Talk:Richard Stallman/Archive 7

message: Should the League for Programming Freedom be placed in the leading summary?  At least two editors have expressed skepticisms of this.  Most people don't recognize his founding of the LfPF as notable.  Is it?  Should it be mention?  I haven't seen it appear in a recent bio for Stallman.  It is worth mentioning elsewhere in the article. --72.92.132.225 01:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And other editors prefer having the League there.  My cut is that it add to the NPOV of the article to mention the League in the summary and the article, as it was only marginally successful.  That NPOV is more important then notability in this case.  If this article is ever going to be a Featured Article it needs more balance and NPOV-ness.  - Lentower 19:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The League in the intro 

message: Most hackers recognize the term "Emacs" as covering the original and the GNU version.  For the sake of brevity, we probably only need to mention the encompassing name for the software package, Emacs, and not its synonym, GNU Emacs, in the intro. --71.161.223.179 14:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But most of the readers won't be hackers, especially of the intro summary.  And just doing either the original Emacs OR GNU Emacs would make rms noteable enough for a WP article - they are each awesome pieces of hacking. - Lentower 18:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emacs in intro 

message: Do we really need a section just on his beard, fer crying out loud? I mean, it's totally redundant with the pictures... --Gwern  (contribs) 04:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I was "Be Bold." and deleted it. - Lentower 05:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beard 

message: I'm not sure there's really enough for much more then a stub on this as its own article, but it is an interesting bit of trivia on Stallman. I think it would fit very well into his main page. Seraphimblade 05:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No to the merger. Grav-mass should stay it's own article. This is more then trivia about rms. It's about a holiday, and atheism. If it should be merged anywhere. it should be in an article about those or other issues. We are also trying to get the article size down right now. - Lentower 22:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will remove the merge requests then. Is there really any notability of this in its own right (besides being Stallman's idea?) Seraphimblade 03:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lemme put it this way. Newtonmas didn't survive AfD. There's no way in hell "Grav-mass" should. --Gwern (contribs) 04:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sad that WPians are so serious, that articles like Newtonmas and Grav-mass are rejected. In the GNU Project, we were all dedicated to having fun along the way to producing a free computing software system. Including some humorous Unix man pages, and jokes in the software distributions that never got in the way of the software performing for the user. - Lentower 23:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point wasn't being serious - I voted to keep Newtonmas, as I recall - my point was that Newtonmas was by any objective measure vastly more notable, successful, and interesting than Grav-mass is, and so it was surely doomed. If A is greater than B, and B is greater than C, than we know A is greater than C, and so on. --Gwern  (contribs) 02:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested merge of [[Grav-mass]] into this article

message: A person's sense of humor saids a lot about hir.  A few paragraphs, perhaps added to Lifestyle would do it.  Grav-mass  (also see ) is just one example, and perhaps not among the best to include.  I'm too close to rms, and worked with him for a dozen years, so it be hard for me to do this in an NPOV way.  (Though there are many things one of us find funny that the other doesn't ;-) Lentower 23:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear 204.169.115.106:<BR> Talk pages are different  then article pages.  On talk pages you do not change another editor's words. I'm aware of the usage you prefer.  I prefer mine.  best  - Lentower 04:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need words on RMS' sense of humor

message: Far from rough draft, I just wanted to belch this out for everyone to hammer away on. Toppler 21:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed revisions

message: My comments:
*You should just Be Bold and put this in the article.
*I just edited the above as I would edit the article.
*Don't change the way the Notes and References section is in the article.
*No white space or line ends before a 
*NEVER put a  or a  inside a <ref>....  It is much more obvious that work is needed, if these are in the main text of the article.
* I'm out of time to comment further. Lentower 21:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Proposed revisions

message: Some worry that these “unusual behaviors” might impair the adoption of free and open source software. In one Forbes magazine article, columnist Daniel Lyons expressed concern that Stallman’s peculiarities would harm GNU/Linux’s reputation by association.
There's a lot of implication going on between sources, which don't seem to be justified by their references.  I couldn't find in the article that mentions "unusual behaviors" the argument that they "might impair the adoption of free and open source software".  Where is the reference for the Daniel Lyons's article?  I don't know what "concern" Daniel Lyons would have for GNU/Linux's reputation, anyway.  Lyons has about about as much concern for GNU/Linux as George W. Bush has for Islam.  --71.161.221.247 04:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Might", "concern" and "peculiarities" 

message: Where, exactly, did the Criticism section go? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.92.64.247 (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking back at article history for a few weeks it hasn't had a criticism section. Specific criticisms of RMS are inside other sections where they are more relevant.  Ttiotsw 03:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Should he be called "Professor Richard Stallman Ph.d" on account of his honarary professorship and honorary degrees?  I had this conversation with someone once and they said that honarary recipients of these awards don't use the titles in their names.  Anyone know? Gronky 15:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The honorary degree article also says that the titles are usually not used and using them is considered improper in a lot of countries.  This and that Richard himself doesn't used these titles (when someone even calls him "sir" he asks them not to).  Gronky 13:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "professor" and "Phd" 

message: If the interview that Michael Gross apparently did in 1999 is a reliable source then this article is ignoring some very interesting information about this man (who I don't know and hold no strong opinions on). Another internet source says Stallman believes he is autistic, and in the Gross piece the interviewee gives such a typical description of an autistic childhood (and adulthood) that it's obvious what it all adds up to. Has Stallman ever been given an autism diagnosis? Is he self-diagnosed? Did he attend a private school for special needs or autistic kids for 5 years with the "insane or stupid"? Did Stallman really say this "In fact, if I hadn't been smart, I probably would have been thrown in the garbage, basically. But because I was obviously smart, they couldn't just say, "This is a manufacturing failure; get rid of it."? Courageous words! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.212.112 (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Childhood and schooling