Jump to content

User talk:Aoidh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MenudoGhost (talk | contribs) at 19:45, 18 July 2013 (Undid revision 564833271 by SudoGhost (talk) fuck you cunt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Why did you revert my edit

The page you linked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight actually supports my contribution. Please read what you link to carefully. Or is this just because you are still angry about the GNU/Linux debate and just want to make me angry.Sonic12228 (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE does not support the addition. If the information is so critical to the overall topic that it warrants mentioning it in the lede then it needs more than a source from the FSF, as such a source is unduly self-serving. - SudoGhost 19:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undid revision 563371092 by KhushbooVira why

Hello,

why did you Undid revision 563371092 by KhushbooVira

You think it is Not a reliable source, but for many things the website is a reliable source.

Please undo your action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhushbooVira (talk • contribs)

Just because a websites is created does not make it a reliable source. I don't know which of the websites you're referring to since you inserted a few that were all created by the same person or organization, but none of them are reliable sources on Wikipedia. - SudoGhost 05:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to enjoyfestivals.com website which shares all details about all festivals around the world and it is reliable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KhushbooVira (talk • contribs)
It is most certainly not a reliable source, why would it be a reliable source? In fact many of the entries on that website appear to be copied directly from Wikipedia, which makes it even less reliable as it creates a circular reference. - SudoGhost 07:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My bad

My bad. Was giving peps a link to my photo site. Sorry

2013 Bodh Gaya blasts

Dear Sudo, Recently I saw your edit in 2013 Bodh Gaya blasts.From your profile I came to know that you are member of WikiProject Buddhism. I believe this article is very important for WikiProject Buddhism as well. I have been taking so much efforts to develop this article in neutral point of view policy. But Fut.Perf. claimed disruptive editing for the crucial information of attack warnings This. Above all Fut.Perf. seem to be happy in edit warring rather than discussing. Could you please look in to the matter of attack warnings? could you please intervene and develop that section? Many thanks.-----Bhooshan NPY (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hybris

Either fix the wording of the whole sentence (“Linux” twice with different meanings is awkward) or keep it as it was because the use of the term GNU/Linux is technical in that case, not POV. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly is POV, not least of all because there is not a single reliable source in the article (and elsewhere, from what I could see) that uses the term in any way, so to suggest that such a term is somehow more technical and therefore preferred when describing the article's subject appears to be WP:OR. - SudoGhost 18:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The very first paragraph of Linux talks about “main supporting user space system tools and libraries originated in the GNU Project”. If you believe that glibc is not a main system library, I cannot help you.
I have no emotional attachment to the term “GNU/Linux”, however it is the common name for Linux-based systems that are explicitly powered by glibc and absolutely no other libc implementation (like in this case Bionic).
Personally I find the sentence still kinda awkward… --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually the opposite of the WP:COMMONNAME, according to the reliable sources in the article and the countless discussions on the Linux talk page, all of which reach the same consensus on the matter. I also never said nor suggested in any way that "glibc is not a main system library", so I truly don't know what you're talking about there but it is irrelevant in any case. - SudoGhost 07:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which reliable source states that the term "Linux" refers explicitly to glibc-based Linux systems? --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion archives at Talk:Linux for that answer, as it has been explained in more detail there then I care to have to repeat. On the other hand, which sources support your assertion that "GNU/Linux" is the more technical term when discussing the subject? None of the ones in the article say anything about this, and I couldn't find anything elsewhere that suggests this. - SudoGhost 13:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care for ancient discussions that were not about the technical difference between GNU/Linux and Bionic Linux. So either fix the sentence to be in non-awkward wording or leave the article alone and bother someone else who's interested in discussions… --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in "bothering" others on my talk page, I'm interested in making sure the articles reflect the sources. Given that you've avoided to answer the question I asked, I'm going to assume it's because you were unable to find a single source to support your claim. If what you were saying were so accurate, you'd have been able to show that instead of strawman arguments about glibc. Please don't ask questions if you're "not interested" in the answer. - SudoGhost 15:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're famous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SudoGhost

That's what you get for reporting me, prick.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aoidh&oldid=564833534"