Talk:Linux/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

linux

i would like to get a good understanding to linux,how it works,terms used in it,and in due course explanation and definitions used in linux —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.3.61.4 (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but a talk page is not a help desk. There is information on the article page that will answer some of your questions, and there are forums and magazines out and about that will help you further. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 13:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Tux image

I see that Image:NewTux.svg is used to depict the Linux kernel. However, as far as I'm aware, this is just an unofficial offshoot of the "official" mascot, which can still be seen at Image:Tux.svg. Tux.svg is the actual mascot, also seen at kernel.org, which we should be using instead. In case nobody disagrees, I'll just change the image. —msikma (user, talk) 15:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

We've argued over this before; the only real argument for using NewTux is that it's a more aesthetically pleasing image, but to be honest I don't see why people get worked up about using the official image instead. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, ummm, Wikipedia is in no position to be taking liberties with presenting the Linux mascot. Whoever thinks that's a good idea needs to stop editing the encyclopedia, because they're doing us a disservice. -/- Warren 17:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

After looking around a bit more, I see NewTux has replaced the correct Tux image elsewhere too. This is unacceptable because it means the encyclopedia is essentially lying about what the correct logo is. Is anyone here really okay with that? ...... I doubt it. I've restored Tux.svg on this article, as well as on templates that appear in article space. If the Linux wikiproject wants to use their own revised tux logo, they may do so, of course. -/- Warren 17:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should use Image:Tux.svg just because it looks better. Mike92591 (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I do think that this is essentially splitting hairs over a small detail really. However, I'm not particularly bothered about which image we use. The NewTux one just looks better in my opinion. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 17:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Newtux.svg can be seen as an aesthetically pleasing image, more so than the original mascot, but that's something personal. I myself like the original one better, partially because the "shiny" style of newtux.svg is momentary. But again, that's just something personal. As far as I'm aware, most images that pertain to "official" linux, especially the Kernel Archives, still use the original mascot, which is most likely the "official" mascot, if such a thing even exists.

I personally don't see this as splitting hairs, since, well, it is our interpretation of what the official Linux mascot is. Linux is important enough for us to consider this carefully, in any case. —msikma (user, talk) 12:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is irrelevant, JGXenite. We don't have the mandate to present anything other than the correct, official logo. -/- Warren 13:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest, is the Linux Foundation actively involved in promoting the Larry Ewing original? Does it have an official position on the legitimacy of derivative works? People are defending the original like we're the Mozilla Corporation or something... Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't seem to find Tux so very easily on their site. Their old site appears to have a favicon of the original version of Tux, though. There are a few pages that depict that same version, like this one. —msikma (user, talk) 16:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Linux as an OS

The article should list distributions in the top most box instead of having the details on Linux kernel, which makes the article confusing. The Linux distribution article is closer to what this article should be. The distributions are the OS not the Linux kernel. --62.142.194.228 (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to remove the version number entirely. It doesn't really make sense. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll change "Linux is an operating system" in "Linux is a family of operating systems that.." etc. Klungel (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Systematic anti-GNU bias

I believe that the intro paragraphs are biased against GNU and are kept this way through aggressive editing by Chris Cunningham, a Sun employee, in violation of NPOV. Please do not revert my factual edits without discussion here first. Noahslater (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume that you're also the user who wasn't signed in, then.

There have been literally years of discussion on this issue on the talk page. I'd encourage you to read through the archives. On the matter at hand, the "filled a gap" argument is an ex post facto argument which didn't take hold in the GNU camp until it was obvious that Linux had more momentum than the Hurd and that co-opting it was a better idea than treating it as a separate OS (as all early GNU literature did). My employer is completely irrelevant to the discussion, and ad hominem attacks do your argument no credit. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Gronky's last edit was a marked improvement on the current version, and may even be a better compromise than the original. We should work from that, adding back in the distro line which was removed as "inaccurate" (?) and see where we can go from there. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it is also removing emphasis from GNU, which is in violation of NPOV. Noahslater (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The politics, or perceived politics, and timing are not important. What is important is that the GNU operating system was augmented with a non-GNU kernel. The previous intro that you are defending placed all the emphasis on the kernel, which is misleading at best, deceitful at worst.

