Talk:Libre Graphics Meeting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Free Software / Software / Computing  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 
WikiProject Computer graphics (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer graphics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer graphics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Main Achievements Lacks Citations[edit]

I could not find any recorded evidence that LGM is responsible for any of the document major achievements. Given that some of the external links could provide proof, but they are part of a paid service. I would suggest removing this section if there is no evidence Gnepets (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What exactly were you trying to say with that (part of paid service)?--Prokoudine (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I meant they may or may not be in the Linux Format Articles, some of them are only available to subscribers. I don't want to see if the listed articles verify the claims. Information that cannot be verified should be removed (no matter how likely it is to be true). for now I will mark them as facts Gnepets (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Which proof would you like to see? (a.l.e)
put plainly one citation per fact Gnepets (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
There are plenty of proofs around talking about Libre Graphics Meeting - it's a wonderful worldwide meeting related to the open source graphics applications development and divulgation - all presentations (or almost all) are recorded in video, and it's a very important event, as important as Fosdem, Atypi or Icograda meetings. Please, instead of removing this section, help on its development. It's very important Libre Graphics Meeting having presence here in Wikipedia, and i ask all sugestions for this section remotion to be not took seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrofurano (talkcontribs) 22:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Asking for it not to be removed is silly and pointless, wikipedias standard is evidence, maybe you should have found some instead of asking me too.
I believe these achievements are likely to be inspired by LGM, but if someone does not find evidence for them, I will delete them. When I first visited this page, there were no citations and the page was flag as not being non-NPOV. I cleaned up the page under an IP address, then created an account and started expanding the page, but only where I could cite evidence. those main achievements that have not been cited are the last thing from me completely cleaning up this page, if I am left waiting too long I will just remove them as I should have done when I first saw them. Gnepets (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you understand that you are telling things like this to actual developers of free libre software we are talking about here? Why am I able to find citations and you aren't? Do you understand that we can actually go to wiki and create the citations that you admire so much just because we are bloody well people who do this software? *sigh* Why don't some people just *research*?--Prokoudine (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I see you are annoyed about what I said, that is understandable. Yes I did recognise you as a developer, that classifies you as a subject matter expert and therefore the most qualified person between us both to gauge the accuracy of these statements and find supporting evidence. I think you have mistaken my intent, taking being tough on the issue as unwillingness or as being nasty; I guarantee you I will and would have made another attempt to find evidence before deleting the offending materials, I was hoping someone more knowledgeable such as yourself would know where to look first and to look in areas where someone less knowledgeable would not. I don't suppose people will go out of their way if it would have been left there forever, do you? --Gnepets (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Then do your best to not use words like "silly and pointless". And referring to wikipedia standards isn't very smart in this case. The other day another wikipedian told me that according to rules information in an article shouldn't be correct, it should be just well-known and public. Well, somehow I managed to google for citations and you didn't. Which only proves that not every statement should link to sources.--Prokoudine (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I shall speak as I like. I think you have a different definition of well known. when somethingis assumed to be correct, it is called an assumption; when an assumption is large, it should be proven. You seem not to understand that the definition of 'reasonable' is a blurred line. When I responded to Nitrofurano so harshly it was specifically because the reply did not attempt to reason, it attempted emote a response that the author wanted. By the way 'another wikipedian' 'only proves' does not lend weight to an argument, only confuses it, maybe you should point me to this wikipedia policy so I don't spread rubbish in the future. --Gnepets (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Article should have an image[edit]

If you are reading this and have the time, the LGM banner user could be placed as an image here, I could not find any license information... so maybe an email is in order Gnepets (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I discussed this thoroughly with a member on the #lgm IRC channel. While the logo has not been released under a free license, it can still be used in this article under our non-free content policy, with an appropriate fair use rationale. It also needs to be cropped, I think. Let me know if you need help with uploading or the FUR. decltype (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
done, about a week back --Gnepets (talk) 07:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

LGM software box[edit]

hi,

it's nice to have a box with the facts on the right side. but the LGM is not a software and most fields shown on the page don't fit.

is there any info box which would better match the characteristics of a worldwide annual meeting?

i skimmed through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_conference and the best one i could find is this general info box: at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_and_Open_Source_Symposium have fun, a.l.e — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.195.77.72 (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

LGM 2012: New Venue(s) New Dates[edit]

The main page points to libregraphicsmeeting.org/2012 which does not load. The article mentions Vienna in May for the venue and dates, but elsewhere we're discussing Vietnam. Shouldn't all this reflect here? Also, April 10th isn't far, especially for us folk who have to plan early and put a lot of things into gear to get there.

122.176.160.213 (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)niyam bhushan

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Libre Graphics Meeting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)