User talk:Hnfiurgds

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


Some cookies to welcome you! Face-smile.svg

Welcome to Wikipedia, Hnfiurgds! Thank you for your contributions. I am SudoGhost and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! SudoGhost 20:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The Linux article question[edit]

Hi, I'm Medende. As you have found out, there are a bunch of invasive people who are privately imposing the developments of the Linux article. They have being doing so for at least quite a few years now. I want to get rid of them, and let the Linux article be reshaped to reflect the real world. You are welcome to support my poll about the Linux-GNU/Linux controversy at the end of Medende (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)



Just some comments after reading your edit summaries:

  • No, I don't think is complete or used. The last modification there is from 2007, and there was never an official release of a GNU system (or even an official GNU Project distro of GNU/Linux), so that directory is at best a work in progress or a first draft.
  • I think it's better to make links directly, instead of putting wiki links into ref tags. In most browsers on desktop computers, you see a pop-up dialog box when you put the mouse over a reference so it's easy to click on the wiki link, but this isn't true for all browsers, and not true at all for devices that don't have mouses (pads etc.). So "variety of computer-architectures" is better than "variety of computer-architectures[1]".
  • I removed some explanations about what a kernel is. I didn't check if they were written by you, but the reason I removed them is that the same thing was explained multiple times, in different levels of detail but each time repetitive. IMO, a related concept, like "kernel" should be explained once, and a link given if the reader wants to know more. Otherwise they'll get bored and won't continue reading the article.

Some other parts of the article might be better moved to other articles:

HTH. Gronky (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Article lead sections[edit]

Hello. You seem to not understand the structure of Wikipedia articles and this is leading to your edits being reverted.

The first part of the article, known as the lead or lede, is intended to be a short summary of article content. It should be no more than four or five medium-length paragraphs. New material should generally not be added to the lead section, but rather to the article body, with perhaps an addition of a summary sentence or two to the lead.

In general, if after your edits to the lead, you can no longer see the beginning of the table of contents without scrolling down, the lead has been made too long. Please add new material to the body of the article, not the lead. Also, please be sure to use sources which are not affiliated with the subject of the article. We use neutral reports written by third parties, not advocacy material published by the subject or organizations they founded. ALso, all material needs to be written from a neutral point of view. Yworo (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes that makes sense. But consider also: the article lead should show the most important points of an article. Unfortunately your revert here removes a very important point, which was presented in a neutral fashion (see here (1) for an explanation). I think we should reinstall some of those points (as good as we can) and perhaps trim some other paragraphs where possible. (I will let it rest for a while though... letting the dust settle somewhat and giving Thumperward a chance to consider this) Hnfiurgds (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with (aka accepting) Thumperward[edit]

You may have seen that User:Thumperward undid all your edits to GNU Project.

That's normal for him. He thinks he owns Wikipedia. Unfortunately, he has hours every day to edit pages, so if you try to get into a discussion with him, it will consume a lot of your time, and he'll continue.

The outcome will be unfair, but if you know this in advance then you might waste less time and get less frustrated. (But that doesn't mean giving in all the time.)

In this particular case, I agree that the new version (i.e. your edits) had some problems, but Wikipedia needs contributors and Thumperward's rude and bullying approach just makes people feel ill treated. He surely causes people to leave Wikipedia.

My advice is to not leave Wikipedia. Wikipedia is just like the real world. There are jerks and injustice, but it's still a very worthwhile project. Gronky (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As I did with your other recent edits, I'm planning on going through the new material and incorporating it more naturally into the article body. Please do continue the conversation we've been having on my talk if you want to discuss the matter further. FWIW Gronky's made multiple efforts to have me kicked off the project for not sharing his personal point of view before; as an administrator in good standing I'd advise you not to take his bold assertions at face value, even if you're sympathetic to his general opinions on free software. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Huh? "Gronky's made multiple efforts to have me kicked off the project"?
What are you talking about?
This isn't the place for this discussion but I find this accusation simply bizarre. Gronky (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
"Censured" would be a more accurate sentiment. Apologies. I don't believe you've ever suggested I should be blocked, merely that my edits undone and that I be prevented from making them again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
It's never nice to see one's effort undone, when considerable energy was put into it. As it stands now, I don't have time now to edit a lot, and more importantly: I'm not wasting my time defending things that I have written (that have been removed) -- and that's not because I don't value what I have written, but because of the points that Gronky has mentioned: the frustration and all that. Hnfiurgds (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, the good news is that there's only one Thumperward. He's Wikipedia's low-point, and you had the misfortune to encounter him early, but he's really an exception.
If you take a break, do come back afterward. If everyone that disagrees with him leaves then we'll never fix the problems he imposes. Gronky (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I cannot believe that Thumperwood is an admin. He's so non-neutral... busy pushing his POV of trying to misalign articles on organizations that are defined by strong political views, into average sterilized milkchocolate-pudding articles that fail to mention the political importance (examples are his reverts on Free Software, Richard Stallman, GNU project. Oh... but when editing an article on unpolitical concepts, such as Proprietary format, he goes out of his way to revert it back to a smeary version, that favours such POV words as "ownership" and "intellectual property", rather than factually explaining what it is all about. Hnfiurgds (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Free software, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freedom (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) 13:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ List of Linux supported architectures