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! --SuperLuigi 31 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)