| Revision as of 04:24, 16 February 2014 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,838 editsm Signing comment by 84.127.80.114 - "→Debian private practices and Debian Women activities: new section"← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:17, 18 February 2014 edit undo84.127.80.114 (talk) →Debian private practices and Debian Women activitiesNext edit → | ||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
| I would like to request for arbitration if consensus cannot be reached. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | I would like to request for arbitration if consensus cannot be reached. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| The users removing content are refusing to talk, challenge the material or prove the opposite. What does campaigning have to do? Please be specific, what points have been infringed (advertising, opinion pieces...)? This is the second time a user has removed debian-private existance, which is an easy verifiable fact. | |||
| ] has removed the references about account locking, leaving the material unsourced. The reference in "Developer recruitment" shows that Sven Luther, Andrew Suffield and Jonathan/Ted Walter are in this situation. This is not one specific case. This is not an ongoing dispute, but facts that happened in 2007. Expulsion from Debian is not something theoretical. | |||
| About applicant influx, "As in the wider technology field", I challenge that edit. Debian has less than 1% developers identified as female. | |||
| The removal of the "Female recruitment" subsection would make sense if the previous edits were right, but it is not the case. | |||
| ] is a proud Debian user. It is significant that the user has Catalan skills and that those are better than Spanish ones. ] has removed facts without a good explanation and has proved to be unable to keep neutrality. This user has a conflict of interest (]). | |||
| ] already found this article to fail the neutral point of view. I request that readers do not remove facts they do not like without explained reasons. I will restore the content again. | |||
Revision as of 00:17, 18 February 2014
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Debian article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Debian is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Former featured article candidate | |||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
GA Review
This article was up for review for promotion to "Good Article" status in December 2008. The promotion failed. If anyone would like to contribute please follow instructions from the reviewer miranda at: GA Review.
Feature list
What about adding a feature list of the advantages of Debian over others? For example preseeded installations.
References
Steam
It seems to me that the availability of Steam for Linux has gotten a lot of attention in the trade press, with some commentators saying it could be a game changer. I think it is notable enough for a mention.--agr (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but isn't that better suitable for the Linux Gaming and maybe SteamOS articles? -- Dsimic (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Steam OS beta is now available and Debian Wheezy (stable) based. See following blog post why this is more relevant than ever for Debian: http://richardhartmann.de/blog/posts/2013/12/14-SteamOS/ There is no doubt that SteamOS should be covered on the Debian article :) Skx7 17:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Got it! You're right, that totally deserves to be mentioned in this article. — Dsimic (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Timetable
Hi, I think timetable should be updated (include 6.0.8 release - http://www.debian.org/News/2013/20131020), but I can't do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.240.45.197 (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
First Image
Is it really necessary, to repeat it three times? "only the first optical iso image of any of its downloadable sets is sufficient. Debian requires the first installable image, but uses online repositories for additional software. Debian's basic installation requires only the first CD or DVD of its release in order to have a working desktop ex" 141.39.13.45 (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Debian private practices and Debian Women activities
The undoing from 80.100.245.50 claims vandalism. As I understand, the content does meet Misplaced Pages requirements (neutral point of view, verifiability, etc). Most references are already in Debian, from many different contributors. The bug reports cited are archived, hosted in Debian and have been subject to Debian review. All references are appropriate for an article about Debian.
I would like whoever makes the undoing to challenge the material or to prove that what was written is wrong. In the meantime, I will restore the content. It is obvious that the user from 80.100.245.50 is the one doing vandalism. For instance, it is a fact that debian-private and a related General Resolution exist.
I would like to request for arbitration if consensus cannot be reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.127.80.114 (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
The users removing content are refusing to talk, challenge the material or prove the opposite. What does campaigning have to do? Please be specific, what points have been infringed (advertising, opinion pieces...)? This is the second time a user has removed debian-private existance, which is an easy verifiable fact.
Rwxrwxrwx has removed the references about account locking, leaving the material unsourced. The reference in "Developer recruitment" shows that Sven Luther, Andrew Suffield and Jonathan/Ted Walter are in this situation. This is not one specific case. This is not an ongoing dispute, but facts that happened in 2007. Expulsion from Debian is not something theoretical.
About applicant influx, "As in the wider technology field", I challenge that edit. Debian has less than 1% developers identified as female.
The removal of the "Female recruitment" subsection would make sense if the previous edits were right, but it is not the case.
Rwxrwxrwx is a proud Debian user. It is significant that the user has Catalan skills and that those are better than Spanish ones. Rwxrwxrwx has removed facts without a good explanation and has proved to be unable to keep neutrality. This user has a conflict of interest (WP:COI).
miranda already found this article to fail the neutral point of view. I request that readers do not remove facts they do not like without explained reasons. I will restore the content again.
Categories: