Softwareperson1000

CS1 error on GNU variants

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page GNU variants, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on GNU variants

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page GNU variants, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on GNU variants

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page GNU variants, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Linux has an RfC

Linux has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

May 2026

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Aoidh (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility is not optional on Wikipedia, and repeatedly accusing someone of vandalism when it does not meet Wikipedia's definition of vandalism (WP:VANDTYPES) and accusing them of advancing a personal agenda without evidence falls under WP:ASPERSIONS. - Aoidh (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I have not repeatedly accused anyone of anything. I have once accused, then in the same conversation thread I have continued or perhaps one could say I have insisted on, or better yet I have sustained my accusation, however I have not repeatedly done so. If anything, this may be now a personal attack against me, to make such false claims that I have repeatedly accused anyone of anything, when in reality I have only sustained an existing accusation in the same conversation thread and context. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

You're still repeating this behavior on the talk page. Repeatedly making aspersions in the same talk page discussion does not make it a single instance of disruption. If you want to implement your preferred changes, this is the wrong way to try to accomplish that. Civility is not optional on Wikipedia. If you think I'm attacking you, you are more than welcome to take this to WP:ANI. - Aoidh (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you are attacking me. Yours isn't enough to warrant such a fuss, I simply pointed out the error in your reasoning and threw the argument back at you. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I came here to make the same warning. That 'RFC' you posted was grossly inappropriate and full of personal attacks. MrOllie (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

False, all edits are the work of some editor, to attack that work by describing it as being of poor quality, is not a personal attack. I did at the end of the RfC add question about whether other people agree or disagree with my personal view that I would see it as vandalism, which means it is for the consensus to decide whether it is or is not vandalism, which consensus, is supposed to be the tool used on Wikipedia for this kind of situation, that, will determine whether what Aoidh did is to be seen as vandalism or not. I may or may not have a personal view on the matter, but I am willing to put the topic to rest if the consensus says so. You, have stopped that process of consensus because of a personal viewpoint, meanwhile I am willing to put my personal view aside and let the consensus decide whether what Aoidh did is vandalism. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Arguing about this won't help in the long term - it is obvious to anyone who reads what you wrote that it is full of personal attacks. If you keep on like this you are going to get blocked sooner or later. If you want to contribute here you need to respect and follow community standards for discussion. MrOllie (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I am willing to let the consensus decide. If consensus decides what Aoidh did was not vandalism I won't speak of it as such again here. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

RFCs are expressly not for accusations about user conduct (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#About_the_conduct_of_another_user). If you really, honestly think this is a clear case of vandalism, you report that to the admin boards, but I would strongly suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG first. MrOllie (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

That's why the question was reserved at the end of the RfC, and there was other more important material in the RfC to be discussed, to actually get the edit war resolved Softwareperson1000 (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Making personal attacks on other editors, including calling them vandals or classifying their edits as vandalism, will not 'actually get the edit war resolved', unless you mean in the sense that it will get you blocked and then you won't be able to edit war any more. MrOllie (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep in mind that in the end, the article inevitably needs to be one way or the other, where if me and Aoidh repeatedly keep undoing each other's edit, one of the two needs to be chosen such that the war ends, unless someone has something else better to offer. That's why the first question in my RfC was which one of the two to choose. The RfC, will, decide which of the two to choose, so it will end the edit war (or would have if you hadn't stopped it). In any case, I am open to the possibility that I am using the tool poorly, I have done that in the past too with the previous attempt at an RfC. My personal view is that I don't think the tool is the priority, I would rather just get the issue resolved, if you can construct such a properly formatted RfC, given it was you who undid mine and also still requested it earlier, I invite you to do so, if my ability of using the particular tools available Wikipedia is too questionable. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

correction, it was is implied but poorly worded, that it was consensus that was requested, not RfC specifically Softwareperson1000 (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

You would need to work with others to find a short, simple question (We're talking like 50 words or less) that would settle the matter. I am unable to do this for you, and (per WP:ONUS) the responsibility lies solely with you. Unilaterally starting an RFC without consultation with others involved in the discussion rarely works. If others do not support your edits they remain out of the article. MrOllie (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll see if I can write a small question with the most important issue in it. I guess that leaves out the vandalism thing, so I was wrong that that could be solved with the RfC tool then if that's the way it is supposed to be used as you have now explained.

But I will insist, that the part stating that an editor has no competence as proven by the inclusion of absolutely ridiculous sources such as ones which do not feature a single instance of the word "GNU" as citations for the first sentence of the lead, is grounds to dismiss such an edit, which means it is discussing the validity of including that content, hence a discussion on the content of the edit, and is not a "personal accusation" in that it does not have to escalate the context to mean anything about the person and character beyond that specific scope and context.

Another thing, I have thus far made one accusation against Aoidh, then sustained it. I also asked a question about it directly in relation to issue, now in the (new) RfC. Aoidh said I have repeatedly made accusations, this is not true, it is one accusation that still stands. I am telling you this because you now entered this discussion thread on my Talk page started by Aoidh where Aoidh made that argument, and you came here "to make the same warning". The argument Aoidh made is invalid because it attempts to stand on false pretences and a misrepresentation of my actions. What my accusation results in is an open matter issue that can be discussed and some can agree or disagree and I am willing to also hear counter arguments, however I believe I have not misrepresented any facts relating to the actions taken by Aoidh, the only question is whether what Aoidh did do really is vandalism, that's the accusation I made and it still stands.

However, I will say this, I will agree to drop the case of calling the actions "vandalism" as per the result of such a consensus that would end the edit war. As that accusation is directly connected to the contents of that edit war, and I said I would let the consensus decide whether it was vandalism, thus which ever way around the consensus decides, I will interpret that as regardless of whether it is directly or indirectly so, as being a consensus for whether the actions done are vandalism according to that consensus. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

correction, the (new) RfC referred to the previous one which was second, since I brought up the earlier one also and it's relevant, so there have been 2 thus far. The next one I would start as I just said above would be yet another newer new RfC so the third Softwareperson1000 (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

There is no difference between making brand new personal attacks and just repeating the same ones - you should not be doing either. MrOllie (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Nonsense, I can continue talking about the subject at hand on a discussion thread where it is a relevant issue. If I kept bringing it up elsewhere on unrelated threads then that would be a problem, but that's not what I've done. To suggest that within the scope of a specific conversation I am supposedly not be allowed to continue talking about the same already established topic within that conversation is absurd. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

No. You are not allowed to call people vandals or question their competence. It doesn't matter if you keep it in one talk page thread or do it in 100. Just don't do it at all. All you are doing is undermining your arguments. As long as you keep doing this, your arguments (and RFCs) are going to be dismissed out of hand. Keep it up long enough and I have no doubt you will be blocked or topic banned. MrOllie (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Well now that is a different issue then, whether making accusations at all in the first place is justified or allowed, or tolerated, whatever some policy says about making them in the first place, is a separate matter from repeated accusations. If you tell me I shouldn't make any accusations at all, that is a different issue compared to a hypothetical scenario where I followed Aoidh around across Wikipedia Talk pages and kept making repeated accusations, and kept bringing up other unrelated ones on separate Talk pages that have nothing to do with that. Or if I indeed, did make several different accusations.

If I say that this ciation is such that it is the work of an entirely incompetent editor that is me saying precisely that the citation is garbage and edits made by that editor which use such ciation should be discarded from the article within the scope of that specific context. It doesn't escalate the context to question their character in general outside of the scope of those specific edits. Is it personally offensive? That is a different issue, but it is not a personal attack that is a specific concept. I am not accusing Aoidh of vandalism in general, just that that specific instance I see as that, but I am willing to change my mind, as well as to drop the accusation if so is determined as has been explained. If I say, based on your edits and how entirely ridiculous the sourcing is, I don't think you are competent enough / knowledgeable on this specific subject to make such edits, and thus any such edit's you have made ought to be removed that is not personal attack, if I can not question the work done by an editor, then how am I supposed to question the work done by an editor. The editor and the work are inseparable because any statement is always someone's point of view, two people can read the same book and interpret it differently and have a different experience with it. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

You don't have to change your mind, you just have to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Trying to argue technicalities isn't going to help, it is hardly the first time Wikipedia editors have seen someone attempt (and fail) to do that. MrOllie (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

So in a hypothetical scenario where someone has so obviously and evidently vandalized an article beyond reasonable doubt, it's full of broken sentences and junk characters with lots of foul language and all, but there are some who defend that change, would you be there coming after me with warnings and telling me that people won't take me seriously when I accuse that editor of vandalism and will dismiss any RfC I start in which I seek to get consensus to remove those edits?

