Talk:Linux Mint

message: There should be a mention of LMDE  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.144.29 (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The tense of LMDE 3 is all over the place: "LMDE 3 (a.k.a. Cindy) is "very likely" to complete [future tense of a past event, and uncertainty about something that should be known] the switch to systemd from sysvinit. It is based [present tense] on Debian Stretch, and was released [past tense] in the August 31, 2018,[64] and will ship [future tense] as a single edition with Cinnamon." If someone is/was/will be running LMDE3 please could/will/did they test and correct the statements? 58.166.228.149 (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: LMDE

message: Both the recently linked "references" added by user 210.48.222.4 are just personal blogs, imho, and should be removed.  They are both full of adverts, both start with the same text "The Mint Team is doing all the work ... all we need to do is install the final version of Mint-8 and have fun on it." and the blogs.iium.edu.my one links directly to the techviewz.org one.  Both added by the same IP address in the last two days, and neither add too much information that isn't otherwise available from more notable sources.  Thoughts, anyone?  Thrapper (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Neither link seemed to add anything in my opinion, and not particularly related to the text from which they were referred, so I removed them. Thrapper (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal blog links 

message: Any reason for having that picture of version 2.2 there? I suppose it should be removed. --Stormwatch (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, doesn't seem particularly relevant any more! :) Thrapper (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I did remove the pic but Clementlefebvre reverted my edit and put the picture back :( Thrapper (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't want to enter an edit war with you, Clementlefebvre.  I already removed this 2.2 pic, and you reverted my edit.  I already gave you the link to show you the changes you made with your edit (if you want the link again, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linux_Mint&action=historysubmit&diff=330222783&oldid=330074993 ) so it should be easy for you to check what you changed and see whether any side-effects occurred or not. Thrapper (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Removed. Let's keep ridiculous wiki politics out of this shall we? Old Marcus (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's already changed. :) Wei2912 (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the old pic? 

message: When it comes to mentioning Ubuntu in the introduction: The Ubuntu article refers to "Debian" as "The Debian GNU/Linux distribution", yet in its "Features" section it refers to "Windows" as "Microsoft Windows", not as "the Microsoft Windows operating system". Of course, Windows is more famous than Debian or Ubuntu but that lacks coherence. The keyword also links to the Debian wikipedia article so I guess it should just refer to it as "Debian". In the case of the Linux Mint article, this is even more noticeable, since "Linux" already appears in the name of the distribution itself. Articles on Wikipedia seem to favor "Linux" over "GNU/Linux" so that's another reason to modify the introduction in the Ubuntu article. Consequently I've changed "based on the Ubuntu GNU/Linux distribution" to "based on Ubuntu". I didn't change the Ubuntu article (I'm already quite busy with this one). Honormuk (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. 'GNU/Linux' might be more technically correct, but I don't think I've ever seen somebody actually use it in conversation. On the 'Microsoft Windows' !'the Microsoft Windows operating system', best guess is that that's because of the potential for confusion as to precisely *which* 'Microsoft Windows' is being referred to, as I can think of ten entirely separate iterations just off the top of my head. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 14:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ubuntu" or "the Ubuntu (GNU/)Linux distribution" 

message: I've added quite a lot of content to the article, all of which I know is 100% correct, but with very few references. I'm quite new to editing things on Wikipedia so bear with me and don't hesitate to discuss unreferenced content here. I'll provide any ref that you think is missing. I'm also about to rewrite the tools section, part of it is incorrect and outdated. Don't hesitate to question my changes here, I'll be happy to bring justifications if needed. Honormuk (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a few refs but there are still a lot of unref'd info. I'll add more later on. Honormuk (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sections and added info 

message: I've moved all sections *prior* to 'Palestine - Israel issue', and two following sections, 'Info boxes release question' and 'Debian based distro', to Archive 1 to cut down on page size. Once the WP:3O process on the controversy is finished, I'd suggest moving all *four* sections related to it to a topic archive, as they seem the biggest chunks of the talk page to me. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 19:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good move. Although, whichever solution is chosen between adding the controversial section or not, I don't think it will put an end to it. Soon or later someone will add it again or delete it again and the discussion will start where it was left off. I've got a solution for this but it requires a lot of work. It consists of listing all notable historical events related to the distribution and making an article out of it. This would bring a nice compromise as the political controversy would then have a place where it could reported without standing out among items which constitute the primary description of Linux Mint. Among other events we could also mention the death of Mats Geier, which is missing in the current article and which is, in a similar way, isn't something that would be part of summarizing what Linux Mint is, but definitely among interesting points for an in-depth reader who wants to know more about the history of the project. I can get to that later on. I'm planning to add more info to the releases article first, then I'll add more info to the development section and make it into its own article and then I can start listing historical events. I'm pretty sure we can reach a wide consensus with this solution. Honormuk (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That idea works for me. I can start working on the History of Linux Mint article, if you're willing and able to provide any refs you've collected? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 23:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Could we have a "Timeline and Historical events" section placed between "Popularity" and "Comparison with Ubuntu" with a paragraph giving some general stats about the project since its creation in 2006 and a link to a detailed timeline and list of historical events article? There's a few things to consider: 
* The location of that section, in my opinion: It relates to the distribution itself, and as such should be placed before the comparison with Ubuntu. It's targeted at in-depth readers and relates to the past, and therefore should appear after what relates to the present state of the distribution. 
* Draft articles. You probably know the answer to my question. I need a day or so to collect the information related to the history of Linux Mint. Can we create a stub article in the meantime or should we wait until the content is ready? What is the policy of Wikipedia on small articles? I was under the impression that they were deleted automatically.
Honormuk (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Work-in-progress articles are generally fine, as long as they're properly identified as such. I'd probably just reuse the 
 template from the top of this page, and if someone proposes speedy deletion we can just insert  to let them know we're working on improving it to being a worthwhile article in its own right. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 23:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I started working on it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Mint_Timeline. Honormuk (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I added a "See Also" section following what's done on the Ubuntu and Windows article. On the Windows article in particular it divides the links between general articles related to operating systems and "further readings" which is perfect to link to the new Linux Mint timeline article. It makes the main article more scalable also as we can now really go in-depth, for instance we could think of a list of Linux Mint reviews. In the timeline article I started adding content following the chronology of the newsletter (because it's full of information and easy to follow). I'll add more content and use other sources at a later stage. I also jumped to May 2009 to mention the political controversy, because it was already written thus easy to add and in an effort to put a stop to the ongoing edit war which is taking place on the main article. The present article looks a bit weird as a consequence, jumping straight to Feb 2007 (creation of the newsletter) and then jumping straight to May 2009 (political controversy), but that's only a temporary problem and it will get better as more content is added to it. Honormuk (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: Apart from that one (now archived) Mint does have some other controversial aspects. I am thinking about the inclusion of the "Mint Search Enhancer" Firefox add-on, which cannot be uninstalled via the add-on manager, and which apparently exists for the distro to make money by altering Google search requests. See for example, http://devtoe.blogspot.com/2009/03/how-to-restore-firefox-google-search-in_07.html  Lovingboth (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't currently have a mint install, but I strongly suspect the "uninstallable" firefox add-on is only as 'uninstallable' as Ubuntu's Firefox Modifications, or (in the Windows world) Microsoft's .NET framework firefox add-on, both of which were were the subject of controversy by people who didn't realise that you have to be running Firefox as root/administrator to uninstall system-wide add-ins.  -- simxp (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but there are side-effects to running FF as root (various key files get chowned to root and unless you know to change them back, you end up losing old sessions / add-on setups etc.) Given the audience Mint is aimed at, 'let them run as root' is not really good enough, particularly as it's clear that the team do not want you to uninstall it. Lovingboth (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other controversial bits 

message: The section on the different editions, namely KDE Software Compilation / Xfce / LXDE / Fluxbox / Debian based
is not very helpful for the uninitiated - maybe someone could explain in a few words which editions are useful for which types of user?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.11.27.62 (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editions 

message: What about his comment on israel?--Baruch ben Alexander - ☠☢☣ 03:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? Is that even related to the article's subject? – Adrian Willenbücher (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: CTRL+F, "Israel". --86.5.226.63 (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not related at all, these materials should be removed completely. It was simply his personal thoughts on the Linux Mint Blog.Wei2912 (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  politics 

message: I think a good, well referenced section on the legality of Linux Mint would do much for this article.  If you read any comment section on any news article about Linux Mint, it always devolves into a discussion about the legality.  I would write it myself but am confused myself by all the disinformation out there.  138.162.8.58 (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Legality Issues

message: The article has had the "lead rewrite" template at the top now since August, but there's no discussion here about what might need to be re-written.  The intro looks ok from what I can tell, so I'm gonna go ahead and be bold and remove the template.  If anyone has a problem with that, you can go ahead and put it back in, but please discuss here what sort of re-writing you think needs to be done, since it doesn't do anyone any good to just have that template sitting around there for months!... -Helvetica (talk) 11:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lead rewrite" 

message: Since Mint includes plenty of non-open source software, I believe it cannot be called an open-source distribution. Maybe a mixed-source distribution, thought that's not a frequently used term.  188.25.186.240 (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree.  Mint, like most other GNU/Linux distros, uses a Linux kernel with some "binary blobs."  Also, the standard version of Mint comes with some non-free codecs pre-installed.  But if you look at Mint as a whole, it's overwhelmingly FOSS - both at the system level - Linux kernel, GNU tools, X.org, GNOME, etc, and the application software that it comes with - Firefox, Thunderbird, Open Office.org, GIMP, Pidgin, Gedit, etc, etc, etc! -Helvetica (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open source 

message: Each version, as far back as Mint 4.0 "Daryna" or even older, should have minimum and recommended hardware requirements in the table. That would make it possible to better support older hardware. I've attempted to find this info, but as yet find only anecdotal reports. Best regards to all who work so hard to support Linux Mint.
Banjoboye (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  System Requirements 

message: One citation of one website from a non-American newspaper does not constitute wide international press coverage. Seriously, are we calling one article international reception? 98.102.149.10 (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you implying that to be 'international' it has to be non-American? CodeCat (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: The wording of the disclaimer as proposed is very awkward, with a caveat to the statement longer than the statement itself. The sentence as it is only discusses DistroWatch hits as DistroWatch hits, and does not claim that this means Mint is more popular in actual use than Ubuntu, nor does it extrapolate anything else from the DistroWatch results. Since the sentence does not claim the results mean anything that DistroWatch cautions not to take the results as, there is no need for a long, awkward disclaimer. I do not see the need for any caveat or refutation to a claim that isn't even made. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: How about
 -- Jorge (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That wording is more awkward than what's currently there.  The current wording says nothing about, nor gives any indication that it is about market share. - SudoGhost 04:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. -- Jorge (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A last proposal 

message: "System requirements
As of Linux Mint 12, both Intel x86 and AMD64 architectures are supported."
What this should say is is that Mint has been supporting Intel 64-bit since version ( 8 ? )  as x86 in and of itself does not convey that 64-bit is supported simply by adding "and AMD64"
"Editions
All editions of Linux Mint are available in both 32-bit and 64-bit."
This section is worse for not being factual and being utterly ambiguous.  It may mean "current editions" and thinks to imply that with "available" when in fact old editions likely remain "available".
G. Robert Shiplett 17:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  section unclear 

message: I made a bunch of edits, adding references, conserving space used in a section with a table, and removing outdated and redunant information.
If you wish to revert some edits, please pay careful attention to what you are undoing, as I made multiple beneficial changes. Thanks.
Wiki4td (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: Well, it looks like this controversy (about Israel) has returned. As one of the main participants in the original (now archived) debate over whether to include this information, I feel it should be removed. It's done and over with. I see no reason to dredge it back up. Comments? Jim Rogers10 (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the section considering that as it stood, it was historical. As the position was revoked a few days after, it shouldn't have had a significant long-term impact, and we have nothing to suggest it had anyway. --Chealer (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

text: It only comes up again and again because people like you keep adding it to articles... CodeCat (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

text: I read the reference-- it was Clem apologizing (again) that it ever happened after someone else dredged it up. Look, I was the main one wanting to include this incident when it originally happened (see archived talk), but now even I agree that this is over. Clem has stated (more than once) that he was wrong and apologized (more than once) for ever bringing it up. If he was still maintaining his position you might have a point, and at the time I argued that the incident *might* need to be included for historical purposes (I wasn't 100% sure of this at the time). But with hindsight I think one could conclude that this whole thing was basically a brief error that happened quite a while ago and was fully reversed with no lasting implications for Mint. I say it's well past time to put an end to this issue and stop bringing it up.--Jim Rogers10 (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

text: WP:UNDUE for starters.  A couple of wordpress blogs doesn't make this a notable thing, and it's certainly not notable enough to dedicate an entire section to it with that much prose. - SudoGhost 09:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Wordpress blogs are more often than not worthless as sources.  If this is the TechSpot reference you're talking about, then I'm not seeing anything in there that would even come close to supporting anything relevant in that section.  "The incident happened", yes but merely existing is an insufficient reason.  What you unfortunately believe about my motives is irrelevant and inaccurate; the section is WP:UNDUE and does not belong in the article, and a few upset individuals making a mountain out of a molehill won't change that.  You can claim that it is an "insincere and illegitimate argument" all you'd like, but pretending the reasoning doesn't exist will not help you, and will not get this information into the article so you're doing yourself no favors by pretending everyone but you is insincere. - SudoGhost 13:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

text: You don't have to agree, but unless you can show that it's significant, there's nothing indicating that it is.  Until you can do that, and get a consensus to reinsert the material, it doesn't belong on the article, so please stop reinserting it just because you disagree with the reason given, because several people are disagreeing with you. - SudoGhost 23:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Continuing to throw around accusations does you no good, I think that's become apparent by now.  Without reliable sources showing that this is a notable thing, it does not belong.  Nothing has "inherent and obvious significance", it has to be shown, there are no exceptions.  The discussion from 2009/2010 doesn't show a very strong consensus, if any, and consensus certainly seems to have changed, so that's a moot point. - SudoGhost 16:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Where in the TechSpot article does it say anything about this?  I looked through that entire article and saw nothing that would even come close to supporting what you're saying.  The ExtremeTech piece looks to be the only thing that makes any mention of this, and its done in a "I reviewed this OS and someone sent me an email asking if I supported these political opinions, so I'll write a piece about how I don't but that it doesn't affect my review" kind of way so that's not much for showing that this is a big deal, especially because this "I was asked and no, I don't agree with it" post was the only thing that makes any mention of it.  I've looked online as best as I could, and it looks like some forums discussed it, but that's pretty much it. - SudoGhost 23:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

