Talk:Linus Torvalds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Robert Hooke[edit]

Does the diversion on Robert Hooke belong here? Ejrrjs | What? 22:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)???

Concerning Prolog's biased vandalism[edit]

Prolog, who are you to say a source is not good enough? Do you know how to discuss? What was your evidence that Linux Journal and celebatheists.com were not reliable sources? Are you too lazy and stupid to get the magazine you are so distrustworthy of? Would you rather have us believe that your god Linus is stupid when it comes to religion and morality, or that atheist websites can't be trusted, merely because you said so, oh "god" Prolog? What's wrong are atheist's suddenly not trustworthy enough for you? Is Linux Journal an untrustworthy source Mr. Administrator and Univerisity Stupid Prolog? And what is your evidence of "original research" anonymous "genius". So you would also have us all believe that you are too stupid to understand a short conversation? Oh genius Prolog, since you are telling us all that you are too stupid to understand a short piece of an interview, how about asking someone else before making arbitrary attacks to make it look as if Linus is smarter and more moral than he really is (which obviously is hardly, as that interview shows).

Oh and arbitrary Prolog, it's very telling how you and other administrators allow me to be trolled and stalked on Wikipedia, when I try to add an additional to reference when there is only one or two, allowing a stalker to tell me that the additional reference adds nothing new, despite the fact that Wikipedia asks for more than one reference if possible. When will you all stop the hypocrisy on Wikipedia and arbitrary attacks on those who are religious, especially Christians? So much for "no personal attacks" and citing more than one source if you can, right Prolog? But then again, "Wikipedia isn't about truth." Right Prolog? Be honest, oh wait, I forgot: "Wikipedia isn't about truth." Okay then, "be FACTual", oh wait, I forgot, "Wikipedia isn't about truth." I better look elsewhere for FACTS than and go somewhere where "contributions" and "collaboration" aren't trashed merely because the contributions and collaborations don't fit the personal biases of the adminstrators of Wikipedia. Yahweh Rules (talk)

Controversy?[edit]

Where are the controversy about Linus Torvalds? There where lot of important information. Is this some kind of propaganda article? Criticism regarding Linus is not allowed on the Linus article?

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Linus Torvalds. 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) 12:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Just for Fun (book) AFD outcome[edit]

@Christian75: There was a "a rough consensus for a merger" at the end of the AFD (please see 'Merger as a result of a deletion discussion'). Three users favored the merger with one other without showing objection, I call it a rough consensus? Finally, the closing admin only suggested to have the merger discussed elsewhere. --Mhhossein talk 17:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The closing person didn't close it as a merge but as a keep, and sugeested start a discussion elsewhere. E.g. on the talk page of the article. Your template said the outcome of the AfD was merge. Christian75 (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Christian75: "merger can be discussed elsewhere" "merger should be discussed elsewhere." --Mhhossein talk 17:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
However let's ping the closing admin @SoWhy: --Mhhossein talk 17:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
(pinged) Correct but meaningless. That a merger can be discussed just means that anyone who thinks the page should be merged, can start a discussion on the talk page. I don't see a consensus to merge at the AFD, with one editor arguing to keep and you, as the nominator, agreeing it's a notable topic (and thus logically can have a stand-alone article) with only one editor arguing to merge. A discussion on the talk page might of course end in merging but that's for said discussion to decide. Regards SoWhy 18:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
You added a template which said the outcome of the AfD was merge, see [1], but that wasnt the outcome of the AfD Christian75 (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Although I'm inclined toward opening a merger request, @SoWhy: Did you really not see a consensus for merger?
What do you call it, if it's not a consensus? Three users out of four had agreed on that without facing any objections. --Mhhossein talk 06:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I did not say that. I said there needs to be more discussion on the specifics of such a merge, especially whether it really makes sense to move this page before redirecting it since the disambig page can handle that as well or whether the topic is still the primary topic even after a merger, thus leaving the disambig page where it is. There are plenty of examples of both cases, so this needs to be addressed before a merge can happen. Sorry if the rationale was unclear at this point. Regards SoWhy 08:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@SoWhy: So, are you telling me that a merger proposal should be started? --Mhhossein talk 17:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
As I said, feel free to do so. Regards SoWhy 20:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I see a clear consensus for redirect/merge, regardless of what was put in bold. I don't understand why the close should indicate that merger (not the move) be an auxiliary discussion, not least because it was uncontested. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 09:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Just for Fun (book) merger proposal[edit]

There was a "a rough consensus for a merger" at the end of the AFD (please see 'Merger as a result of a deletion discussion'). Three users favored the merger with one other without showing objection.

However @SoWhy: demanded a separate merger proposal. What do you think about the merger proposal? --Mhhossein talk 11:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Given the consensus at the AfD page and no objections in the previous section, I don't think you need any extra permission—you can proceed with the merger. (I would have just BRD'd it after the discussion but of course, this point would have been moot had the AfD been simply closed as "merge", as went the actual consensus...) czar 13:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)