User talk:Apotheon

deleted a bunch of outdated nonsense about how deleting something is okay if it's not a GNU project because, evidently, only GNU projects (and probably applications that run on MS Windows) are "notable"

=Editing the libre page=

Hi Apotheon,

Thanks for editing the libre draft on my sandbox. I'm hoping to share it around a few libre communities I'm involved in and hopefully I'll be able to add it to Wikipedia within a few weeks. --Sanglorian (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad to help. I figured worst-case scenario was that you wouldn't like it and could revert my edits.  I hope the project works out well. - Apotheon (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyfree
Also see the recent changes to the template (argued about over the summer, but no clear result). Even if re-added to the page, this template parameter would no longer have any effect. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. I did an "undo" on Don Cuan's vandalism of the infobox template page, and I see the reappearance of the copyfree part of license pages on which I've reverted his further vandalism.  Is there something I'm missing? - Apotheon (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * My main problem is that you added the line to the template (as well as most early mentions of the term) despite having a pretty close connection with . To be more precise, you are the registrant of the domain and appear to be one of the forerunners of your initiative, if not the coiner of the term. Whatever your exact involvement, this is a clear conflict of interest. Therefore, what you call vandalism was more like trying to close a lid for me (and also a gamble on how you'd react). The term has next to nothing establishing its notability, to my knowledge isn't used by any major distribution or organization (there are a fee hits on the FreeBSD site, but mostly mailing lists, and those mostly because it's in someone's sig). Even if it didn't completely fail notability guidelines, putting it into the infobox means giving it undue weight. Only because your label mostly overlaps with what has traditionally been called permissive free software licences doesn't mean that "copyfree" is a widely accepted definition. Don Cuan (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Your main problem is probably something else, but the matter has been raised twice already without anyone providing any meaningful argument against inclusion. In both cases, there were at least as many participants arguing for inclusion as for exclusion.  Maybe you should go make friends with the other guys who think they know all there is to know about it and ignore the fact they can't argue their way out of a paper bag and just start a might-makes-right cabal so you can be highly organized and outnumber opposition more effectively in small fracases in the future.  By the way, a reasonable, polite, good citizen of Wikipedia would have raised discussion in a talk page rather than going on a deletion/vandalism rampage, you asshole -- and the "mostly overlaps" is a shit-ton better than the "pretty much perfectly overlaps" of the Free Software Definition, Debian Free Software Guidelines, and Open Source Definition, so maybe you should start deleting one of those from Wikipedia as well.  God, what an asinine day this has been. - Apotheon (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way, your complete ignorance of the matter's history and obvious bias are showing, Don. - Apotheon (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, what dirty words! I think I feel offended now! I don't care who those "other guys" are you want me to be friends with, I just noticed how it was mostly you and a few others who reverted their edits and pushed for inclusion. And then I used whois and things got a bit clearer. Maybe you should shed some light on your apparent conflict of interest instead of throwing around heavy-handed remarks. And while your at it, you could provide evidence of my bias (Resort to userboxes if you want to make me laugh). Don Cuan (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in your flamewar. I said what I had to say.  Enjoy. - Apotheon (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's been a pleasure. Have a nice day. :) Don Cuan (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Malicious intent
Unfortunately, I did not see the candid mention of my name on your user page until now. I almost feel honored that you think I deserve such a special place ❤. Just saying, if you think you can pillory me with that stuff, you should know it might have the adverse effect. I also find it pretty low to take this outside the talk page, but I should have expected no less after the passive-aggressive-seeming edit summaries for your replies here.Don Cuan (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's called "descriptive", not "passive-aggressive". Rather, "passive-aggressive" is the way you handle your petty little edit wars. - Apotheon (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)