text: It should be mentioned in the article because he said it publicly, and because it is highly unusual. If the founder of a major operating system tells any group or persuasion not to use it, I think that is noteworthy. --Jleon (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You may think it noteworthy and unusual, but reliable sources don't seem to give it notice, and that's what we use to determine if something is worth mentioning. - SudoGhost 19:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There are reliable sources for the initial statement on the distro's own blog, the subsequent apology, and the reassurances that followed. Anyway, I understand that people who support Linux Mint are going to dominate the consensus here, as that is one of the primary shortcomings of wikipedia, so go ahead and continue whitewashing it...  --Jleon (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I created this account to stop you from littering the article. This is my only account and I didn't edit any other article. Hopefully an admin can verify this. Consensus was reached by the initial participants. You're entitled not to agree with it but you should not ignore it. You failed to convince not only CodeCat and SudoGhost but also Jim Rogers10 who was among the initial protagonists. If you want to go against the consensus, you need to find compelling arguments instead of repeating the same things and accusing everybody. You were blocked temporarily and you couldn't spam the article every day like you're doing now. Hopefully the next time you're blocked it will be permanent. Read the talk page again, look at how many people are cleaning your spam. Stop forcing your edits on everyone else. Arcscarve (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, please WP:AGF. Accusations of sockpuppetry are pretty much the opposite. CodeCat (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Accusations of sockpuppetry and bias usually indicate that the person making the allegations has nothing of substance to say regarding the actual content.  If you don't want to be given edit-warring warnings, then do not edit war.  It is not "defacing" to notify you of that, and if you think you weren't edit warring, take a look at the article's history and your recent contributions.  If you think there is sockpuppetry going on, either open a sockpuppetry report or do not make allegations to which you have no evidence.  If having previously made a comment means there is a "bias" on the subject then speaks more for you, who has been arguing this since 2009 than anyone else. You cannot edit war and ask others to discuss without doing so yourself; you're referring to a 3O when a 3O doesn't help here; a third-opinion is for when only two individuals disagree, not when there are numerous editors commenting on the subject, then it becomes just another opinion, not a final word in any capacity.  Even with this third opinion you keep referring to, the previous discussion most certainly did not have a consensus to include the subject, if anything there appears to be the opposite. - SudoGhost 16:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

text: If you're going to ask that someone not accuse you of being a spammer, it would help if you in turn didn't accuse others of bias when they disagree with you and of sockpuppetry.  There was no consensus for inclusion in the previous discussions.  As for the insistence on the single editor's third opinion from four years ago, please read WP:3O as it explains that a third-opinion isn't binding nor is it useful when there are already more than two people discussing the content.  Considering the information has little to do with the actual subject of the article, content about an individual's comments are not crucial to the article's history like you're trying to make it sound, especially given the lack of coverage on the subject and especially with the amount of focus that much text gives something unrelated to the article's subject. - SudoGhost 17:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I don't understand the "if Linux Mint is going to succeed" comment. Is that relevant for Wikipedia? CodeCat (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

text: You said all of this already, repeating it doesn't make it any more relevant the second time.  If it is significant, find sources saying so.  A claim from an IP address claiming to be Lefebvre doesn't change that since (1) anyone can claim that and (2) reliable sources dictate content and weight, not subjects wanting to use it for a purpose. - SudoGhost 23:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

text: This has been discussed since 2009.  If you still do not know why it is not in the article, you are more than welcome to read through the discussions that have taken place, but repeating the same things over and over again without presenting anything new is not going to change the article and I'm not going to answer questions that have already been answered.  You can't say WP:UNDUE doesn't justify removing something only tangentially related to the subject that is only supported by a couple of blogs, because it does.  This grandoise puffery about the importance of this content doesn't make it so unless there are reliable sources that reflect that, and there aren't.  Unless you can provide some reliable source that does in fact say anything close to describing this as a "significant historical event", it's not.  It's a minor detail that might be relevant in an article about the individual, but isn't relevant to the subject especially with the sources given.  If it's such a significant historical event, create an article about the actual subject of the event if there are sources that would support it, but just because something happened doesn't mean it belongs in any relevant article that happens to exist.  While Linux Mint might be relevant to the event, but that doesn't mean that the event is relevant to Linux Mint, not in the level of detail Wikipedia presents information.  That is why it is WP:UNDUE, and why that policy is relevant to the information. - SudoGhost 02:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I do not "keep" removing the section, I have not edited this article since January.  Wikipedia policy is not dubious simply because you don't like its application.  There is a single source, the ExtremeTech piece, which is a blog entry about a blog entry that discusses the content briefly, and would be relevant for an article about the developer if such an article exists.  The other blog is a brief note about redacted content, and goes into no more detail than that.  Are there any other sources?  Relevance and weight are established by reliable sources, and if it's just this single blog piece from 2009, then it doesn't appear to be the "significant historical event" you're saying it is. - SudoGhost 04:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I honestly don't know how this is anything but a brief note.  There is a single reliable source, a blog on ExtremeTech, that mentions this in any way, but nowhere near in the way you're claiming.  You keep saying that it's a "significant historical event" and that it's an "integral part of the history", but you're not providing a single source that comes anywhere close to saying that.  Unless you can verify these claims, they don't really mean anything.  The ExtremeTech source verifies that it happened and would make it relevant for an article on the individual, but it doesn't make it relevant enough to mention on this article.  It doesn't belong in the article with the sources currently given, you mischaracterizing the motivations of others and not addressing the concerns given won't place it in the article.  If it is as critical and important as you're making it seem, then finding reliable sources to back up that claim should be no problem.  If you're serious about it being as critical as you're saying then your reply will hopefully include reliable sources (not blogs or forum posts) that can be discussed and you can show what you've been trying to say.  - SudoGhost 06:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

