Talk:Ubuntu/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Footnotes

I added a footnote to clarify support for SPARC. This contrasts with the {{cite}} refrences used throughout the article, but it seemed like a good idea to keep such pedantry outside of the main article text. Does this look alright to everyone? If the clashing of different reference styles isn't so bad, I suggest we add more footnotes to explain minor details without cluttering up the main text too much, as this featured article does. Twinxor t 07:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

My impression is that the information is outdated. See recent LugRadio interview w/ Mark Shuttleworth and someone from Sun. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Look here: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-announce/2006-June/000087.html - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
What, so the recently written releases page is completely wrong on the matter? Even if you don't believe that the SPARC release is unofficial, as the page claims, it's obvious that only the server edition is available for SPARC, and it seems silly to list two similar, relatively obscure Sun architectures when the same release covers both of them. Twinxor t 15:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The release page could well be wrong. Wanna contact them about this and see what they say? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
SPARC was unofficial up to relatively recently (a week or two ago), but is now official. Mark knew it was going to become official after a bit of a burn-in period, so was doubtless speaking in such terms in his interview. --Colin Watson 11:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that listing UltraSPARC and UltraSPARC T1 separately is odd. We (the Ubuntu team) don't consider them separate architectures. --Colin Watson 11:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
We can include this information if you make a press release. Taking your word for it would be considered original research, which Wikipedia has a policy against. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
That's obviously up to you, but note that http://releases.ubuntu.com/6.06/ only lists "Sun UltraSPARC computers, including those based on the multicore UltraSPARC T1 ("Niagara") processors" - i.e. a single architecture. --Colin Watson 11:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, you did say "go ask them", so I answered :-) We wouldn't make a press release about this sort of thing, but I'd be happy to clear up what we consider an architecture and what we consider a subarchitecture in a signed e-mail if somebody asked ubuntu-devel ... --Colin Watson 11:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I apologise for that. It's just that every once in a while, someone comes along and shouts "original research", and this can be escalated to the point where the text passage is simply removed entirely; I've recently had such an experience, and have become more conservative in the course of things. Also compare with my frustration on Talk:Fedora Core. You always get policy heads and others... - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Release name: Edgy Eft

In response to an anon edit, see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EdgyEft to convince yourself that the name is intended to be "Edgy Eft", not "The Edgy Eft". - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL

I think we should start a collection of diffs here for all the times that people have reverted between including the (oo-BOON-too) pronunciation help and removing it. Here goes the most recent one:

Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

couldn't you record an ogg or flac file with you speaking the word? then upload to commons? ;-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the suggestion. That would probably be the best idea. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

ViperSnake's edit

Referring to [1]:

Unfortunately, the Ubuntu website provides potentially conflicting information. This page:

http://releases.ubuntu.com/6.06/

states

You will need at least 192MB of RAM to install from this CD.

Seeing that [2] says that 256MB are needed, the above could be interpreted to mean that 192MB are needed to install, but 256MB to run it from the hard disk. In any case, 256MB is a more standard size than 192MB (how many machines will actually have 192MB exactly?), so I suggest we stick with the previous, less confusing version. We can, however, make a mention of the debian-installer based version of the CD. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Pronouncing words

Could someone let me know how to pronounce certain words in this article?

  • Canonical - I'm trying to figure out where to split that. Is it Canon-ical, Can-o-nickle or...? Ka-non-e-cal
  • ubuntu - oo-bun-two (I'm basing that on the video, so I'm pretty certain I know how to say that) Oo-bun-two
  • Xubuntu - Say the letter X then say ubuntu? Or is it one word?
  • Kubuntu - Say the letter K then ubuntu? Or is it one word?
  • Edubuntu - Say 'Ed' the ubuntu? Or is it one word?
  • MEPIS - Err... I hesitate to ask. Meppis
  • Progeny - Pro-jen-e? pro-jen-e
  • Xandros - San-dross? (to rhyme with floss)
  • Linux - Li (to rhyme with fly) nux (to rhyme with books) Lee-nux
  • nUbuntu - Say the letter N then say ubuntu? Or is it one word?
  • zUbuntu - Say the letter Z then say ubuntu? Or is it one word?
  • fluxbuntu - Say the 'flux' then 'bun-two'?

