing outsiders. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

My user page contains a list of your edits, and a comment asking other Wikipedians not to leave and not to be rude to you. Further, I've had very very little contact with or about you for the past two years. (As mentioned, your harassment has mostly driven me away from Wikipedia.) I have no idea what, if anything, happened in your off-wiki life but it has nothing to do with me. I have never so much as discussed you off-wiki with anyone that I know to edit Wikipedia or to have any contact with you, direct or indirect.

And now you're threatening me with wiki-tribunals because I saw you reverting all of a new contributor's edits with the curt edit summary "reverting...serious POV issues", and I told that editor that it wasn't personnel and that I hope he doesn't leave?!

Your accusations are without a shred of truth and I find your treatment of other editors, especially new ones, shocking. Gronky (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

P.S. If you think I'm connected to anti-Chris edtiors via canvassing or that I've pursued any agenda against you in the past two years, how do you explain getting made an admin without me even being aware of the nomination? Gronky (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

It is certainly not "without a shred of truth" that you maintain a page which describes me as a tendicious POV-pusher who ignores consensus and deliberately riles editors up, or that you link this page to every contributor you come across that identifies with your personal POV. If your goal in doing so is not to draw negative attention on me (whatever that entails) then you shouldn't be doing it. And the next time you do it, I'm going to take the matter further. Because this has gone on long enough. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Read my page again. It's just the facts. People did complain about you, and you did out-edit them. People do find you abrasive. The only subjective comment on my user page is that I say you "steamroll" over other people's edits - but it's hard for you to refute that when I found you just two days ago reverting all of a newcomer's well intentioned edits.

And you claim I'm constantly telling people about you. What's that based on? Look at my Talk page comments from 2009 to 2012. Where are they? Stop these attacks. You're making it all up. Gronky (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

"Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." You're not using this to prepare for dispute resolution: you're using it in an attempt to shame me to like-minded editors. As for the canvassing, it's disingenuous to say that you aren't doing it after having just done it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Looks like you're abusing that procedure. You're the one that keeps claiming there's "consensus", and then you want to prevent me from exposing that the "consensus" is just manufactured/imposed POV from one person? I'll review whether I should modify the page, launch a procedure against you, or try to change the policy, but not in January, I've almost no time for Wikipedia this month. You have wikihounded and harassed me for long periods in the past and I will not submit myself to that right now. Gronky (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

On top of that: "I've never canvassed editors off-Wikipedia (even when you did so)" - are you accusing me here of off-wiki canvassing? Explain what this was intended to mean. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you admitted it once on a Talk page (casually, as if there was nothing wrong with it). It was around 2009, maybe 2010. I think we were clashing over your FOSS article, and you said you had been discussing a new proposal with other users (possibly Lentower) on IRC. I remember it clear as day. I don't think that's appropriate. Gronky (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I haven't used IRC in relation to Wikipedia in my life. I've shared mail with Len before off-wiki (which there is absolutely nothing wrong with), but never has that had anything to do with canvassing (the solicitation of the help of outsiders to win an argument). If you're going to make such severe accusations of me in future you'd damned well better accompany it with evidence. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

So you agree with me. It was email rather than IRC. Fine. The three of us (plus others) were already in a discussion on a Talk page. You should have held your discussion there too, not in off-wiki private channels. Gronky (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you don't understand what "canvassing" means then you shouldn't be accusing people of it. I can hardly canvas someone who was already involved in the discussion. Moreover, you're indirectly accusing Len Tower (one of the FSF's founding board members, for crying out loud, though apparently in your bad books for daring to disagree with the party line on nomenclature) of underhandedness. While it may be a comforting world view that it is everyone else at fault here, it is not an accurate one. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

You're just changing the topic and repeating things that I've shown to be untrue. If I enjoyed our discussions, or if I had much more time, I could explain each issue to you, but at this particular moment I have better things to do. I see nothing here that merits further reply. Gronky (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

  This is your only warning; I've removed that polemic section from your user page per WP:UP#POLEMIC. If behavior like that recurs you may be blocked without further warning. Toddst1 (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

(I just saw this notice now.) You removed a lot of text from my user page,[31] most of which had no content which could even be accused violating that policy (although you don't mention what aspects of my page you saw as problematic or which part of the policy you saw them as violating). I've reinstated[32] the parts (with a clear edit summary) of the text which I think need no defence. For the parts I haven't reinstated, I disagree that there's any policy problem but I don't have time for that discussion right now. Gronky (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GNATS until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Toddst1 (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Gronky. I thought you might be interested and also you might let other people know. There is a wikipedia user "Hoestmelankoli" who has been removing the word "GNU from the info boxes about software licensed under the GNU GPL. I have checked his contributions page and it is evident that this Hoestmelankoli user has the purpose of removing any mention of the relationship between the GNU Project and the GNU GPL. In most of his edits when he has removed GNU from GNU GPL he writes "license clarification" in the edit summary. This might be something that should be reported. --Grandscribe (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. It's certainly a notable pattern of edits, with a very narrow focus, but I'm not sure there's a problem. I do prefer "GNU GPL" to just "GPL" (just three letters seems too much like insider jargon to me), but the user also added "GNU" in some edits so her/his mission doesn't seem to be purely anti-GNU (however, Thumperward is likely to undo all the edits that add "GNU", so the end result may indeed be simply that "GNU" has been removed from a lot of places for no obvious reason). Gronky (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply