Talk:Bangalore Linux User Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
This article is maintained by the Karnataka workgroup.
More information about this article...

This is the discussion page for the article on the Bangalore Linux User group.

Contents

[edit] Cleanup

This page may need some amount of cleanup. It does not mention anything about how the BLUG was a registered not-for-profit organisation and how the society was disbanded and created into one without any society whatsoever.

It doesn't mention any names as to who were the people involved in the BLUG and how they contributed.

I think this article is not entirely neutral.

Tazo, please tag your comments with your name. This article is as neutral as the Linux India article. It offers no opinions, and reports only verifiable facts. If you believe that this article (as well as the Linux India article) need some addition of "facts", by all means go ahead and add them. Just be prepared to defend them, and be prepared to deal with other facts, if they are revealed. And be careful about adding POV "facts". Achitnis 15:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links/Verification for the 4th Para

Can somebody put in links to the para where it says that members of the group decided to start SIGs etc.,

Thanks . Sid 10:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Done - Achitnis 19:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Additionally, the link to Linux Asia is broken. The link doesn't seem to be available in archive.org too.Sid 10:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Added a google cache link for now, until Linux Asia gets its domains up and running again. Achitnis 19:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status

The present status of the society is not known.

Make up your minds, guys - if you don't know, what's all the fuss about the "closure" about? :) Please stick to known, verifiable facts. Am removing line until you can decide what you know or don't know.

[edit] Status Response

  • I have reverted back the society edit. If there is any contest, please provide verifiable proof for the same and remove the edit.
  • Please tag your comments with your name.

Thanks. Sid 14:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • "Verifiable proof" for *your* POV??? :) Please go and read the "Original Research" Wikipedia rule.
  • Please inform your fellow campaigners to tag their entries as well.

Achitnis 17:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think its a POV. The blug certainly was a registered society albeit a broken one. [This message] to the non-technical list asks questions about the conformance and the owner / moderator of the list [killed the thread]. Since then the notice on the website has been removed. I'm not sure if this was done so that the statement of accounts need not be disclosed or due to any other reason that is being floated around, but the fact remains that the blug website doesn't claim anymore that it isn't a society. So "The present status of the society is not known." sounds pretty fair to me. Sintihca 16:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It's POV, as is your accusation of my "killing the thread". You have no proof for such an action - in fact proved quite the opposite with your post above by linking to my continuing the thread. The archives also prove that the discussion continued for several days. Please stick to verifiable facts in this discussion.
The statement of accounts - the audited accounts were printed and distributed to the thousands of delegates at LB/2003, even though that was legally not necessary - only society members can demand to see accounts. We published them anyway. How about that for "disclosure"??
As for the status of the society statement - sorry, verifiable proof, not speculation, please. The statment, as presented, represents speculation.
BTW - many thanks for linking to that message of mine, because if anyone was really interested, that message has some solid information for people. Had *I* linked to it, it would not have been admissable, since I cannot link to my own material for evidence. But when my *detractors* link to it, it is admissable. :)
Achitnis 20:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)