Thanks in advance. I'd like to record a spoken verison of this before it hits the main page on August 5th. Provided I don't get too nervous and my cat stays quiet for a few hours. Icey 20:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There will probably be a pronunciation of "Ubuntu" provided as an audiofile at some point. As for the others, they are not the subject of this article. As these names are mostly passed on in written rather than spoken form, pronunciations vary a lot. Pronunciations I'm familiar with are ex-ubuntu and meppis. Canonical is actually an English word, as is progeny; consult a dictionary. It's Leenux. Read the articles. Most of them say. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Samsara, I've crossed out a few and I'll find out the others. I've got Linux from here. Icey 20:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It looks like I'm not going to have enough time to make the spoken version before it hits the main page, but maybe I'll make it in the future. Icey 19:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The best thing (IMHO) would be to have a isiXhosa speaker pronouncing the name. If people don't agree, I could come up with a pronunciation file of my own. Should I say it with a British accent or should I try to imitate Nelson Mandela as faithfully as I can? --Kjoonlee 08:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what's trying to be said with the pronunciation description "oo-bun-two". The IPA transcription clearly states that the 3 vowel sounds are the same (all of them IPA:[u]) yet "oo-bun-two" implies (to me, a native English speaker) the long oo of soon, the soft u of bunt, and the word two, which has the same vowel sound as soon. One of those descriptions has to be wrong.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  08:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
IPA is correct. "Oo-boon-too" would be more accurate.Twinxor t 09:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I have never heard it pronounced that way though. The most common method of pronunciation is the 'oo-bun-two' method mentioned above. -Localzuk (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

System requirements?

Moved to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Ubuntu_system_requirements.3F. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure this is NPOV?

I dunno, maybe it's just me (I maintain a competing distribution, so may just be biased) but doesn't this article seem to be just a little overwhelmingly positive? Looking it over, I haven't seen a single criticism of Ubuntu anywhere, and it kind of makes me wonder how well this fits in with WP:NPOV... I know it's frequently criticised for its kind of screwy wireless support, like this post on Slashdot, and I've seen other criticisms of Ubuntu, Canonical, and Shuttleworth himself... anyway, not sure how encyclopedic these sources are, and because of the whole bias thing I probably shouldn't add these in myself, but figured I may as well mention anyway, in case someone else wants to take a look at this...

— Martin Ultima (multima)   •   talk   contribs   leave message 00:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that Ubuntu has not been intensely criticized. For one thing, Ubuntu is pretty well-designed, and builds on mature projects like Debian, GNOME, and the kernel. But this also comes at a time where, like Samsara mentions, all the major distros are pretty stable and sanely configured, so the differences between them are not huge, and it's easy to change or add programs to modify the way the OS works.
Wireless support is a major problem for many users or potential users. It's not very nice at all for most cards, for which only substandard drivers, or none at all, are available. The article should mention it. But hardware support is an unresolved technical problem in all distributions -- is it clear that Ubuntu has any hardware problems that are dealt with better in other Linuxes? That doesn't make the problems go away, but it does place them in context.
The blog post you linked seems a little incoherent to me. It reads like a rant against the wealthy, and provides no evidence of Shuttleworth's "true intentions". I suggest directing criticism of Shuttleworth and Canonical to their respective articles. Twinxor t 00:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


The article does mention criticism from Debian, and that no Grumpy Groundhog code is yet available, for instance. You should note that the article is currently very well supported by reliable sources. This is what got the article its FA status, and this will not be compromised. If you would like to write a well-sourced, well-balanced section in neutral language for the "Response" section, I'm happy for you to go and try, and I'll do my best to copyedit it in any way that is necessary to make it fit. Emotional rants like this one will be reverted, on the grounds that
  1. it starts out with a premise that it then retracts from -> self-contradicting (the Ubuntu people are well aware that the distribution contains non-free elements, and that this is undesirable, hence the Gnubuntu distribution being planned)
  2. it makes claims unsupported by independent third party coverage ("most of which could not differentiate libre from gratis")
  3. it contains irrelevant passages ("when discussing modern computer science" - free vs. libre is not computer science)
  4. it does not give any historic (i.e. temporal) context - no dates
  5. Wikipedia is not a summary or mirror of what goes on in Ubuntu forums
  6. Photos are not good sources, and the evidence that it was Richard Stallman who scribbled on the packaging seen in the photo is absent
  7. the reference to Gentoo is out of place, as Edgy Eft is already discussed in another section, and Gentoo is not a good comparison at all
If you can write something that avoids most of these pitfalls, please go ahead. Do take care to place more detailed material in their own articles e.g. Launchpad (website) (as Twinxor already said), and leave out the weaker points ("disapproval for headquartering Canonical in the Isle of Man, a fiscal heaven, giving it unfair advantages over other competitors (Red Hat, Mandriva, etc.)." - "sending free CDs to everyone requesting them is an unsustainable business model, unless you're a tycoon." - self-contradicting!) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Derivatives

I'm not sure we need to promote all the one-man derivatives - there are also many more if you read the Ubuntu forums. The official derivatives are clearly much more than the derivatives with one or two packages different - in the footer box we are treating them as identical. Secretlondon 12:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not convinced there's any need for the footer. Several of the distributions linked have not even released yet. Twinxor t 07:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Should we remove and TfD it? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure. pschemp | talk 08:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Launchpad non-free

There should be mention of criticism of Ubuntu's use of non-free Launchpad (and Rosetta, Malone, etc.) Examples:

It'd help if someone could find an article or interview, as well. EdC 00:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Could probably be rolled in with Murdoch's criticism about non-compliance with Debian; Towns seems to be criticizing Ubuntu from the same angle. The Launchpad criticism is also comparable to controversy over kernel development using a proprietary versioning system. Twinxor t 07:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Live CD v. "Traditional" Install CD

The "Features" section doesn't mention that the default installation CD for Ubunu is now the live CD. It also seems to imply that the Live CD is an alternative option for installation rather than the main method. I would rewrite this, but I'm hesitant to do so when it's featured. That section does need to be rewritten from scratch though so that it doesn't sound like it's self-contradictory. Theshibboleth 00:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote some of the section. What do you think of it now? Twinxor t 07:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is this a featured article?

The first paragraph is meaningless to the average reader, even to one with a modicum of computer savvy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.216.154.165 (talk • contribs) .

It looks fine to me, but you're certainly welcome to improve it. —Keenan Pepper 00:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this article is anywhere near as good as most featured articles. I think it was pushed to the front page to market the OS. Just look at the article, it is nothing like a featured article. I am an ubuntu user, and this article does not do the OS justice. I haven't checked the 'featured article' vote or discusssion, but this looks sketchy. I say fix the article so it deserves featured status, it doesn't as it is now. (Bjorn Tipling 11:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)).
I have to say I was slightly perplexed by the article as on the Main Page. The word "computer" does not appear, although I note that it does now in the lead paragraph in the article attached. I realise that to read Wikipedia you currently require a computer, but you don't have to be even familiar with a pc to operate it and a casual user may not understand the context of that first paragraph; they may not necessarily link to the main article to find out, either. Obviously as it is "out there" it is too late to do anything, but perhaps these comments may be archived with the featured example.LessHeard vanU 21:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
If you think the FAC process is letting crap slip through, go fix the process. Complaining after the fact is less than productive. pschemp | talk 01:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC).
I'm not interested in the FA process. Commenting about an article after it achieves FA status alerts the editors to areas in which it can be further improved, and also where other articles may be improved before, during and after a FA nom (succesful or otherwise). Not productive? Whatever.LessHeard vanU 11:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is there penis pictures on this page?

Err, there aren't. --Tess Tickle 02:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well there was for a brief moment in time- some must have cleaned it up. --129.116.13.58 02:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It's probably just someone trying to liven up probably the dullest ever FA --Tess Tickle 02:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, at least it's not PaX! Twinxor t 07:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
PaX is alright, what I don't get is how such a small article, crammed full of random lists that should be sentences got through the FA process, this looks amature compared to PaX or OpenBSD. 65.94.57.162 13:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that a lot of people are maybe just trying out their first Linux. Ubuntu is quite a 'fashionable' OS to be running at the mo.--82.9.55.184 13:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Where were you guys...

...when we were hunting down sources for this article, when I put it up for AID, when it went through peer review? Now that we have succeeded, you come to our door with wholly inappropriate criticisms. A scourge has beset Wikipedia. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The criticisms are not innaprorpiate. I would like to see the peer review, because it failed to keep this half-decent, but not good enough, article off the front page. Wikipedia has far better articles than this, far more deserving of featured status than this one. This has nothing to do with Ubuntu, because I love the operating system. (Bjorn Tipling 22:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC))
If you didn't participate in the FA process, then don't complain. The rest of the community thought it worthy. If this is such an important topic for you, you should have been watching it. Otherwise, your beef is with the whole FAC process and you should go complain to them about their standards. pschemp | talk 01:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Peer review, FA nomination. Twinxor t 22:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I love this argument. No more criticism allowed, peer review done! Or the other one: If there's anything wrong with this article, blame the review process! Maybe you need to realize that you don't own the article, and in fact maybe you should listen to outside opinion. Nobody here has given unfair criticism, but this strong rebuke to the response is pretty off putting. Why not assume good faith.
Also this FA nomination discussion is amazingly short and dismissive. I can't believe it passed. Look at these randomly selected alternatives for comparison:
Binary star
Mosque
Katyń massacre
1928 Okeechobee Hurricane
Considering this comparison (try checking out the articles too and comparing them to the one on Ubuntu), and the estimation of several people that in fact the article is not well written, you should gracefully accept the criticism. (Bjorn Tipling 02:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC))
mmm...I never said you couldn't criticize the article. I said you shouldn't complain about the result of the FA process if you didn't participate. Two different things. As for WP:OWN I only revert vandalism here and was not involved in the FA or Peer review, hardly a cause for such an accusation. I don't care if this is a FA or not, but just jumping in, claiming it is being used to promote the OS (huge assumption of bad faith!), saying its awful and claiming that the community consensus to promote it was wrong was is pretty off putting to the people who worked on the article. Your basic complaint here is that the FAC process let this slip through. Why would you not then, want to fix the root cause which is the process? Sure you can fix the article too, no one has said you can't. You didn't come here and say, "the article is bad, let's fix it" though. Instead you complained that it was given FA status, and featured on the main page to promote the OS. Making that kind of accusation without proof does deserves any strong reaction you get. pschemp | talk 02:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes you make good points. I really should have left that 'to market the the os bit out,' I may not be in tune enough with the internet to always be perceive with accuracy the mysterious presence of fanboys who seem to be everywhere and nowhere all at once. The article is an 'ok' article, the OS is fantastic, but I was dismayed to find this page in its condition when seeing it on the front page. I had never looked at the wiki article for Ubuntu, or at least not recently. (Bjorn Tipling 06:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC))
Gracefully accept the criticism? You haven't actually made any. All you've done is come here and said the article is shite. BTW, the length of an FAC discussion, if anything, is inversely correlated to the quality of the article. In my experience, rejected articles tend to have much longer discussions. But really, I would say length is rather irrelevant. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

How could an article like this have slipped through the FA net? Frankly, there are far more polished articles than Ubuntu was when it was put on the front page. When i first clicked on the article, after reading the intro, if i wasn't computer literate, i still wouldn't have really known what Ubuntu actually was. I added the line, but surely basic things like that should be picked up in the vetting process??Suicup 06:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll just repeat my argument for the less intellectually inclined:
  1. You criticise processes you had a chance to participate in, but chose not to.
  2. You make nonspecific criticisms that cannot be addressed.
As far as I'm concerned, you are talking fluff. If anything, you guys are living proof that articles get written by fanboys, not by detractors. If you're concerned about FA quality, participate in WP:FAC, but try not to deliberately make committed contributors feel bad about their work, because that makes the world a worse place for everybody, and it's your fault. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay so we all now know that Samsara does not take criticism very well. We should also remember that criticism hurts feelings and so not criticise. (Bjorn Tipling 10:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC))
LOL. Who are the other people? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I agree with Samsare 100% here. We have several users who have appeared who have simply said 'this article is awful, and shouldn't be an FA'. This is not constructive criticism and as such is not welcome. If you can turn around and say 'hmm the intro lacks detail, maybe we should expand on x,y,z' then yes I am sure people would appreciate it. Until someone gives actual good criticism, expect the same sort of responses that have been given - as you are simply not being helpful.-Localzuk (talk) 11:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, to be specific to the article as it appeared on the Main Page. It would have been helpful to use the term "Computer" in the opening paragraph to denote the device for which the Operating System is designed; as was the paragraph assumed too much knowledge of the casual reader.LessHeard vanU 11:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Complaining about the lack of a single word in the intro is still not constructive criticism, especially as it has now been changed already. Stop focussing on the past and look at improving the future version of the article.-Localzuk (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not complaining, I am commenting - and the missing word is endemic to the point I was making; assuming prior knowledge may cause a lack of clarity within an article or part thereof. It may have only been one word, but it was one which was fundamental to the understanding of the subject. Whatever.LessHeard vanU 12:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I can understand that including that word is important but you are not being constructive! Why not tell us what should be improved now? Or, even better, spend a little time, be bold and edit it to improve it as would be normal on Wikipedia? Please stop making needless comments and be constructive. -Localzuk (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside view