text: When you introduce yourself to somebody you meet do you tell them how drunk you were at some party 4 years ago and all the stupid things you said that night? Did some people take pictures of you and put them on Facebook? Does that make it a relevant part of your history? Should everybody see these when they want to know who you are? Do you see my point here? This article barely scratches the surface of what Linux Mint is and all it's done since it started. If you're trying to explain to newcomers what something is, you should leave anecdotes asides, in particular those which are regretted by the team and which depict the project to something it clearly isn't. I'm pretty sure that's what was meant by UNDUE. Arcscarve (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand your reluctance to include an embarrassing event in the Linux Mint article, but it is important that the information be included due to the poignancy and unusualness of the event. Luckily, the mistake that was made is balanced by the subsequent apology and the mintBox development. JohnGoodName (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

text: So you don't have any sources to back up your claims that this information is somehow critical, and anyone that disagrees with you (but only those that disagree with you) is "subjective" and "biased".  You've already been asked to read WP:3O, which explains why it holds no weight in a discussion with this many people; that doesn't mean anything and repeating it when that's already been explained just seems like you're grasping at straws.  Wikipedia uses sources to determine what is relevant and notable.  You're saying that it's due to a "taboo nature" that sources are lacking but other taboo subjects have no problem with sourcing, and on Wikipedia sources determine what is important.  You believe that a single blog on ExtremeTech is sufficient, but it is not.  If you're going to claim that it's critical to the history of the subject, and that it requires an entire section dedicated to it, then it is not unreasonable to ask you to back up that claim.  That request shouldn't be an issue if the content were truly so important.  I have no doubt that you believe the content is important, but sources do not seem to agree, and it is sources which hold more weight on Wikipedia.  The only thing that's going to help you is to prove what you've been saying and find sources; repeating arguments that have already been refuted won't. - SudoGhost 20:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I do have sources, you just don't happen to like them. I referenced the WP:3O hoping that you would see that you are incorrect in your claim of WP:UNDUE. The ExtremeTech article and the statements made by the founder of Linux Mint on the Linux Mint official blog are more than enough to lend weight and notability to the content, and your claims that they are insufficient are unfounded. JohnGoodName (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you have a source.  One.  The Linux Mint blog entry (1) is a primary source and (2) doesn't come anywhere close to supporting all of that content.  A third-opinion doesn't carry any final say when there are a dozen editors already discussing the content.  A single ExtremeTech blog entry supporting an entire section of content is the very definition of WP:UNDUE.  You saying that "claims...are unfounded" doesn't somehow negate Wikipedia policy.  Find some sources, or drop it, you can't argue content into relevance on Wikipedia when sources don't support it.  If it's as important as you're claiming, that should be very easy to do.  If sources can't be found, then it apparently isn't that important to the article. - SudoGhost 04:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor can you argue content into irrelevance. You are correct that I have a source, and it is a good one. Realize that it represents the tip of an issue that is, in fact, an iceberg, and your claim that it is wikipedia policy to remove sourced, notable content is unfounded. JohnGoodName (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is the tip of the iceberg, then show that iceberg, because all you have there is a single blog post and you're puffing it up to be something it's not.  At this point it seems pretty clear that the blog doesn't "represent" anything; it's all you've got.  I've asked several times now for you to back up your grandiose claims that this is somehow critical to the history of the article's subject, and you have not done so.  If all you're going to do is continue to make those claims without backing them up, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.  The content is WP:UNDUE, merely disagreeing with that without showing how it's relevant doesn't say much.  You've got a single blog that mentioned it, and you're grasping at that straw for lack of anything better, but that's not going to get that content in the article because it doesn't belong in the article.  Unless and until there is consensus for the material it doesn't belong on the article, so I'd recommend using your time searching for sources, because that is what holds weight on Wikipedia, not grandiose claims that you can't back up with sources. Am I opposed to the material? No, I don't care one way or the other about it, but what I care about is the sourcing.  If there are sources that support it, then I will support it.  If there are not, then I won't.  Find one or two more independent third-party sources that discuss the topic and I will gladly support the content, because that will prove that it isn't just some one-off quirk by a tech-blogger but that it's actually a relevant topic that has the attention of reliable sources.  If those can't be found, then that pretty much verifies that it isn't that relevant to the subject, and sources (and the lack thereof) speak much louder than anything else. - SudoGhost 05:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I will add more sources as and if I find them. It is not unreasonable to want more sources and I respect your opinion that the information could use more sources, but I disagree with your opinion that it needs more sources. I believe that the content is supported by the sources I have referenced, which include the ExtremeTech article, and you clearly do not. You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion on what is or isn't notable is not authoritative. JohnGoodName (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A single blog, the only reliable source you have, does not warrant an entire contentious section in an article.  That is Wikipedia policy.  You don't have to agree with it, but until you get more sources or a consensus that the single blog is sufficient, it won't be in the article. - SudoGhost 05:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are entitled to your opinion on what constitutes the number of and reliability of the sources. You don't have to agree with it, but until you prove the sources unreliable or get a consensus (maybe even a WP:3O) the content may be in the article. JohnGoodName (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the kind of intelligent discussion you're going to drop to, there's no point in continuing this line of discussion.  You are a single-purpose account and are well aware that the content is disputed as you have tried to include it in the article well over a dozen times now and it has been reverted by numerous editors, so you're going to have to get a consensus to include it.  It is not the reliability of sources that is in question, that's the latest of several red herrings and does not reflect well upon the strength of your argument when you have to mischaracterize what others say in order to try to address them.  Get a consensus or get some sources, that's not hard to do if the information is as critical as you're claiming. - SudoGhost 06:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your ad hominem attacks and do nothing to strengthen your repetitive and refuted arguments. There have been numerous editors that have tried to include this content over the years and their frustration with being censored does not justify your claim that there is no consensus for inclusion. JohnGoodName (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are more than welcome to explain how any argument made has been refuted, because you disagreeing is not "refuting" anything.  Making wild claims about the importance of the content without backing up those claims even less so.  Sources will refute what I've said, not wild claims and disagreeing for the sake of doing so.  "Numerous" editors does not make it a consensus on that merit alone, when many more editors have disagreed.  I'm assuming by "ad hominem attacks" you're referring to WP:SPA; your edits on Wikipedia have overwhelmingly been to push this content, that's not a personal attack, it is a verifiable fact and relevant to you accusing others (but only those that disagree with you) of "bias". - SudoGhost 15:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a one topic editor. Don't forget to include the history of my edits as an IP account. Regardless, your belittlement of my contributions to Wikipedia doesn't matter because it is a red herring that is totally irrelevant to this discussion, and the fact that you feel the need to pursue it shows the weakness of your position. Your vague accusations of "wild claims" do nothing to support your argument. The fact of the matter is that the content is reliably sourced and notable, both on ExtremeTech and the distribution's official blog, and your subjective and incorrect opinion does nothing to change that. JohnGoodName (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are a single purpose account, even taking your edit-warring as an IP editor into consideration, and when you accuse others of bias your editing is relevant to show the context of your attacking others; it is not a red herring.  If you really think it's a "vague accusation", then you should re-read the discussion.  You claimed that it was a significant historical event and did not provide sources showing that when asked.  You said it was well documented and very controversial, but again provided no sources.  You said it was a formative event in the history of Linux Mint, but provided nothing showing so.  You have a single ExtremeTech blog verifying that it happened, but even that source says nothing about it having any lasting impact on anything in any way, and it is the only reliable source on the subject and that single blog makes an entire section WP:UNDUE.  If your claims about its importance were accurate, sources would show this (if nothing else then just by existing), but such sources do not exist.  I have made no "vague accusations"; I have asked you to show with sources what you've been saying.  You have failed to do so, and instead resort to rewording my own comments presumably to obfuscate any actual discussion, since there is no substance to your comments otherwise.  You are welcome to have the last word, but the lack of sources speaks louder than anything you would say since Wikipedia policy cares about sources, not meek accusations of bias without merit. - SudoGhost 17:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

text: You are entitled to your opinion. A negative attitude and name calling doesn't add anything to the discussion, though. JohnGoodName (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I don't believe that I'm name-calling, I think I'm simply making a factual description of you. Second, I'm not trying to contribute to the conversation, I'm trying to end it. I believe your case has been fully stated and is severely lacking. No one else is supporting you. I say that it's time to put an end to this circling of the mulberry bush. I propose that everyone stop editing this section until/unless a different (better) argument is put forward. That's what I plan to do.--Jim Rogers10 (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend you restrain yourself from giving offensive so called "factual descriptions" about other editors. If you feel that you have nothing to add to the conversation that is fine. You are also welcome to disagree with me, just as I disagree with you. My case is fully stated, and I will continue to respond to criticism if I choose to do so as I have a strong argument that is worth defending. JohnGoodName (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point I think putting an end to the constant and unchanging repetition of your reason for inclusion of the material in question is probably the most positive thing anyone could add to (subtract from?) the conversation. Perhaps others will disagree and continue engaging you, but I will not be doing so. Best of luck with your argument.--Jim Rogers10 (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Repetitive responses are the result of repetitive criticisms. Some editors agree with me that the section should be included and some don't, and if those that don't seek an explanation for why they are wrong then I will give it to them as part of the process of working towards a stronger consensus for inclusion. JohnGoodName (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Israel Controversy Discussion 

message: I've decided to "be bold" and remove the NPOV tag.  It seems clear that there's no concensus for the article to include a section dredging up some drama about Israel from some years back.  Now that it's been removed from the article, I don't see any relevant POV issue, so there's no reason to have an ugly tag cluttering the beginning of the article.  Of course if anyone disagrees they can revert and discuss here... -Helvetica (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: The Editions section is unclear. The Linux Mint Download pages 1) do not state Linux Mint 13 or the Windows Installer as an edition 2) state the different desktop environments as editions. This section mixes editions and versions alternatively. Also, there is no longer a No Codecs version or an OEM version, which the article gives a citation based on an outdated version of Linux Mint. This section needs to be cleaned up urgently as it is far too misleading.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wei2912 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top.</br> The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). TJRC (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I didn't realize there was an OEM and No Codecs version. Sorry for that. http://www.linuxmint.com/release.php?id=18 Wei2912 (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editions section 

message: CodeCat asked for a third-opinion, and reading over the discussion I think we both made out points as clearly as we could, at this point we're just going to end up going in circles. So to avoid any unnecessary stress that I seem to be causing CodeCat (not my intention), I think it's best if we wait for a fresh opinion from someone who hasn't commented to see if we can work towards some form of consensus and then move from there. - Aoidh (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible that I bear part of the blame here. I should not have reverted JohnGoodName's edit in the first place. I should have copy-pasted the deleted content into a template here on the Talk page and tried to propose alternative ways of presenting the information so that the sources could have been to re-added to the article. I had just recently added the Linux Mint article to my Watchlist and User:JohnGoodName's edit looked like vandalism so I reverted it. Constant back-and-forth reversions, however, are disruptive to the whole community and should not continue. I don't think anyone deserves to be prosecuted at this point. We should just chill, be reasonable, and discuss the issue here on the Talk page, even if that meant that the information was not in the article during this time. Side note: It would be easier to follow the discussion if the participants used something like Template:Talkquote to propose concrete alternatives.  Draft your proposal in your sandbox and present it when you feel it's ready, even if it took a few days. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can see the consensus is in favor of clarifying the otherwise misleading DistroWatch section. To be specific, both CodeCat and I support the inclusion of the clarifying information. Also, judging by the comment above Dodi 8238 does not oppose inclusion and may even support it. Despite this, the user Aoidh is continually reverting the edit and is also refusing to communicate on the Talk page at this time. Aoidh has already been reported for edit warring regarding this matter once, and it is possible that they intend to continue this behavior. JohnGoodName (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You see quite incorrectly, I"m afraid. Nothing has changed since the previous consensus, and comments about "refusing the communicate on the talk page" is wildly inaccurate, to the point that I'm honestly wondering how you're coming up with these ideas. A declined edit-warring report doesn't say much, so that's also not much to comment on. So long as you continue your disruptive editing, it will be reverted, and if you continue you will be reported for edit-warring. Discuss, and get a consensus, seeing as how the previous consensus was against you; waiting a few months and trying again to push this inappropriate and WP:UNDUE unsourced content isn't going to cut it, especially when no policy or guideline based reason to include it has been given, while the policies and guidelines that do address this show that it doesn't belong. A disclaimer should not be longer than the statement, especially when the disclaimer is not supported by a single reliable source in any way; I cannot think of any example more WP:UNDUE than this. - Aoidh (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  By now it seems like WP:OWN on Aoidh's part, the way he's put himself in charge over "protecting" the article from edits he doesn't like. CodeCat (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that you were going to read things before citing them, considering your previous disruptive behavior, but it seems not. Get a consensus for your preferred edit, I don't see how it's that difficult. You've been pointed to WP:DR before, that you rely on name-calling rather than discussion is telling. - Aoidh (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Since you seem unwilling or unable to use WP:DRN as was suggested to you by multiple editors at the WP:ANI discussion you opened, I have done so. - Aoidh (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Okay, Aoidh, please explain this to me. If CodeCat is in favor and I am in favor then that is two editors. If you are against that is one editor. If 2 is bigger than 1, is the consensus not against you? Seriously, please explain why you think the consensus is in favor of your position? JohnGoodName (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your math is a bit off; this isn't the first time you've made this edit, and isn't the first time it's been reverted. Ignoring the fact that consensus is not a vote and this a "2:1" is not how that works,  previously commented against your argument, so it's 2:2, and not a consensus even by your logic (and even more so by WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus was against you then, and there is nothing to show that consensus has changed, a single-purpose account's disruptive editing doesn't make a consensus. - Aoidh (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Do you have some kind of objection to assuming good faith? Your threats and insults do not add to the discussion. Let me break it down for you, real simple. Sometimes when a piece of information is correct, such as the DistroWatch statement without any qualification, it can still be wrong because it contains what's called an error by omission. You see, without any qualifier (even a two word one like "excluding variants") a regular reader perusing the article would not realize that "Linux Mint surpassed Ubuntu" doesn't mean that more people are using Linux Mint than Ubuntu, only that more people are using Linux Mint than vanilla Ubuntu only. As far as I know, misleading information on Wikipedia is considered a bad thing. Fair point about Seraphimblade, but that still does not establish Consensus in your favor. If your consensus is so strong then why do I only see you reverting to it. Go ahead and keep edit warring on this issue and reversing my edits, but the statement you keep reverting to is wrong and so, lacking a consensus in your favor, I will continue to either qualify the statement or revert back to the status quo, which does not include the statement at all. JohnGoodName (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, once again, we've come to the part where you accuse me of things such as not assuming good faith; I never suggested anything like that. There are several things wrong with what you've said; first of all, you're assuming that the statement is excluding variants; no reliable source supports this, and the numbers at DistroWatch do not either, so that's patently false. Second, saying it could be construed to mean more people use Linux Mint, I don't see how "Linux Mint surpassed Ubuntu as the most viewed distribution on DistroWatch" could possibly be construed as such, that's not an argument to support adding this disclaimer because that edit wouldn't address that, even if that were an issue. Third, you are the one that needs to establish consensus to have your change placed in the article, without that, the previous version is kept, prior to your edit. That is the WP:STATUSQUO version, and the version which had a prior consensus. - Aoidh (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break