Also, I didn't make any ad hominem attacks. I did not comment on your character, only that your possition at Sun and your obvious anti-GNU, anti-FSF opinions combined with your aggressive editing consitute, in my opionion, systematic bias. Noahslater (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

One does not "augment" a set of userspace programs and libraries with a kernel any more than one "augments" a car with an engine. The FSF's position that GNU was an "operating system without a kernel" is akin to my suggesting that I am a fighter pilot, albeit one with no plane or flight training. The existence of GNU tools prior to the of Linux is in no way indicative of a dependency on said tools. Furthermore, Torvalds himself specifically distinguishes between Linux and GNU in his original project announcement, so the FSF's implication that "Linux completes GNU" is flat-out false. Anyway, this is all covered in the talk archives.

As for systematic bias, my personal position on the FSF's role in Linux was arrived at after copious amounts of research and discussion. That it differs from yours does not immediately imply that it is I who is biased. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that an OS comprises kernel/libraries/userspace it is not unreasonable to state that you can augment libraries/userspace with a kernel. When Torvalds distinguishes between GNU and his project that is because he was developing an operating system. As you will know, only the kernel of that operating system is still widely used today. GNU/Linux is the GNU operating system without the kernel and the Linux operating system without the libraries or userspace tools. Noahslater (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Any short amount of research should show my affiliations with GNU and I readily admit my bias. My edits, however, are trying to redress an imbalance that I perceive your bais to have introduced.

My "bias" stems from not having an acute conflict of interest in how the article represents affiliates of mine. It further reflects twenty pages of discussion on the issue. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. You are presumably being paid by Sun to edit Wikipedia else you are doing it without authorisation. Either way it is disturbing given the articles you are editing. Are Sun aware of your activies? Noahslater (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that intended to be a threat? I edit on my own time, the positions I assert do not necessarily refect the position of my employers, yadda yadda. It's heartening to know that old grudges die hard, but my employer is of no relevance here. I'd appreciate it if you immediately stopped implying otherwise, because now you're definitely in the realm of unacceptable commentary. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, my comments are clearly non-threatening. It is cause for concern when an employee of a company such as Sun is editing articles on Linux, GNU and the FSF during standard working hours. It is reasonable to assume that you are doing so on company time and thus the question of Sun's awareness of your activities is entirely appropriate. Noahslater (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like me to add a disclaimer to my user page (which is, of course, where I openly disclosed my employer for all to see), then I'd be happy to oblige. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Kernel overstatements

Noahslater, I agree with you that the kernel's role is exagerated in the intro. I've made that point here many times.

Thumperward and I were (I think), editing to improve readability. We weren't re-engineering the balance between GNU and Linux. In his edits, I think Thumperward did tip that balance, but rather than react by overcompensation, I just returned it to where it was so that we could focus on the issue of clear wording and readability. I would like to fix the balance, but during the quiet times it would be nice to also address some readability issues.

I don't think GNU Hurd deserves mention in the intro, and talking about GNU Bash might also be diving into details too quickly. But if there is a debate about the balance, yes, I agree that Linus's kernel is exagerated. --Gronky (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reasoned response, it makes a lot of sense. I agree that my mentioning of glibc/coreutils/bash may be one step over the line in the other direction but I think the hurd is important here to provide the contrast between the original operating system and the one formed with the addition of the linux kernel. Noahslater (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that. I have removed the references to the glibc/coreutils/bash/hurd as I think this dives too quickly into the details. Noahslater (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

GNU has its own article to discuss, in depth, the history of the GNU operating system. This article specifically concentrates on that entity known to the FSF as "GNU/Linux". Anyway, the current version is wildly off-balance and should be reverted to Gronky's, for the reason given in the section above. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, GNU has it's own article, so does the Linux kernel. What's your point? Can you give any reason why it is "wildly off-balance"? I have already removed the detailed listing as per Gronky's comments. Noahslater (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the word "inspired", since it's a bit artistic and I'm not sure it's true. What the combination really inspired was a project for RMS to think of a name that mentions GNU. I've also removed the sentence about Linux being added to GNU. Which was added to which something that I accept can be debated, and I don't think we have a reference. Lastly, I've re-added the bit about the name "Linux" being the kernel's name before it was a name for the OS. --Gronky (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think these are good edits Gronky. I added the word "alternate" for clarification. Noahslater (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention to debate the GNU/Linux naming with anti-FSF folk here, I am too busy and it's been done a thousand times. Can we all agree that the current version is a nice balance now? Noahslater (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel that this version was an improvement on the previous rewrite, which wasn't necessary anyway. I imagine this will end up getting reverted, especially if you're not willing to debate the issue beyond accusing others of bias. The reason it was "done a thousand times" with the result it had was that this was the consensus version, and acute agenda-pushing is not going to result in a long-term change. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you keep mentioning that it has been talked about a thousand times. Now it is being talked about again. Can you please give me a concrete reason you feel like mine and Gronky's edits are no good?