I am here a bit late and am speaking as an outsider, and speaking to everyone involved... the view I have of this talk page is that there are several people criticising the article that did have a chance to participate in the FA process, but didn't, and who are perhaps not criticising in the most productive way possible. If there are things to fix, then please do consider fixing them, ({{sofixit}} applies here as anywhere) or at least offering specific actionable suggestions that people can address. And try not to take the criticism from the article to the person, there has been some of that here too, I adjudge... it's not about saying people can't take criticism well, it's about being polite and constructive. Some of the article contributors may also want to consider letting comments that may not be perfect go by, without "rising to the bait" as it were... All IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Its all very well to say 'well fix it yourself!', however it is a bit late when the article is already on the front page. The point everyone is trying to make is that these things should have been fixed BEFORE the article became an FA. Saying a particular article shouldn't have been FA is not criticising the editors personally, rather making a point that the vetting process obviously has issues. If you want particular things, IMO the most important one was simply the huge amount of jargon in the first paragraph. The article is obviously going to be refined, and i'm sure it will become great (like many articles on here) however personally the version which made it yesterday was sub par. If you can't hack that sort of criticism, then you're obviously not thinking objectively enough.Suicup 14:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The point you're missing here is that at this point in the process, your criticism comes off as sniping at the process, the contributors, and the article, rather than as useful. The small number of helpful suggestions made are being drowned out in the noise of ill feelings engendered. Suggesting that people "can't hack that sort of criticism" isn't really fair in my view. As I said, I just turned up here after the fact and that's my perception of how things are unfolding. Take it as you like. ++Lar: t/c 14:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
{{sofixthevettingprocess}}. The logical thing to do would be to try to fix the root cause then wouldn't it?. pschemp | talk 14:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Suicup, you miss the point. Don't come here and complain about the FAC process - go there and do that. Here we only want constructive criticism about this article, not about how it got to where it is etc... Its pointless and arguing about it isn't going to help anyone or anything.-Localzuk (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

To ++Lar: t/c, i wasn't actually replying to you personally, it just so happened my response was located after your one, apologies. As for Localzuk, mate, i'm allowed to criticise however i like. If you look at the edit history, i edited this article while it was on the front page, to correct some of the things which needed to be corrected, so i am not all talk. However you can't seem to take criticism at all. As far as pointless remarks go, you just have to look at the personal attacks on me such as 'less intellectually inclined' written by Samsara. Why can't people just read a comment, accept it, meditate on it, rather than feel the need to attack someone (or even reply at all)? Suicup 15:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it comes down to you not listening to us. Why complain about something that is not relevant to this article here? Complaining about this article becoming a FA is not something that can be dealt with here, it is something to discuss with those that do the FA choosing. Please don't continue this. Instead accept that this is the wrong place for the criticism you are making and move on. Also, using the 'he said this so I'm entitled to say this' kind of argument you have just done makes me think of 'two wrongs don't make a right'-Localzuk (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Mate i'm not the only one who is 'complaining', so obviously there are others who feel the same way. Indeed, myself and others have offered constructive criticism of the article which you have simply rejected. Furthermore, if i feel the article shouldn't have been FA, i think this talk page is a perfectly good place to state that opinion. You just need to get off your high horse. Suicup 15:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Suicup: Please remain civil. "You just need to get off your high horse" is never a civil comment IMHO. Consider this a somewhat more formal warning please. ++Lar: t/c 16:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Suicup, this is in fact not the right place. If you don't want this to be an FA, the right place to state that opinion is WP:FARC. I doubt you'll succeed. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a big difference between 'don't want' and 'shouldn't have been'. Don't try to imply things i don't mean. Why don't you just take it on the chin? Suicup 01:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Why are you still arguing about this? It is plain and simple: comments about how an article became FA should be at WP:FARC, comments about how to improve this article should be here. You just seem to have taken our advice and comments, about how your comments are not appropriate here, personally when in fact they are just comments about how complaining here about how this article shouldn't have become a featured article after it did are not useful, constructive, helpful or appreciated by anyone. Why not end this by just providing some sort of ways of improving the article? -Localzuk (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
It becomes personal when the ban stick is wantonly waved at me for no reason. Suicup 12:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I've seen no mention of banning on here. I have just seen people responding to your views to see things like 'get down of your high horse' being used in response. If you think something is personal, the best thing to do is take it elsewhere for mediation - there are plenty of systems in place for this.-Localzuk (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I am going to have to agree that a bulk of the criticism on this article probably does belong on the WP:FARC process, including some of my own. I also agree that more specific comments are also probably more helpful. However, rebuke to the criticsm, some of it legitimate, was taken personally when maybe it should not have. If I have some time this comming week, I will see if I can help improve the article. Sorry about my part in creating tension, I could have been friendlier. (Bjorn Tipling 19:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC))
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ubuntu/Archive_3&oldid=1143880563"