The reason I am willing to change my mind about the vandalism is because I am open to the possibility that I am wrong on that one, so far I have not heard any counter arguments, all people have told me is this and that about policy and that my account will get banned or whatever, which are hardly relevant to the actual matter at hand, as in, the actual issue, has anyone addressed the argument? Softwareperson1000 (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I would if you were calling someone names on a talk page rather than reporting it in the proper place. MrOllie (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Fortunately I have not called anyone names. The only meaningful difference between that hypothetical scenario of obvious vandalism versus this case is the interpretation of what constitutes vandalism. The level of vandalism which may also be different, is not important here because regardless of the amount of vandalism so long as it is considered vandalism, it is considered that. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

or do you mean "incompetent"? Softwareperson1000 (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

in which case if that is what you mean, you are wrong, I have here the ways in which I have used the concept

"displaying a total lack of competence in selecting sources by User:Aoidh" not name calling.

"I am questioning your competence as an editor" not name calling

"But I will insist, that the part stating that an editor has no competence as proven by the inclusion of absolutely ridiculous sources such as ones which do not feature a single instance of..." not name calling

Here "If I say that this ciation is such that it is the work of an entirely incompetent editor that is me saying precisely that the citation is garbage and edits made by that editor which use such ciation should be" You will notice use of "If I say..." rather than "I say..." which means doesn't constitute name calling towards Aoidh specifically as it was a general description of using such terms, however I suppose I may have been wrong when I said that it maybe could yet be a personal attack then if I did say that, the italics used there mean it is discussing the use of terms in general and is not an actual statement so I'm clear still. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

However, I don't mean I am necessarily convinced I was wrong had I actually said such a thing in a context not formatted in italics, however just point out that maybe that specific instance if I specifically did say "is incompetent" in that sense, could be seen as name calling, sure. But I still didn't directly say such that hypothetically username here is incompetent so who cares. I have not done name calling Softwareperson1000 (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia typically looks very dimly on doubling down on obvious policy violations while Wikilawyering like this. It is blindingly obvious there was no vandalism. You obviously are not going to change your behavior here, so if and when you end up at a noticeboard over this I hope you are not surprised. I do not anticipate replying to this thread again. MrOllie (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I have not done Wikilawyering from the looks of it. I have been accused of things I have not done, and I have explained how so. You can't say I have name called people if I haven't done so and then get to tell me I am Wikilawyering when I explain why you are wrong. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Let me ask you this, if it is so "blindingly obvious" that no vandalism was done, then how come no one can seem to explain to me what I got wrong and why the accusation is incorrect? Like I have said, I am open to the possibility that I am wrong and am open to hearing counter arguments. And if you are so concerned for me, as with examples

"If you keep on like this you are going to get blocked sooner or later."

"...unless you mean in the sense that it will get you blocked and then you won't be able to edit war any more"

"Keep it up long enough and I have no doubt you will be blocked or topic banned."

"You obviously are not going to change your behavior here, so if and when you end up at a noticeboard over this I hope you are not surprised."

Then while I could go straight to some admin board as has been pointed out, I would prefer to avoid that unless necessary and rather talk things out. But I guess that is not the way things should be done here then? Is reasonable discussion on the issue not tolerated, and the idea is that everyone is immediately supposed to go to crying to the authorities upon the first sign of any issue appearing?

You people take this issue way too seriously. The only way in which the methods I have used here to talked about the issue at hand, could possibly cause negative consequence to the reputation of one or another editor, which would be the only even remotely meaningful harm I could think of coming out of this, is for such an editor to miserably fail to make even the smallest case in defense. The best way to save the reputation of such a victim of accusations or whichever, is to absolutely decimate my case and show that I am the fool here. I am starting to get the impression that in lack of such a defense, coming after me in response is the only method left to silence the opponent for causing the apparent disturbance.