I think that you have been acutely pushing your agenda and because of your aggresive edits it has resulted in long-term change. Your clear anti-FSF position is harmful for NPOV. Noahslater (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's not conflate your edits and Gronky's here. He's done this dance before, and has worked to create a compromise edit. You fully reversed the position of the article lead. I disagree with your edits because they are directly in line with the FSF's talking points, and thus lack any objectivity. I have only stylistic quibbles with Gronky's. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagreed with your edits because they were directly inline with your anti-FSF position and thus lack any objectivity. You can mince words all you like.

Do you agree that the lead is satisfactory now? Noahslater (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It's still a step back from Gronky's initial rewrite. And my "anti-FSF position" is one borne of experience and research, which are perfectly normal ways to develop an opinion; it has not been handed down to me by a self-interests group of advocates. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying no without giving any reasoning. Please provide a concrete reason you think this version is inferior. Also, yes, we disagree with each other and we are both biased, there is no problem with any of that. Letting our bias show is the problem which is why I feel the current version better. Noahslater (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Good edits Gronky. I like how it reads now, a lot better. Noahslater (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Exagerated corporate contributions in intro

I know it's a great sign of mainstream success that the software as been accepted by Dell, IBM, etc. etc. but this is unfair to the system's developers who did the bulk of the work when these corporations wouldn't give them the time of day. The contributions are significant today, but they were zero for the first 15 years of the system's life, and today they are sometimes great and sometimes "Oh, this package sucks and will never sell - let's GPL it do a pro-Linux press release!" I haven't decided how it would be best done, but I am thinking about how to more accurately represent who wrote the OS (looking from a distance, not at the project-affiliation level). --Gronky (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Corbet did a fantastic breakdown of kernel contributions for LWN a while back; that'd be a good start. Given that this is 2008 now, and the "big players" in question have all been involved since at least 2000, I don't think it's fair to suggest that "the bulk of the work" was done beforehand for anything except Emacs. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean this: [1] ? Thanks for the hint, I'll give it a read.

Something to keep in mind, though, is that while the current WidgetAllocator might be written by JohnnyCorp, the original WidgetAllocator was written in 1995 by Some Guy. Sure, this imaginary part was replaced by a 25% faster one written by MaryCorp in 2002, and the current JohnnyCorp one is more reliable, but does today's non-existence of Mr. Guy's code mean that he didn't contribute to the kernel?

Who contributed more, the guy who made it work from scratch with no docs or the guy who tweaked it 7 years later?

I think this won't be so simple to address, but I think it's clear that the current list of credits is doing an injustice to some people and is misrepresenting how the OS came to exist today. --Gronky (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Meh. We're not a memorial service. If the Faceless Legions in Red Hat and Intel's programming pits are responsible for the majority of the current code, we should say so. We have sub-articles to deal with the history of individual components. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with this sentence

"The size of the GNU contribution led to the alternate name GNU/Linux "

1. first thing is that not the size that let to the alternate name, it was a specific request by Richard Stallman -- he mentioned many reasons: promote freedom ideas, it's the proper name (according to him), for giving credit, size is only one argument he uses to support his request and to support the GNU/Linux vs. other variants e.g., Linux/GNU. I think we should provide the information that the name was requested and promoted by Stallman, we don't need to embellish this into complicated sentences that explain the name by other factors.
2. the sentence legitimates the claim, while it might be true it's not Wikipedia's job to do original research and legitimate such claims. -- AdrianTM (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it "legitimates" (not sure you can use that word as an adjective) anything. The name "GNU/Linux" /is/ used by some people, that much is fact and worth mentioning. The reasoning behind it is another issue. Noahslater (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I am not native speaker and invent words in English from time to time, but from here it seems it can be used as an transitive verb. -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed "size of the", since you're right that there were more reasons than that one and they're too complex to go into in that sentence. --Gronky (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead now doesn't have links to either Linus Torvalds (or Linux Torvalds) or Linux kernel. It really should. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Should it also have a link to RMS? Noahslater (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Must've gotten lost in the shuffling. Returned. For the Linux kernel link, I've used the link text "the operating system's kernel". That text isn't as similar as I'd like to the title of the article it links to, but I can't see a less confusing way to talk about the kernel who's name is "Linux" (without getting un-intro-ishly verbose). --Gronky (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The edit I've just made seems to clear that up without reading too badly. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Better, thanks. -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added a mention of Richard Stallman and made the wording identical to Linus's mention. Nslater (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Great work, I personally like how the info is presented now in a neutral tone. -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed - Linux operating system for PS2?

I'm not doubting that it is, Linux is teh awesome, but we need citations for that.--EleFlameMax (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not in the lead, we don't. Regardless, Linux for PlayStation 2 has its own article and everything. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between a separate program to transform your PS2 into Linux, and the PS2/3 actually running on a modified Linux. I haven't seen any evidence of this what-so-ever, and if you can't verify that claim, I'll take it down.--EleFlameMax (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right, I getcha. Yes, the claim that "Linux is used on" these systems is misleading. It should probably just be removed. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence...

"Linux is a Unix-like computer operating system." Even though the top of the article says that the article is about operating systems that use the kernel, you can't give the name Linux credit for being one. I'm not saying that you call it GNU/Linux, because that term is also not right in all contexts (GNU isn't the only operating system that is capable of running on Linux), but don't go calling anything "this-and-that" when in fact it's only "this". Afarnen (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What would you prefer it said? ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 09:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Errr, no. The hatnote is abundantly clear about what this article's subject is. GNU/Linux advocates should simply mentally substitute the word "Linux" for "GNU/Linux" wherever it occurs in the article. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, when you convince Apple or people who maintain Mac OS X page to call it something like BSD/Mach/Mac OS X please let us know and we'll modify this article too. -- AdrianTM (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You're suggesting we name the OS after the biggest part. Ok, let's call this page GNU. --Gronky (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop it, both of you. This page is not an open request to continually fight the same argument. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

One penguin too many

I don't like that there are two Tux on the page one under another, is it possible to eliminate one? -- AdrianTM (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If the top infobox had more information then it would push the second penguin image downward and out of view (well, at least on my screen). Pádraig Coogan (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is that "consensus"?

First I am not the one who makes claims about impartiality and then go around deleting the contributions of others because then do not fit my preconceived ideas and then use non existent justifications of "consensus" as a basis to do that. Since it is Mr.Cunningham who takes that initiative please at least indicate exactly where are the documents where such a discussion took place where a large enough number of people took part and if there was any vote to decide about the terms to use. These are things to be done not lightly.

Of course that I along with many other people want to help and contribute to share the knowledge we have about certain subject with others but it is the editor who proceeds to modify delete systematically who has to be serious and respectful and show us the document that backs his claims that legitimize his actions.

What is really outrageous is that there can be one person who comes to wikipedia with a "project" aimed at breaking some kind of "record" and just go around the encyclopedia and systematically change contributions.

I do not believe that there was ever any consensus reached and that even if one may not like it the debate over whether to use GNU/Linux or just Linux is far from over. Since there is a divided opinion on that matter the right thing to do as happens when things like that take place in other areas of life the two terms should be used.

It is more confusing to someone coming to get to know the operating system to see just the name Linux and only references to Linus Torvalds and then later on as one gets beyond the surface find the fingerprints of the Free Software Foundation and something called "GNU". Why is the Linux kernel which was created by Linus Torvalds and other programmers released under the GNU General Public License (GPL) if GNU had nothing to do with the creation of Linux? Why if the entire operating system is presented as being the work of Linus Torvalds one finds within the code of most programs the GNU GPL that comes from an organization in the United States called the Free Software Foundation?

In the film REVOLUTION OS even Linus Torvalds says that without the programs from the Free Software Foundation such as the GNU C compiler it would have been impossible to create Linux and most of the "open source" software. So why not say the truth and allow the use of the name GNU/Linux?

Again there was never any such consensus on forbidding the use of the term GNU/Linux and replacing it with Linux. In fact beyond the articles presented here in Wikipedia outside in the real world as more and more people and organizations get better informed the use of the term GNU/Linux is used more. This happens with governments and International organizations around the World. One example I can tell you is UNESCO. If you go to a newsstand there are magazines that are called GNU/Linux, in bookstores and libraries one can find books that are titled just GNU. Of course one can find also others called just Linux. It is more confusing for a neophyte who wants to learn the history and the operation of the operating system to use the word Linux than GNU/Linux. When anyone tries to download a software that works on "Linux" most of the times it will be released under the GNU GPL. So if GNU has nothing to do with Linux why is software given to me showing me this GNU GPL license???... a neophyte beginner will wonder.

The real reasons why the term "Linux", to refer to the entire operating system, as well as others such as "open source" is being pushed is that as the founders of the "Open Source Initiative" have expressed in books and interviews is that by avoiding the term GNU and the philosophy it carries with it you make the operating system more palatable to corporations and the business community. It all comes down to a matter of money and business.

Many people who work developing software are afraid companies will not invest in software that brings to mind ideas of freedom, such as that of free software which is not talking about software without charge, "gratuit" but software without restrictions to the user.

I have noted that many people that use the term Linux are involved in fact with companies that try to sell some software or programming service.

It is interesting to note that even Linus Torvalds when he first released his kernel he did not use the GNU GPL license. It was a proprietary program that only him could legally modify. It was only later that following the legal advice of one of his friends that he changed to the GPL license. The obvious reason is that he could not use his kernel program which was proprietary at first in combination with the GNU operating system that was released under the strict conditions set by the GNU General Public License and then try to sell the entire system because he would be violating the terms of agreement of the GPL covered programs he intended to use with his kernel. That would have ended with him in court for copyright violations.

It is known that is one of the reasons Torvalds does not like the GNU GPL. It does not allow him or anyone else to take free software, protected by the GPL, mix them with your own programs make it all proprietary then claim whole authorship and become wealthy in the process. Bald Eeagle (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read. What exactly do you want? Can you express that in couple of lines without ranting? This talk page is not for pushing an agenda and your ideas is for discussing the article, please provide a proposed change and reference and then we'll talk. -- AdrianTM (talk) 11:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the statement that

"Torvalds does not like the GNU GPL... It does not allow him or anyone else to take free software... make it all proprietary then claim whole authorship and become wealthy in the process"

is a particularly good example of why I'm not particularly keen on responding to these threads. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Short version

Ok.Short. Next time before you simple delete anyone's contribution can you PLEASE indicate where EXACTLY is that documentation that gives you the right to do so? It's not to hard to give a link to see where any kind of voting took place regarding certain terminology that has to be enforced throughout wikipedia. It would even make your editing "job" easier since everyone would probably just understand that you were doing the right thing and leave it there. But like this you create unnecessary frictions between contributors. Bald Eeagle (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about what contribution you talk about, but I suggest you first learn how Wikipedia works, everybody can edit, delete and add stuff, if you add stuff it needs to be referenced, and it has to be follow these policies WP:NPOV and WP:RS (that's only the basic stuff) it has to be relevant and it has to be accepted by other editors, if what you added was removed it means that other editors didn't think it was useful. But instead of talking generalities propose here a change and see if that's supported by other editors. -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the lack of a vote, please see Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia is not a democracy. For discussions about use of the name "GNU/Linux", please see WP search. Technobadger (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thumperward provokes frustrated reactions too often for it to always be purely the ranters' faults. Wikipedia has a policy of not WP:BITE new contributors. Reverting people with no justification, with circular logic, or with "Go dig through the archives", is very frustrating. No wonder the number of new contributors who stick around has slowed to a crawl. --Gronky (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is sheer revisionism, and your continual canvassing of editors who hold your POV to personally confront me isn't doing you any favours. I hope to see less of this in future. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

After your abbrasive treatment and misrepresentation consensus, new contributors need to be told that there is another side to the story. Having followed my posts to people's talk pages, you will also have seen that I tell people to not react in a hot headed way. I'm trying to prevent the rants you provoke. --Gronky (talk) 09:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Chris! Look just in case I want to say that no one has canvassed me to confront you. I'd like to suggest to you that in order to avoid problems that consume your time and that of others that yo do not precipitate to delete anyone's contributions to any article as long as he is saying the truth even though there may be some differences of opinion. It would be better that before you or anyone else deletes someone else's contribution to an article to be in accordance to your opinion(POV) of how it should be presented that a discussion takes place and see what most have to say about it. Then at least you could show a consensus which so far you have failed to show.

That's all. Have a good week. Bald Eeagle (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this a policy you wish to apply to everyone, even yourself? If that is the case, then that will defeat the entire objective of Wikipedia because we would have to discuss every minor edit that didn't adhere to some kind of unknown consensus. I think your plan is completely infeasible, and is probably against Wikipedia policy. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)