message: In 2012 I added a warning about the inappropriateness of Distrowatch hit counters as a measure of OS usage.  There was a discussion about it and eventually we removed the warning.  However, this time I added plenty of sources, so I think the warning should stay.  Several of these sources are not about Distrowatch hit counters in general; their primary subject is specifically the popularity of Ubuntu and Linux Mint.  And these sources mention the inappropriateness of the Distrowatch hit counters.  So the sources think this issue is relevant to the discussion.  -- Jorge (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning about inappropriateness of Distrowatch hit counters as a measure of OS usage 

message: It looks like the introduction from 2010 has changed a lot in 5 years. So I think it's time to discuss and rework the introduction. I believe we should include that Linux Mint is based on Ubuntu and Debian according to the reference that I included from the official website. By the looks of it, the Linux Mint introduction deviates a lot from other Linux distro articles. I attempted to keep the format consistent and create a gateway for the reader. Heartwarming (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 2015 

message: Nothing on the backdoored ISOs yet? 204.234.67.129 (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now. The official website is currently down, doubtless as a result of the hack that made directing people to the backdoored ISOs. Lovingboth (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jan/Feb Site Compromise 

message: Near the start of the page it says or implies that it is "is both powerful and easy to use". But unfortunately that is not true. Compared to Windows, even a very old version of Windows, it is difficult to use, and the available software (apart from cross-platform packages) is feeble. Things in Windows that you can do with ease in seconds are often only possible to do with a lot of time effort and concentration or are impossible to do. The truth will not be welcomed by Linux fanatics, but the truth is that even Windows Millennium was more powerful and easier to use. I suppose the reason is that because there is comparatively little choice of software, then you have to use badly-designed difficult software that would rapidly fall into disuse and get bad reviews if it were Windows software. Wikipedia should not allow hype. 92.29.126.220 (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not say that it is powerful and easy to use. It says that it strives to be powerful and easy to use. That does not mean it is. It's just a goal stated by the developer, and the article doesn't imply that its true in any case. Lonaowna (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading "advertising": "is both powerful and easy to use" 

message: According to a Mint developer, this article's statement regarding Wikipedia page hits isn't using an accurate metric because the Linux Mint user agent was only used in the past while now the Ubuntu user agent is used: "That’s right, you’re counted as 'Ubuntu' ... the number of “Linux Mint” users you’re seeing there on Wikimedia, isn’t the number of “Linux Mint” users, but the number of “people running Linux Mint 10 or older”. Opencooper (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimedia Traffic Analysis Report 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Linux Mint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140207070933/http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=popularity to http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=popularity
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130402195650/http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major to http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gnu.org/distros/distros.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Linux Mint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161115011353/http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=mint to http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=mint
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The last paragraph of the History section appears to be heavily biased against Linux Mint and the team itself. Wayward One (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lot of unsourced claims there as well. I've tagged them. CodeCat (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. In case it's factual (which I don't know how to verify), I would rewrite it as "Security updates for the Linux kernel are disabled by default on Linux Mint, aiming to prevent compatibility issues, although they can be opted-in by the users." I think it states the same facts without POV problems. Also, I think it would be better in Development, Installation or Features, instead of in History.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not A Superhero (talk • contribs) 20:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I decided to be bold and make the changes. Can anyone review if that's enough to prevent the neutrality tag? (I still kept the citation need tag because I haven't verified the claims, I only reworded them) Not A Superhero (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of recent changes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Linux Mint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715190200/http://www.linuxmint.com/oldreleases.php to https://linuxmint.com/oldreleases.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Linux Mint 19 beta will be released in the first week of June’18 and the final stable Linux Mint 19 release has been planned for the end of June’18"
well, its midseptember 2018 and while reading this i keep wondering whether such recentism belongs to the notabilities (it doesnt) and if it could be kept updated (no its neither possible nor desireable; its unencyclopedical recentism.)
i think the article should describe mint  in generic terms and make notice of events with outstanding effects (like the 2016 breakin and planting of malware mentioned in the article) but not to try to mime the mint latest news update blog - WP neither can, nor should be a constantly updated log of developement plans and work in progress. imho. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: just to clarify: i did come here to be informed about mint, and i found the article useful; my criticism is just to the type of overdetailed information that neither bears a lot of significance nor can be kept truly up to date while becomig regularly outdated.89.134.199.32 (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  releases section 

message: A discussion related to this article is in progress at Template talk:infobox OS#OS family. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion re OS family 

message: In December 2019, 19.3 "Tricia" was distributed in 32-bit versions. 20 "Ulyana" released a couple of months ago is only available in 64-bit. https://www.linuxmint.com/download_all.php Unlike some other Ubuntu based distros which have said that supporting 32-bit is no longer worth the effort for the limited number of users I haven't seen anything to this effect released by the Linux Mint team. Such a note here and a footnote to the table Linux_Mint_version_history would be good if any one finds a source to quote. Waerloeg (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  32-bit support absent in version 20 (onwards?) 

message: Is LMDE 4 still stable (as marked in the "releases" section on the page) even with the release of LMDE 5? Urban Versis 32 (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  LMDE 4 Stable? 

message: is here FYI -- Yae4 (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RSN]] Discussion of a source cited in this article