If I should be reported to the authorities and they then decide to tell me to leave, I'll do that. All that means to me is that Wikipedia is not the place for me and that I am not welcome here with the methods I use, so be it then if that should be the case, I'll go somewhere else I have other things to do. But until that happens, or unless I have another reason, I don't see why I should seize, and surrender my position on the issue. Why? I do not believe I am in violation of any particular policy.

I am willing to drop the case on the "vandalism" thing, but I want to hear a good argument. What amounts to them being repeated threats about my account getting banned (but are probably exempt as being a violation of any policy because policy enforcement itself is probably not viable to be an offense against the policy), are not a good reason as it does not address the argument. Otherwise do what you have to do. User:MrOllie: "You obviously are not going to change your behavior here, so if and when you end up at a noticeboard over this I hope you are not surprised." Softwareperson1000 (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:No personal attacks, important:

"There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:"

below is a list of things, I have not done:

Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity...

Using someone's affiliations

Using someone's political affiliations

Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material

Comparing editors to Nazis, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous people

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. (note, I have the evidence where I clearly explained my case, maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong, but I do have my case so I am not in violation of this one)

Threats

The policy does say "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." but this is entirely up for interpretation, because anything can be taken as an insult per different cultures and societies across the world. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Take it to WP:ANI if you believe it's an issue, that's the place to discuss it, not on article talk pages. Your accusations lack evidence, per Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Vandalism has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, and what you're describing lacks any evidence that it meets that definition. Saying that I am "displaying a total lack of competence in selecting sources" is an accusation without evidence. See also WP:NOTYOU; the more you focus on perceived issues with others rather than focusing on the content, the less likely it is that anyone is going to engage with you in a meaningful way. There are places like WP:ANI to discuss issues with editors. If you believe I am vandalizing Wikipedia, take it there. Address the issue where it is relevant. Repeatedly making accusations without evidence, whether or not you think your reasoning is sound when everyone else it telling you it isn't, is a personal attack and a distraction from the actual issue of the content. If you truly want to improve the article, stick to discussing the content. Focus on the content on article talk pages. Attacking others is doing nothing but undermining your own position and violating Wikipedia policy. If you truly believe that I am vandalizing Wikipedia, take it to WP:ANI. That is the place to address that issue, and where your misunderstandings can be clarified by others if it turns out that your accusations are inaccurate. - Aoidh (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Something you need to understand is that an "attack" is not the same as a personal attack. I am questioning your competence as an editor, I have not called you names or compared you to infamous people, I have not brought up any of your affiliations, nor have I threatened you (the only thing closest to anyone receiving threats here is me being "warned" that my account will be banned), there were no links to external harassment, and I believe I do have evidence. And I still have not been repeatedly making any accusations, because the one I made is still the one and the same accusation I have made since the beginning which I have sustained. Us talking about it, where I "repeat" that word "accusation" is not repeatedly accusing anyone of anything. Maybe the admin boards are the official way to go about such affairs more properly, but I don't see why we can't discuss the matter. What is curious however is that you have several times repeatedly told me you would not talk about the issue any further, yet you are still here and have lots of replies since the first time you said so, so are you willing to talk about it or not? Softwareperson1000 (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Something you need to understand is that an "attack" is not the same as a personal attack is directly and unambiguously contradicted by Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack? which details what a personal attack is on Wikipedia. Saying you have evidence is not evidence. Repeating an accusation while saying you haven't been repeating them (while now adding additional competency attacks) is still repeating, that's what that word means. If you believe that these novel interpretations of Wikipedia policy are in any way valid, then I encourage you to test that assumption where substantive action can be taken. WP:ANI would be the place to have sanctions (including blocks and topic bans) implemented against me, but using these novel interpretations to perpetuate personal attacks here and on article talk pages will accomplish nothing but getting yourself blocked or otherwise sanctioned, and certainly won't convince me of anything if that's what you're trying to do here. You don't have to agree that these comments are personal attacks, aspersions, and incivility, but you do have to abide by the same Wikipedia policies that everyone else does, which means ceasing to make these attacks. Take it to WP:ANI before someone else brings your own behavior there. - Aoidh (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Richard M. Stallman "RMS" "The Last MIT Hacker" Hackers 1984.png

Thanks for uploading File:Richard M. Stallman "RMS" "The Last MIT Hacker" Hackers 1984.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC)