User talk:Gronky

Under Wikipedia rules mediaeval, medieval or mediæval are all acceptable and I know many Irish writers — I am one of the many — do use mediæval, sometimes mediaeval but never medieval (which grates on me the same way as color for colour and check for cheque). Personally I was taught in both school and university in Ireland to write it as mediæval. It is an acceptable variant of English in British English and Hiberno-English so please do not replace it. Once the variant is accepted, and it is, it should not be replaced under Wikipedia MoS rules. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that mediæval is an accepted spelling. The Oxford Compact English Dictionary has no entry for that word. It has entries for mediaeval and medieval and neither of those mention mediæval.

æ is simply the original way of writing ae. The letters can be written either way and both are correct. æ declined in usage in the 20th century because it was difficult to type on old typewriters. With the appearance of wordprocessing æ can be typed easily using a standard key (alt " on macs, for example) æ is once again being used by many people rather than write ae. Both are valid.

FearÉIREANN\^(caint)

I'd like to note that ae isn't always from æ, so ae cannot always be used validly. Æ went to 'ae' and then in many words was further reduced to just 'e'... make sure you know that the word originally had æ in it before replacing! We don't need to see things like "ærated"! porges 08:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that you were taught "mediæval" in school conflicts with my experience being educated in Ireland. I was never even taught to write an "æ". Since you're in your 30s and I'm in my 20s, it could be that "æ" was once on the syllabus, but has been removed. Gronky 03:18, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Individual spellings are not a matter on or off a syllabus. It is a less used variant because of manual typewriting problems, so it had to be typed as ae but 100% legitimate to use and with the appearance of word processing, as I have mentioned, many users have returned to using æ. It is also fully legitimate to use on Wikipedia. So do not remove it. Such removals will simply be reverted by the many users who, quite correctly, use it. Users are perfectly entitled to use it here. You can write the letters ae separately if you wish, but people do not have to. It is up to them, not you, to decide to use it. (If you look at the insert box on your screen you will see that Wikipedia facilitates people who wish to use it by giving œ, Œ, Æ and æ as typing options.

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 04:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is cobblers, not to say insulting, to say that "no normal person" uses æ. They do. If you remove words with æ it will be treated as vandalism, reported as such as treated under Wikipedia rules as in cases where people willfully change BE to AE, or AE into BE, when it has been pointed out that the article is entitled to use the them. You clearly know less about language use and forms of spelling that can be used than you think you know. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 06:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, "no normal person" uses æ; perhaps not. I reverted your edit to restore æ. My comment was ‘revert in memory of George William Russell’. Perhaps he wasn’t normal; he wrote about ‘the færy world’ and those who ‘live only in the æther’, while others dwell ‘up the æry mountains’. Perhaps he wasn’t normal. He didn’t adhere to the spelling found in your Oxford Compact English Dictionary; he didn’t because he lived in Rathgar Avenue, at its junction with Kenilworth Square. I would appreciate it if you left words spelt as Dubliners would spell them, in articles about Dublin alone, rather than imposing your Oxford spelling. Thank you, --ClemMcGann 09:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to make of you pair. I've given up on this, but your arguments are as bad FearÉIREANN's. You claim that current English usage can be learned by looking at a single person, and then you point at someone born in 1867! I wish my political opponents argued as limply as you do.

Mr. Russel might have been normal, I didn't know him, but according to Wikipedia he hasn't written anything in at least 70 years. (Being dead is similar to an extreme case of writers cramp.)

Dubliners, in general, don't use "æ". Please don't cite a special case in the mistaken belief that it proves the general case. You will find more uses of "brang" and "brung" in Dublin than you will of "æ", but neither are acceptable as modern standard English. The Oxford English Dictionaries are probably the best known dictionaries to todays residents of Rathgar Avenue anyway. Gronky 00:48, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

A bit over a month has now passed and the above discussion is not in progress, but I've since thought of two examples that are better than "brang" and "brung". They are "me" used for "my", and "giz" used for "give". Anyone that has never either heard or said "giz a go of yer bike", and "wouldya geroff me bleedin' bike!" either didn't grow up in Dublin, or didn't have a bike. But neither "giz" nor "me" (as a possesive adjective) have a place in Wikipedia. Gronky 21:36, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Please bear the following in mind next time you're in the vicinity of the Proinsias De Rossa article, and indeed in general:

1. You should write accurate edit summaries avoiding personal attacks. Your edit summaries on the Proinsias De Rossa article are not accurate and accuse me of apparent vandalism and random deletion of sentences. This is not true.
2. I explained on the talk page why it was desirable to make some of the changes: you had introduced a section to the article on De Rossa's work as an MEP but left the material relating to that which was already in the article under another heading. Instead, under that heading, you included detailed information on how De Rossa voted on one of the hundreds of topics he has voted on during the course of his career as an MEP. (If the articles on members of parliaments included details on their voting or speaking on every issue that came up they would be unmanageably long.) I also fixed an ungrammatical sentence, which you then changed back to the ungrammatical version.
3. You never responded to what I wrote on the talk page but made another revert with another questionable edit summary.
4. When you're making significant changes (and the ones you made count as significant) you shouldn't label them as minor. See Wikipedia:Minor_edit Palmiro | Talk 16:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how I missed it, but I didn't see your comments on the Talk page until now. If I had I would have replied. So that much is my fault.

1. I wrote an accurate edit summary. Since you seemed to be a proper wikipedian (not a troll) I wrote that I was reverting "what looks like vandalism".
2. Will reply to this on the Talk page
3. see above
4. I was reverting what looked like vandalism, that seems non-controversial/minor.

Gronky 21:15, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I see I am not the first person to take issue with your habit of making an edit, and then using the summary for that edit as a forum to reply to someone instead of summarizing what the edit is. Your edit had nothing to do with my edit, or the GNU toolchain which is what I edited. It doesn't seem appropriate to try to offer a rebuttal in the summary. If you have something to discuss, use the discussion page. Perhaps something like "mention that GNU utilties are more stable than proprietary unix" would have been a more accurate summary of your edit?

As to your actual edit, GNU utilities are not proven to be better than anything, "better" is a subjective term, and therefore cannot be proven. Since you decided to go with "stable", your summary rebuttal doesn't even make sense. None the less, I do not believe that the GNU utilties have been proven to be more stable. Your reference shows that 5 years ago, the GNU utilties were proven to handle random input better, but I don't think that is the same thing as "stable", and is nowhere close to "better". And of course they were only compared to the notoriously bad utilties in proprietary systems, not against any quality software. Personally, I think that paragraph sounds weird now with two seperate and different quality statements, maybe if you want to have information on the quality of GNU utilities we can come up with a whole seperate paragraph just for that info?

Also, you seem to have a very GNU-centric mindset, so please keep in mind that many people consider the GNU utilities to be junk and not worth using at all. In fact, people even go out of their way to create free, secure and reliable alternatives to GNU utilties, see the BSDs for instance, particularly OpenBSD. Remember that your personal opinion of the GNU software is not factual information about GNU software. So if you do want to keep quality information in the article, keep in mind that it will need to contain both points of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generic Player (talk • contribs) 18:07, August 30, 2005

The last person to take issue with my edit summaries turned out to be correct, and I issued an apology in a subsequent edit summary.

In this case, my edit summary was slightly imperfect, but I think you're over reacting. I didn't mention you by name, and I didn't say anything derogatory. The imperfection was that I appeared to be rebutting a previous edit, but in fact there was a slight difference in what I and the previous edit were talking about. Edit summary space is limited so a full explanation wasn't possible. The Edit summary should be read in at least one of two contexts: time (recent edits) and the edit itself. I don't think I'm significantly in the wrong here.

Regarding what you call my GNU-centric mindset, I disagree. I try to correct mistakes in Wikipedia, and many of my most researched topics centre on software freedom. It's one of the very few failings of Wikipedia's development model that widely held misconceptions are often given the same status as facts. So I often fix controversial mistakes, sometimes this requires discussions on Talk: pages, sometimes this can be avoided by writing detailed edit summaries, sometimes my corrections are wrongly reverted and I just have to move on. For Wikipedia to be high quality, widely held misconceptions must be dispelled outside in society too. So I spend time in the real world trying to build awareness of free software and the factual history and present of it.

If you have an actual problem with any of my edits (one that you can put in words instead of labeling them collectively as being "GNU-centric"), then do bring it up - here or on the pages Talk:page. I'll stand by my edits if I'm right and I'll apologise when I'm wrong. Gronky 21:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I did put it into words, you are replying to them even. Obviously cutting and pasting the same thing I already wrote isn't going to help, so I'll try to explain what the words mean.

Paragraph 1 is simply me asking you to summarize your edit instead of commenting on someone elses summary. You started your summary with "actually", clearly making it a reply. The fact that your edit didn't really involve mine just makes your reply out of place, its still a reply though, not an accurate summary of your edit. Summaries are for summaries, talk pages are for discussions.

Paragraph 2 is my actual problem with the article as it stands. Please read it again, you seem to have skipped this and headed straight for paragraph 3. Basically, the paragraph seems odd as it is, with 2 seperate mentions of quality issues, and not entirely balanced mentions at that. I think either removing the comments about quality altogether, or making a seperate paragraph to fully cover the quality issue would make the article better, that's all.

Paragraph 3 is just a friendly reminder that other people feel quite differently about GNU software, since I wasn't sure if you were aware of this. Its not a "problem with your edit". It just seems like your edit was added because you like GNU stuff and want the article to say its good, not because its important information. Maybe its just my imagination. Generic Player 00:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gronky,

I noticed Njyoder (talk · contribs) hostile behaviour on the Richard Stallman article. I would like to point out that this user is on personal attack parole from a previous RfAr[1] for precisely this reason and if you feel he is unfairly making personal attacks against you, you can report him for such. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. Gronky 13:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you on correcting Dillo to be correct from a "GNU/FSF way". Let's continue making wikipedia a bit more aware of Free Software and the GNU project.Rvalles 23:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. One of the very few flaws in Wikipedia's model is that widely held misbeliefs often get treated as fact (or ethical items can be overshadowed by technical items). I do my best to correct articles that contains mistakes about free software. Gronky 14:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(by that, in relation to the Dillo article, I mean that many people have seen the technical side of Dillo, but have not be informed about the ethical/social aspects of it - and so the article represented it purely as a technical project. Gronky 14:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

There have been a few new candidates for speedy deletion added over the past month or two. A new CSD I5 allows for unused fair use or unfree images that have been on the site for seven days to be speedy deleted. So, if you re-upload the image and use it in an article, you should be okay. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 01:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I was under the false impression that the image was actually used at the time. Gronky 01:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reinserting it. I was partial to that picture myself. 172 | Talk 05:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I just saw your userpage. Please try to get on better terms with Jtdirl. He is an extremely high regarded scholar who has taken out a considerable amount of his professional time from his schedule and spent large sums of cash (internet fees run up huge phone bills in Ireland and most of the most of the world outside the U.S.) for nearly three years in order to write and edit thousands of articles according to the highest standards of professional encyclopedias and sourcebooks. It would be a great loss if he did have to leave for good. So please comment on the specific actions that you question, not the person. 172 | Talk 05:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a hard situation to write about, and I'll try rewrite that section on Sunday. But I do place the establishment of a minimum standard of decency above the contributions of any Wikipedian, even a prolific one. Gronky 13:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a lot of time working with him in 2003 and 2004. I'm sure that his intentions were good, with other editors baiting him the whole time... I'm glad to hear that you intend to rewrite the userpage post. 172 | Talk 14:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you changed the phrasing in the Black box article from

The opposite of a black box (e.g. an open source program) is sometimes known as a white box, a glass box, or a clear box.

to

The opposite of a black box (e.g. a free software/open source program) is sometimes known as a white box, a glass box, or a clear box.

Could you please explain to me the difference between the two versions? - It seems to me that your addition is redundant. Thanks, Nihiltres 17:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be redundant if "free software" and "open-source software" were practically the same thing. This is something that I indeed think is the case, however, Wikipedia currently has seperate articles for each. "open-source software" is in fact simply a marketing term for free software (those are the words of the promoters of "open source", Open Source Initiative), and it's a term popularised 15 years after "free software"s original name (which is, "free software"). Unfortunately, the general public cannot be assumed to be aware of this, and there are many misconceptions arround "free software" and "open source", and this is further worsened by a number of companies heavily pushing the "open source" term upon general public. I believe these companies can write what they like in their press releases, but Wikipedia deserves better.

Fixing Wikipedia in a year is not practical, since Wikipedia is in part a reflection of the current beliefs of society - correct and incorrect. So I will not try to correct Wikipedia, which is why I didn't replace the reference to "open source" with one to "free software" (even though I think it would be correct, and I welcome others to do so). What I will do is whenever Wikipedia uses the marketing term, I'll put the original name beside it. Just so Wikipedia doesn't confuse people into thinking "free software" and "open source software" are different. Separating the two names with a slash, I think, shows they're two equivalents. Joining them with an and would make them seem like two compatible, but not necessarily linked, conditions. (I've written this in a hurry, I'll clarify anything if you ask.) (oh, and I fixed the "open source" link since the page open source used to be about software, but now information about software is on open-source software.) Gronky 23:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Egad. I'm using Firefox and the text on this page get progressively smaller with every FearEireann signature. -Joshuapaquin 01:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to fix his html. I haven't seen the problem you describe, despite using Firefox, so I can't check if I fixed everything. Can you let me know if the fonts are fine now? Thanks. Gronky 03:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I support you on your GNU-related edits. It's sad to see people calling Linux an operating system. Also, someone is trying to remove Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GNU/kFreeBSD on the ground that it's not an operating system. Thought it'd be good to let you know.Geronimooo 13:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I somehow forgot to add GNU/kFreeBSD to my watchlist. I've given my opinion on that Afd page now. Fixing Wikipedia will take years since Wikipedia is partly a reflection of society's views - correct and incorrect - but bit-by-bit, when everything is explained as it's being done, I'm glad to see that progress is being made in correcting the representation of GNU and similarly misunderstood topics. Gronky 14:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a note that both of you should take into account, Because of changing GNU/FreeBSD to GNU/kFreeBSD the article became even less relevent, because at that point it only applies to one system, where as at least before it could be said to include two GNU/FreeBSD hybridized systems. Janizary 06:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The name is definitely not clear, and I think the solution is to step back and think about what the article is being written about. Rather than have seperate articles for each distro and flavour of GNU on BSD kernels, maybe it would be best to discuss them in one article where they can be compared and contrasted, and where duplicate information can be found and removed. I've left a more detailed comment on the Afd. Gronky 14:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NetBSD isn't Free Software, you shouldn't go randomly changing to FSFisms in the articles about systems that entirely do not agree with the FSF. You can't just go adding stuff that is GNU to articles, because that's adding point of view to them, which is really bad when it's not even the subject's point of view. Janizary 06:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NetBSD is free software. There is no dispute over this, even NetBSD software that is covered by their license with the advertising clause is free software [2]. And I never said that NetBSD agrees with FSF.

Is your actual issue that you think Wikipedia's NetBSD article shouldn't say that NetBSD is free software because The NetBSD Foundation disagrees with FSF? If so, I think you should ask yourself if such an outside political disagreement is really a correct reason for selectively removing facts from Wikipedia. (I won't revert or re-edit.)

Maybe you would be happy if the article said NetBSD is "freely redistributable", which is their term for free software / open source software. ... The NetBSD Foundation does not use the term "free software" because it associates that term with Free Software Foundation, an organisation whose philosophy it does not agree with.

That would be factually correct, and proper. Gronky 14:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: www.netbsd.org actually uses the term "free software" [3] [4] and it uses it in the free-as-in-freedom sense since it says "While most free software will compile on NetBSD 'out of the box" which would make no sense if "free" meant "zero-cost" (since zero-cost software is usually not compilable). Gronky 14:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Gronky! I believe we have not yet finished our discussion. I had an "epiphany" recently, and I realized that perhaps, you should go ahead with your "overseas filipino communities" suggestion, or whatever title you see fit. Good luck, and Merry Christmas! :) --Noypi380 07:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I haven't forgot, but I've been busy. I will come back. Maligayang Pasko! ;-) Gronky 04:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been working a bit on the article recently and would like to get some feedback, could you let me know what you think needs adding/is missing etc. from the article. Thanks - FrancisTyers 17:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've certainly filled it out! It looks very complete and I have no suggestions right now, but I'll check back the next time something Leprechaun-related enters my mind. Gronky 04:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Its going through peer review too, so if you have any thoughts, check out the peer review on the Talk page. - FrancisTyers 11:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Free Software not a subset of Open Source software? —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a GNU page that agrees with what I said: [5] (look at the diagram). Also, according to FSF, the Netscape Public License is free software [6] but according to Open Source Iniative it is not an open-source software license.

These are not absolute proofs since they rely on interpretations by GNU, FSF, and Open Source Initiative - but then again, all such judgements rely on interpretations by someone, and those groups are the most accepted judges of the most authorative definitions of the terms we're talking about. Gronky 03:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I made that suggestion nearly half a year ago, and then completely forgotten about it (along with the ~1000 other posts I've made). And then, not haven't gotten a message since the summer, today it says "You have new messages." I'm glad you started the portal, I mean - since the German and French Wikipedia both have one, surely the English Wikipedia should have one (considering Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, ... all speak English). I'll try to contribute as much as I can, but I go college so that's why I mainly stopped contributing to Wikipedia since September. In fact, much of what I know about free software comes directly from Wikipedia articles. I put up a picture and "did you know" on Portal:free software. It's not much, but it's a start. Great job on what you did so far! -Hyad 06:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've probably seen me (admittedly) trolling on the Richard Stallman talk page. My own observation is tending to lead me to believe that your degree of regard for Richard Stallman is primarily emotionally based, and non-objective. I'm willing to acknowledge that my own dislike of some elements of his behaviour probably is also; but I've noticed that certain people's unreasoning worship of him is as much the cause of my dislike of him as his own attitudes/statements at times.

My primary grievances with him are that a) he seems very much to try and insist that his philosophy is the only one that can be legitimately followed, and that b) despite the size and number of his genuine contributions, as I noted on the talk page, for some inexplicable reason, he and his followers such as yourself continue to attempt to take credit for things for which credit does not honestly belong to him. Given that, on reflection I can see that my problems are with some specific behaviour here...I do not know the man personally, and would not try to claim that I do.

These are not reservations which I alone hold, either...I have seen them noted by a considerable number of other people in the past as well. I will also acknowledge having been gratuitously provocative on the talk page at times, but said provocation has been a product of genuine frustration and confusion; this man has genuinely done much to be respected for, but recognition for that which he genuinely has done on its own does not seem to be enough for him. I also do not understand why he seems to be so deeply threatened by the idea that other people wish to hold beliefs which are not necessarily in conformity with his own. That to me genuinely does not seem conducive to the kind of freedom which he claims to want people to have. I cannot help but assume that surely a part of any meaningful freedom would have to be the freedom to disagree with him. Petrus4 22:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow that article any more, so I hadn't seen your comments until now.

It's a topic I've done a lot of research on. I've read and listened to probably almost every available English-language article, essay, interview, and recording of his talks and the post-talk Q&A sessions. I also follow a number of mailing lists which he is active on. I've met him in person and talked to him 1-to-1, briefly, a number of times - despite doing my best to minimise such contact.

I know his philosophy quite well, and I know, in detail, a lot of things he's done, and I know many of his limits.

The reason I don't follow that article anymore is that no matter how much I rebut or clarify or explain, a new person just arrives the next month and the process has to start again, so I'm almost wasting my time when I do so - and because I know how inneffective my effort is, I hold back from putting in a full effort anyway.

If you've any specific, short questions which you'd like to ask of a person who knows Stallman well, here's a fine place, but I don't know how to fix that article's environment. (I ask for "short", not because I'm unwilling to devote the time for long questions, but because there are so many confusions that piecemeal is the best way to examine this topic.) Gronky 21:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberjunkie has nominated for deletion the template that gives your portal round corners. He's trying to delete 3 templates I created. Please help maintain selective design amongst portals and support these three templates. Here's the link: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Portal:Box-header-round. They are listed sequentially. There isn't much time left, and it's lucky I found out at all. --Go for it! 03:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're welcome to comment. However, please disregard Go for it!'s inflamatory remarks and, more so, please understand that I am absolutely not "attacking" anything. Happy editing, --cj | talk 10:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me of this. I can see reasons to agree with both sides of the debate, so I've left a comment. Gronky 22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this edit - do you have an proove for this? Just a source would be enough for me. --Liquidat 14:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know of any publicly-accessible source. I also don't know of any publicly accessible source which supports the previous statement. For what it's worth, I'm certain my edit is correct. Gronky 20:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you have non publicly accessible sources? Does that mean, that there are closed ones? --Liquidat 00:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That means they are private sources, ones which have not been published online and therefore cannot be accessed by the public. Gronky 12:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot provided a source today: A FOSDEM speech by Stallman (see the first line). I'll add this to the article as a source. Gronky 20:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a misunderstanding is held by a large enough section of society, it will sometimes be wrong in Wikipedia - and when someone tries to fix it, they may be out-numbered by people who are sure that their misunderstanding is correct.

One example that people talk about is that if Wikipedia was started hundreds of years ago, it's article about Earth would say that the Earth is flat.

There are many modern-day examples related to the GNU operating system, the GNU project, and free software.

Hi Gronky, I saw this on your user page, but I did not click the top right edit button there to say this: I am aware of this type of thing elsewhere in life and in Wiki. Like the origin of the name White Rhino, which I think I have fixed. Then while being a Wiki user I discovered that my long held belief that the maiden name of Simon van der Stel's wife form Stellenbosch was Bosch, is a misbelief. Then in 1986 I was tought about Groupthink and we see today that George Bush junior is guilty of allowing it to occur.Gregorydavid 07:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't links like this [7] belong on the Talk pages, not the actual articles themselves? AlistairMcMillan 20:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They belong on the article pages, I'm sure of that, because they're part of the information/navigation/markup content of the encyclopedia, not part of the development project. I haven't been able to find any Wikipedia guide for what pages to add the tag to, or where on the page to put the tag, but adding the free software portal tag to pages about free software seemed obvious, and the "See also" section also seemed like the logical place. Gronky 21:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping on the Chavez corrections ! Sandy 14:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misread the article. OSI Certified is a strong trademark of the Open Source Initiative. Please do not disparage this mark further. Open Source, even though unregistered, and aruably currently unregisterable, is a weak trademark of the Open Source Initiative. We might not prevail in defending it in court, but there is no harm in our claiming it to be a trademark. RussNelson 03:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem in adding my recent Talk:FOSS history discussion to Alternative terms for free software. However, were you asking me to reduce/compose/insert the info into the main article, or simply copy the gist of what I wrote in Talk:FOSS into Talk:Alternative terms for free software?

BTW, do I know you, as in "have we ever talked by phone or any other non-electronic-text medium?" No specifics needed, just some of your style of argment sounds familiar. I, stupidly yet gleefully (I clearly have masochistic tendencies), have decided to be me. Not enough experience in online role-playing in my background, I suspect.

I was amused by the aptness of your comments to the effect of "if you don't reply, the most negative interpretation ends up 'winning' the discussion... thus forcing a lot of self-defensive work instead of real composition and addition to Wikipedia." I have, um, discovered that the hard way lately... 8^) It's too bad, really, since the same amount of effort applied to adding to content would often be far more beneficial to everyone in the long term. It's not that different from free software: adding new code to fix problems in free software is in the long term a much more powerful approach than doing nothing but critiquing code and leaving the (often much harder) constructive work to be done by others. It also sort of conflicts with the original admonitions of Wikipedia to "be bold!" and "feel free to add!", doesn't it? Cheers, Terry Bollinger 04:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information should go into the article. The alternative terms for free software article was made because there was a growing number of articles about terms such as "open source software", "FLOSS", "FOSS", "Libre software". Reading the articles, I noticed there was not just innaccurate information but there was even conflicting information between each article. And of course, there was buckets of content duplication, usually at mediocre quality (presumably due to the divided contributor base). So putting these things into one article means the duplicate stuff can be removed (and the best version kept) and the conflicting stuff will be apparent and can be squared up.

Looking at the FOSS article, it seems it would be better if the content was merged into alternative terms for free software and made a redirect. What do you think?

Outside of Wikipedia, I don't think we've met, yet. I used to use my real name for many sites, but when a pest started bugging me on multiple sites, and when I started wondering about a contribution and how it might relate to organisations I'm affiliated with, I decided to start using nicknames for certain activities. Gronky 09:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might be interested. Best wishes, Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You write:

Could you expand the Code Sourcery article a bit? Due to your connection, you probably shouldn't comment on how good or bad a company it is, but objective things such as:

• how old it is
• who are the top management
• where is it based
• how many staff does it have
• how many developers does it have
• Is all the software it develops released as free software, and if not, what approximate portion is
• does it have a free software policy
• what are it's main products or services, current and past

Thanks. Gronky 19:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the need for verifiability to cited public sources, I think that the same principles as in WP:AUTO apply here and I should not do more than correct obvious errors. But to answer some of your questions (and you'll need to find public sources for anything you wish to include), the article should be at CodeSourcery and personally I doubt the utility of leaving a redirect at the mis-spaced Code Sourcery, founded 1997, Chief Sourcerer Mark Mitchell (GCC Release Manager), "based" Granite Bay, California but this is hardly meaningful or significant for a completely distributed company, 19 staff (all technical) but I don't think you'll find a public source to cite for this figure, the bulk of Sourcery G++ is free software (there are proprietary debug stubs for connecting to proprietary interfaces on various boards, and proprietary Eclipse plugins) as is all of Sourcery VSIPL++ and QMTest (the C++ ABI Testsuite is the one purely proprietary product, and there is internal code not released at all), I don't know what you mean by a free software policy (all changes to the free software components are contributed upstream where acceptable upstream; we are an FSF Corporate Patron [8]). Joseph Myers 00:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of changing my sig html up a bit. Is this better for you?  — JT (TRAiNER4)  [T·C·E] 22:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Gnu-55x55.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 08:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the default message for notifications on images for deletion. I would assume that it has a different color because an image you uploaded possibly being deleted is considered important. --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly even that is no consensus. Rich Farmbrough, 12:49 5 October 2006 (GMT).

I created an amendment for fair use in portals, as well as submitted to village pump, see here: Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals#Also. It would be great if you could express your support there. ddcc 21:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was probably inappropriate. My bad. Neilc 11:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dear gronky! i said something ok Karl Marx talk page about your concerns. you might want to read it. --Arash red 06:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any "X Windows". I guess you mean the X Window System. -- mms 21:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I mean. I thought it was sometimes shortened to "X Windows", but I'll try to be clearer in future. Gronky 21:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some just drop the "System". But this would lead to "X Window". The "s" at the end – I suppose – comes from the association with Microsoft Windows. "You know, these Linux people have their own Windows GUI called X Windows". -- mms 21:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Savane, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. -- Ezeu 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In an edit you wrote that "licence is the noun, license is the verb". If so, why than GNU General Public License? -- mms 09:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some dialects of English use "license" for both the noun and the verb. The North American dialects do this, the UK/Ireland/India/Australia dialect doesn't. WP policy is that both dialects are acceptable and that changing from one dialect to another for no reason is not acceptable. Gronky 09:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I should clarify. It's just USA English that uses "license" as the noun, Canadian English uses "licence" - so I was wrong to say that North Amerian dialects use "license" for the noun. Gronky 16:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually I changed it because of the redirect.  :) I prefer British myself. (Not a native speaker, though) 80.233.255.7 15:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people who speak dialects that are closer to British English than to American English get spellings wrong such as using "license" for the noun, etc. Or maybe this is just something that's happening to the software community because most of the legalese around software starts in the USA. Either way, there's a policy against changing redirects that are equivalent to the pointed to article, so I police that as a slight counterbalance to the common spelling mistakes which pull WP in the American English direction. Gronky 15:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of those people. I do prefer to use British English, even though I haven't bothered to actually learn it, so I really appreciate if somebody cares enough to speak up about it. Hell, I only found out about the actual difference between "licence" and "license" from the discussion above.

For one, I didn't know there's a policy for that. Thanks for pointing that out. 80.233.255.7 15:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all linux contain GNU. So GNU/Linux is only a subset of Linux that has GNU tools. Micropolygon 13:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All unix-like "Linux distros" contain more GNU than they do Linux. Gronky 13:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there are linux distro with no GNU. Micropolygon 13:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unix-like ones? Which? Gronky 13:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one i made. Micropolygon 13:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is...? Gronky 13:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NoGNU-Linux. Micropolygon 13:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, the main article is called "Linux", not GNU/Linux, so we should follow that standard.Micropolygon 13:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article. Both names are in use, and the current state of the article being named "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux" is in current debate on the Talk page. Every article has to pick a name, but that doesn't mean that every topic only has one valid name. Gronky 13:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article says a Linux with GNU libraries can sometimes be called GNU/Linux, so Linux is the name for all Linuxs, while GNU/Linux only refer to Linuxes with GNU. Micropolygon 13:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Linux-based operating systems have GNU libraries. Maybe it's possible to boot a computer with Linux and without GNU, but you won't have a Unix-like OS, and you won't be able to run any of the applications whose pages you're changing to say Linux instead of GNU/Linux, so you're actually making those pages incorrect. Gronky 13:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Deindent)... Wouldn't NoGNU-Linux be better off as Unix-Linux? 92.0.138.3 (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no, it doesn't mess with talk page archiving at all; it combines a lot of the talk page template clutter (templates related to peer reviews, FA and GA status) into one {{ArticleHistory}} template. It can be done by hand, but GimmeBot does it automatically; I'm just doing the prep work. For a sample, look at Talk:The Simpsons. I think you'll like it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gronky. I think that a little more work on Linux would bring it to Featured Article status. I would be grateful for your comments here. Thanks. Axl 12:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that, thanks for pointing it out.

Dsigal 02:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was curious that they were all the same. Thank you. MichaelNetzer 22:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gronky! Since it has been a month since you nominated the Free software portal for peer review, I hope you received good feedback on how the portal could be improved. If you would like, you could keep the portal listed at the portal peer review for more suggestions for improvement and ask the Wikipedians here for feedback. Also, if you think the portal is ready, you could nominate the portal for featured status. Either way, I hope you've received helpful reviews! Cheers, S.D. 16:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The peer review the portal got was great, it's a big improvement. I've removed it from the listings on the peer review requests page. I think it will be nominated for featured status in a few weeks. Thanks. Gronky 12:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. Good luck with the nomination! Cheers, S.D. 12:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I apologize, I meant no harm. Geekman314^{(contact me)} 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am contacting everyone who participated in the discussion that became inactive in December. Due to the length of the previous discussion, I have proposed a new amendment and you like you to weigh in so that we may actually have a consensus on this matter as it doesn't seem there exists one either way. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria

Ok, well I'm glad you corrected the nouns that were in the body. The reason I edited in the first place was because the title spelling did not match its usage within the body, so I corrected the spelling that I was familiar with so that title and usage within the body were consistent. Question: For differences like this, what is typically done in Wikipedia? Why is the Wikipedia page at Color spelled the American way, for instance? Thanks. Jeff schiller 13:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on my talk page. Please see my reply here. Cheers--Edcolins 17:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to wikicharts صفحهٔ اصلی which you created is one of our top 1000 most popular 'articles' :) Haukur 10:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Having looked at the wikicharts info for portals, especially the data for previous months, it seems the algorithm is a bit buggy. Interesting though. Thanks. Gronky 11:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want Gnu/communism to be discussed for deletion, there are three steps you need to take. See WP:AFD. -- RHaworth 16:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder :-) I just got called away from my computer after doing step #1. Steps #2 and #3 are done now. Gronky 17:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gronky. Yes, the abilty to write a good article is important, but it seems to me the Wiki editorial gang is going for style over substance with a decided preference to delete/revert rather than taking the time to improve the entries. The fact that Francis has trouble seeing the connection between the Children of the Code site and spelling reform verifies this opinion in 50ft tall letters.

I think all of you need to reread the Whats Great About Wiki essay. You have obviously strayed far away from the ideals touted there.JO 753 04:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Ht-//dig, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. mms 18:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this notice. Unfortunately, I don't have knowledge to add to that article, and it looks like development stopped in early 2005, so it's less and less likely that someone else will come along and improve the article. So I can't argue against it being deleted. To preserve what little information is there, on the off chance that someone does come along wanting to have a go, I've put a copy on Category talk:Free search engine software. Gronky 07:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the nom counts as a Delete vote, and really does not need to vote. When people say "per nom," they mean that the reason why they are voting Delete is the same reason stated in the nominating statement. Panoptical 20:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you semi-reverted my change to the wording of the mention of TG4. I was hoping we could discuss this and come to an agreement so that we're not simply reverting each other. To me this explanation seems unnecessary for a couple of reasons. First, it's mentioned higher up on the page so doesn't come completely out of nowhere. Second, someone has since added a link to that same mention. If someone is confused as to what TG4 is, they can simply check the link. Furthermore, the wordier explanation seems to break up the flow of the language to me. I'd like to hear your own viewpoint so that we can perhaps come up with some form of compromise. —Leftmostcat 09:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you based on your first reason but that, as far as I can tell, there isn't any mention of TG4 or Teilifís na Gaeilge until the Daily life section which is further down. Gronky 08:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. You're right there. What are your thoughts on the link? To me it seems sufficient to link it, as any user unfamiliar with TG4 can read further about it. —Leftmostcat 04:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chain Barnstar of Recognition[edit]

The Chain Barnstar of Merit[edit]

The Chain Barnstar of Diligence[edit]

The Wikipedian's Chain Barnstar of Honour[edit]

Thanks. Gronky 09:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If you are interested in free software, you might also be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Free Software. Hope you enjoyed France! --Gronky 12:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gronky, I'm a new article writer. I have written an article on GGobi and am looking for any helpful feedback. It is free software so I thought you might have an interest in it. Thanks for the help in advance. Lynn08 03:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a little clean-up. The article still needs a more encyclopedic writing style. Some of the sentences are like a project homepage (subjectively promoting GGobi), and I removed one sentence that was like a HOWTO. Hope that helps. --Gronky 10:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, sorry for the late reply. It's good to see Wikipedia users who do know the history of GNU and understand the difference between GNU/Linux and Linux. To me, the fact that links to GNU/Linux are being removed seems like being contrary to the Wikipedia's objectives of developing useful educational neutral content, as talking about "Linux distributions" is not neutral (it's openly anti-GNU) and neither useful nor educational (it makes people believe wrong things about the status of GNU and fails to help readers understand what a GNU/Linux distro is composed of) and is also unhistorical. It's very bad that some have resorted to some sort of "delinking war" to remove GNU/Linux links, as this makes Wikipedia biased. I just hope there are enough people here who know the GNU history and understand the extend of GNU code in every GNU/Linux distro (bash, grep, libc, emacs, gnome, just to name a few GNU software programs found in nearly every distro), otherwise those who don't know it or are biased against it may succeed in making Wikipedia less neutral :( NerdyNSK 22:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At Portal talk:Free software you wrote, "I've finally finished the tabs, and I can't find nicer tabs in any portal. These ones rock - and to top it off, I think they're even the best documented tabs." <-- can you point me to the documentation? I'm looking for something like Wikipedia:Portal/Instructions. Thanks. --JWSchmidt 14:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is anything like Wikipedia:Portal/Instructions for tabs. The only documentation I know of is the code itself of each portal and the comments in the code. When I made the tabs on Portal:Free software, I copied the code and comments from other Wikipedia:Featured portals that had tabs. I think I managed to simplify the system a little and I think I added a little bit of extra commentary, but that's as good as it gets. Tabs are a pain to set up, but once they're done, they never need maintenance, so they're worth doing. Hope that helps. --Gronky 21:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It gets too complicated to lay out the full story in the lead. It goes 1987-1997 Labour MP for Glasgow Hillhead; 1997-2003 Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin; 2003-2004 Independent MP for Glasgow Kelvin; 2004-2005 Respect MP for Glasgow Kelvin; 2005- Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow. The whole story is set out in the article and probably isn't worth summarising in the lead. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 21:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think I've now managed to fix the ambiguity problem without adding any more dates. Thanks for the note. --Gronky 22:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you've done a good job. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 22:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see User_talk:Lentower#A_Merge_of_Free_Software_and_Open_Source_Software.3F.3F for my reply. I prefer that these talk page discussions be on a single page. Lentower 18:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Gnash-logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gronky, your help is needed in the mentioned articles. Jimmi Hugh thinks talking about proprietary software is just propaganda and does disgrace Wikipedia. --mms (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I'll make sure to contribute, as free software is very important to me, and we need to inform everyone about it. P.S. how dare that person change all the GNU/Linux links to Linux (unless it was about the kernel). Afarnen (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you support keeping the current article's text, but using the target article's name? If there is nothing to merge from the target article, what do you think should be done with it? If you don't think that is the better name, should we delete it or redirect it to wherever the current article eventually is? --Karnesky (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't see any benefit in renaming Alternative terms for free software to "Free and open source software", and the reason is that that name says nothing about the scope of the article. How could any wikipedian ever know what would be appropriate to add? How could anyone else ever argue that something added is innappropriate or off-topic? The current name is quite specific, and has 2.5 years of proof of being resistant to topic-creep and off-topic info.

For one reason or another, various people have perceived a problem with the term "free software" over the years. There have been efforts to find an acceptable alternative, and that's what this article is about. Among the alternatives, "open source" has been the most popular - that should be (and is) in the article.

As for the Free and open source software article, I've never understood it's purpose. It has no original content and has been stagnant for months. It survived a proposal for deletion on a 5:4 decision. 3 of the 5 who supported keeping it did so on the grounds of waiting and seeing if it improves, but all the followed was 3 months of stagnation. Personally, I don't see any value for Wikipedia there, and I don't see a future for it. --Gronky (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the non-English articles are some variant of "FOSS" or "FLOSS." Multiple people have expressed reservations about the current name, so I do think it is a weak point about the article. Although the term "free software" has a longer history than the other terms mentioned in the article, it is not so popular in current usage that it eclipses all of the other terms. It'd be nice to have a title that meets any possible WP:NPOV objections. --Karnesky (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only such option I can think of would be "Alternative terms for free software, such as the term open-source software" (or "including" could be used instead of "such as"), but it's quite a mouthful. --Gronky (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The objections seem to be both about "alternative" and about giving a preference to "free software" over the others. So, how about "Terms for free, libre, or open-source software?" (I personally dislike "libre," but this is a reasonably short phrase that lists Stallman's preferred language to appeal to both "free" and "open source" fans & includes each of the post popular terms). We might even remove "Terms for," as the article also touches on licenses, etc. --Karnesky (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you read the interwiki articles, they're not about the same topic. For the five I can read, four are solely about the term "FOSS" (or "FLOSS" or both in some cases), and the other is about the general concept of FS/OSS. A few years ago, Wikipedia had an article about FOSS, another about FLOSS, another about Libre software, another about FS/OSS, and another about some Hindi term for free software. Seeing that this was stupid, I made a unified article to discuss the common idea of alternative terms for free software. --Gronky (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The German & Sinhalese articles both FLOSS & FOSS; the Italian WP still has separate articles for FOSS & FLOSS. I do think all pages are of a similar scope--describing terms that seek to combine "free" and "open-source" software & none give a bias towards one of those terms. I think it is a telling deficiency that the English article stands out in this way. --Karnesky (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, strongly agreeing with the premise of personal attacks (even in part) isn't that much better than making them onesself. You're better than that. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to clarify that despite also being a strong critic of your behaviour on Wikipedia, after years of working together I don't agree with paragraph 4. In hindsight, paragraph 1 was unjustified too. --Gronky (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gronky, I restored the links you removed from the Ohloh description in Free software movement. I don't see how linking to metrics and quantitative analyses (i.e. a factual description of what ohloh does) means saying how great the service is. --DarTar (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mike92591/draft

I want to complete it and use it to substitute the "Release changes under a different licence" columns in Comparison of free software licences but, I'm not sure on how to order them, any ideas? I was thinking that there has to a better way then just putting them alphabetically. Also, if you know someone who has a good bit of legal knowledge, please ask them too. Mike92591 (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Portal talk:Free software a recent comment of yours refers to "one Wikipedia, Thumperward" - did you mean "one Wikipedia editor"? Guy Harris (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching this. I forgot the 'n' of Wikipedian. Fixed. --Gronky (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested to know that this business is being discussed on the administrators' noticeboard, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_trying_to_use_Jimbo_comment_as_a_club. Sarah 13:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked you to refrain from this kind of canvassing action in the past; I'm pretty sure that doing so on your user page is against policy. There's no need for this, and I don't see that it's likely to persuade anyone who wasn't previously convinced that I was in the wrong. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you use {{User GNU}} on your user page, it will be listed in category:Wikipedians who use GNU. I was surprised that there is still no category:Wikipedians who use GNU/Linux. --mms (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please, aid to neutralize and to improve this article that is in favor of being erased. It is a popular distribution in Latin America and that is entering Europe, and the European Union even contracted the creative company of Rxart to work in project MANCOOSI. excuse my English please. Thank you very much, I hope that it can help me.--190.49.162.85 (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed some of the English and added a reference showing that it is available pre-installed on computers in Argentina. That should fulfil the requirements of notability. If you want to improve the article further, my advice is to add more references (like the info in the <ref> tag I added to the intro). References are a good way to prove that the topic is notable, and they are a source of information for other people who want to add more info to the article. --Gronky (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much to help me, I will consider your advice. Ah this one my usuary name, already I registered myself.--Bostokrev (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Free-software-badge.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Optigan13 (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Fedora (GNU/Linux distribution) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 12:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lists are generated by a bot based on the talk page templates used for the RfC. The description is provided in the template usage. The bottom text at Template:RFCsci list explains the template usage and warns that edits made directly to the page will be overwritten by the bot. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you took the time to inform me in future before rewriting my RfCs. I'm sure you're aware that editing other users' comments is frowned upon at the best of times. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time was the one thing I didn't have, it's not "your" RfC, and being careless with the time of Wikipedia's review team's is inconsiderate.

The time that Wikipedia's RfC team will give to this question is limited. The interested people, as a group, can only ask the same question once every 3-12 months, so this service is a shared resource. You took the decision to expend that shared resource unilaterally (a similarly frown-worthy offense), but that doesn't make it yours.

As for time, Rfcs probably get most of their attention in the first 24hrs, so waiting for a dialogue with you could make it too late for any fix to be effective.

These problems could have been avoided by letting others review a proposed submission, or it probably could have been written neutrally by a single person if due care was exercised. Neither were.

I didn't want the time of the Wikipedia Rfc team to be wasted, and I didn't want the group's shared resource to have been wasted, so I fixed the problem right away. --Gronky (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, okay didn't notice, soz.--Darrelljon (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you may want to format those merge tags right (i.e. start a merge section and add text saying why it is a good idea and then make sure that the links point to that section in the talk, it is covered in the how to on merging.) If this little hint isn't enough just ask and I'll find some links for you. Pdbailey (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. I didn't know this had been added to standard procedure. Done. --Gronky (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, you may want to list it at Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers. Pdbailey (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good day Gronky,

His method is to block all users who disagree.

He left me this message:

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bald Eeagle (3rd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As you know this person has been provoking and in violation of wikipedia rules because I do not agree with him. WP:BITE

His behavior cannot cannot be accepted. It is a completely wrong from him to aim to block users that do not agree with his POV. --Grandscribe (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see:User_talk:Mike92591/proposals/guideline_for_names_related_to_Linux#Question_from_Gronky Mike92591 (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see we just lost this logo due to licensing incompatibility with the BSD Daemon. Not much way around that except to create a new version sans daemon, unless you know anyone who's in a position to grant an exception on copyleft for the GNU head. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Fisl-logo.jpeg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gronky

I have been very busy on some projects beyond Wikipedia. I just want to say hello.

Keep up the good work!

--Grandscribe (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been busy too in the last few weeks, but I'm still around. If there are any attempts to minimise or wipe GNU and free software from Wikipedia, I'll do what I can. --Gronky (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to get this sorted out. If there's really no way we can come to an agreement on whether to use "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" then we should attempt a rephrase which avoids this. I've posted to the talk page there, and Grandscribe agreed with the compromise, so I'd appreciate if you could help out with this. Likewise for other cases where the use of "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" might be contentious. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only person who thinks that "GNU/Linux" must be wiped from Wikipedia (modulo articles that discuss the term itself). So there is no imperative to rephrase a fine sentence that refers to an OS made of GNU and Linux as "GNU/Linux". --Gronky (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have a look at some of your mass-reverts:

• [9] (the article now uses both "Linux" and "GNU/Linux")
• [10] (the article now uses both "Linux" and "GNU/Linux"; the deleted sentence is banal and pointless)
• [11] (you removed an instance of "GNU/Linux", even though it's part of the OS's proper name)
• [12] (you removed a needed cleanup tag without explanation)
• [13] (you restored a dubious statement and removed the citation challenge)
• [14] (copyediting lost, along with the point that all modern systems are covered and not just the few given)
• [15] (the article now uses both "Linux" and "GNU/Linux")
• [16] (the article now uses both "Linux" and "GNU/Linux")

And so on and so on. That's just in the first few; your reverts were indisciminate and lowered the quality of a significant number of articles. Rather than contacting me about it, or taking it to a wider forum, you immediately contacted another user to tell him that my edits were "vandalism", while mass-reverting (both things which you go out of your way to deride on your userspace soapbox).

Anyway, it's reasonably easy to keep track of these edits individually. Due to your refusal to follow the norms of the project in respecting a consensus which you disagree with, I'll have to argue each one of these changes on the individual article talk pages. They are almost all straightforward copyedits, so I don't imagine any of them will be controversial, but it'll take me some time. I do not expect you to continue to refer to content disputes as "vandalism", nor to continue to use your userspace to attack other Wikipedians, especially when you're doing so with a quote from Jimbo Wales which is so logically fallacious that there's a well-read essay on the subject which you are aware of. Should this continue, I'll be forced to take this to a user conduct RfC, as this obstructionism in the name of preserving your point of view on articles is a significant impedance to the improvement of our free software coverage (not least because it appears to be your primary contribution to the project at this point).

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are unjustified, widely criticised, and your bully tactics of ignoring the community process are completely unacceptable. --Gronky (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you two really think that "Linux" is incorrect and should be referred to as "GNU/Linux" in all instances, how about you have some balls and try to get the "Linux" article moved. Instead of running around quietly editing all the links to point to a redirect. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming the article about the operating system has been under discussion for years. There is broad support for using the two terms in Wikipedia. What I actually did was to undo the quiet edits of another editor who's hobby is to replace one name with another name without ever mentioning it in his edit summaries. I put some info on this here: User:Gronky#GNU.2FLinux_is_a_fine_name. --Gronky (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really give a damn. Please don't make indiscriminate drive-by edits. Especially edits that just make articles more inconsistent. Please by all means, if the think the articles are wrongly named, then work towards building consensus to have them moved. Changing articles to point to redirects, or changing them so that they end up referring to the same thing in two or three different ways does not improve Wikipedia one iota. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the "consistency" is a fake consistency manufactured by one soap-box editor (Thumperward/Chris). He's been widely criticised but nobody has enough time to undo is nuisance edits. --Gronky (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]