Talk:Gnus

Neutrality
Can we please get a check on the neutrality here? For example, the references to people using Gnus because Emacs is their 'favourite editor' and 'it probably has more features than any other mail/news reader' are completely POV. I know that Emacs has a lot of feaures and it is the favourite text editor of plenty of people, but people might just use Gnus because they like Emacs, not just because it is 'better than any other e-mail/news reader'! I would really rather not have anyone waste effort on a cruft related WP:AFD when we could just as well clean this up! -- Super Luigi   3  1  20:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I would hate to see this article get deleted, because Gnus is very feature-complete, has been around for quite some time, and is still actively developed and maintained.


 * Some of this stuff is clearly POV, of course, but I think some of it may be true. It's difficult to quantify which mail/news reader has "more features", but be careful not to dismiss Gnus's claim out of hand just because the claim is written poorly. Bigpeteb 15:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gnus. 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/20160304065404/http://git.gnus.org/cgit/gnus.git/log/ to http://git.gnus.org/cgit/gnus.git/log/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161229034342/http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/83096/ to http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/83096/

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) 12:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)