Talk:TempleOS

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

1. Remove reference 7 (unreliable YouTube video). The information was already verified in the next citation (reference 8).
2. Add to lead: (December 15, 1969 – August 2018)^[1]
3. "Davis describes" => "Davis described"
4. "Davis proclaimed" => "Davis was a former atheist who proclaimed" (sourced below, was reverted)
5. Add <ref name="VICE"/> ref after "single audio voice."

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Chrissymad and Smuckola: I would like to see the reasons for removing a short biography section on Terry A. Davis. The appeals to WP:N and WP:RS are not valid: WP:N deals with notability of an article, not its content, see WP:NNC, and the source (biography from Vice (magazine)) is reliable enough to be used elsewhere in this article. --M5 (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@M5: I did not revert your changes, but I believe WP:N was mistakenly used as justification when it should have been WP:OFFTOPIC. The article should be primarily related to the operating system, not its creator. Information on the creator can be given if it directly pertains to the subject of the article. For example, Davis's schizophrenia is mentioned in the article, but in doing so it gives background on the subject. From looking at one fact that you contributed, for example, the fact that Davis has an engineering degree is irrelevant for the topic of TempleOS. Derek M (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Featured article NeXT has a section NeXT#Background which starts with description of Steve Jobs' work in SuperMicro division and success of its products. Another bio section from featured article: Halkett boat#Peter Halkett tells about an ancestry, interests and career of the inventor. So the inclusion of the short section with relevant parts of the founder/inventor/developer biography is totally appropriate by the standards of the featured content. And engineering degree of Davis is as relevant for the topic of TempleOS as Steve Jobs' work in SuperMicro to NeXT or Peter Halkett's ancestry and Navy rank to Halkett boat. --M5 (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Well you make a strong argument, especially in my opinion the Halkett boat example. I would be in favor of your new section (not your other changes), and in fact, I think we could add even more to that section once the other users you pinged responded and once we find the relevant citations, such as: 1. Davis frequently used a program on TempleOS to generate random parts of the bible, and published these lists of words on his website and on Facebook. 2. He eventually stopped taking his medication and wandered around like a "monk" (his words if I remember correctly) and uploaded videos where he rants about finding a location with good "energy." 3. On this Talk page there is an arrest warrant for him. 4. He went missing at one point and his family posted online asking for help. Derek M (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is totally wrong. It is preposterous to take this article which is WP:N only by the scantest of all possible standards and has absolutely no chance at being a featured article, and compare it to a featured article about some of the most notable and world-changing stuff ever to exist. And to compare the background of Steve Jobs to this guy. If it wasn't for that preposterousness, there would still be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which is not at all how we gauge encyclopedic merit. If you want to say that it doesn't trip WP:NNC then I'll cite the link mentioned within the WP:NNC section, which is WP:UNDUE. A whole biography section is undue weight, because all the relevant stuff is already in the article — and very succinctly and poignantly interspersed. The guy's biography does not in any way connect to the notability of the article's subject. As @Derek M: so eloquently said above, it is also WP:OFFTOPIC and all his given reasons serve to demonstrate why it would be WP:UNDUE. But then in a later comment, Derek M goes off the rails and contradicts everything he already said with "once we find the relevant citations". No I'm sorry but you won't find the relevant citations as the only citations relevant to an encyclopedia are from a WP:RS whereas you're talking about facebook and other self-published sources WP:SPS. And that's aside from the fact that the content you're talking about is WP:TRIVIA to begin with. I don't mean to take a contrarian or negative tone but everything stated in the last two comments here flies in the face of encyclopedic merit and twists all requisite standards into a WP:POV or WP:FANCRUFT (see wikia.com). And you guys seriously know better. :) — Smuckola(talk) 08:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

To WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS claims I'd say that WP:Some stuff exists for a reason, and the featured content in most cases reflects community consensus. On WP:UNDUE claims and comparison to Jobs: if Peter Halkett section in boat article or Jobs background section in NeXT have due weight in the respective articles, then Terry Davis section would have a due weight in this article because: 1) Davis has the same relation to his creation as Hackett and Jobs to theirs and 2) the relevance of Davis' biography details to the TempleOS is supported by reliable sources: both Vice and TechRepublic pieces (which are two main sources for most of this article) show the relation of Terry Davis' biography and personality to the OS he's created ("Neutrality requires that each article... fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" WP:DUE). --M5 (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You've twisted my argument from using his Facebook posts as evidence of what Davis used the OS for into an "off the rails" argument that Facebook is a reliable source. It is quite simply untrue that I made that point. I mentioned Facebook to use as a citation for him publishing lists of words from the bible, which is one of the main things he used the OS for. If you would actually read WP:SPS you would see that it is perfectly acceptable to use Davis's self-published Facebook posts as a source for this as proof that these posts happened so long as 1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. - It's not. 2. It does not involve the claims about third parties - They don't, they're just lists of words. 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source - It is undoubtedly relevant to the article what the operating system was even used for. 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity - There isn't. 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources - Nope, since it would be just one sentence in the article. It would seem that the majority of your argument is that this bio section would present a non-neutral POV. However according to the Neutrality FAQ, neutrality should not be used as justification for outright removal of content, unlike more "serious" offenses like verifiability or reliability, and instead changes should be discussed in the Talk page on how to adjust the content's POV. So again, I disagree with your revert on POV grounds. And before making comments that we should know better, I'd like to remind you that some people can actually be new to this site and are still learning the relevant policies, which is difficult when much of what you link to as justification actually disagrees with your opinion upon closer reading. Maybe they actually do support your argument, but I personally did not understand the majority of your points, which looked like a policy bomb to me. I think you've successfully WP:POV_railroaded me out of this discussion, so I'll take my leave. I'll think twice next time before poking my head into a revert that was none of my business. Derek M (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• So far no reasons for the urgency of removing the section were given, but there are some valid concerns for discussion. Therefore I'm going to reinstate the section and put a cleanup tag on it, until the concerns are resolved, as recommended by WP:PRESERVE. --M5 (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

As no consensus has been reached, M5 I'd advise you revert your actions as it goes against what most are saying here and you're likely to wind up at 3RR. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

No consensus has been reached for removing the section either. Reinstalling some content with a cleanup tag is a non-reverting compromise, not a revert, and it invites other users to contribute to the discussion. As for "most are saying" argument, User:Derek M supported reinstalling (with some conditions), User:Smuckola provided some arguments against the section, both were constructive. But your most constructive contribution to the discussion so far is your "Rst good" comment to otherwise silent revert. --M5 (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Should the HOPPY operating system be mentioned in the former names? I've looked through a bit of the source and though not many, there's still a few lines of code that remain in TempleOS.

https://web.archive.org/web/20041017164256/http://www.simstructure.hare.com/OS.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20040704040043/http://www.simstructure.hare.com/HOPPY.ZIP 73.180.50.41 (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe not as an alternative name, but an origin? Not able to boot the IMG though. 78.62.128.217 (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Although pretty different from TempleOS, the source code looks similar to J. I'm not really able to make any comparisons though since I can't get either past initial boot. I managed to start HOPPY in VirtualBox just by adding the .IMG to the first floppy drive. After starting it, I get to the point where it says "Drive A: Floppy and Drive B Floppy (Unsupported)". 73.180.50.41 (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: Thanks for improving. One thing that's on my TODO list, in case you'd like to also help, is that the lead may be too long or include too many details (some material duplication between the lead and body rather than a proper summary of the body). Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 17:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe the lead is too long. There aren't any details I would remove other than maybe the "smartest programmer" remark and replacing the fan comments with something more general. The length is appropriate for the size of the article and mentions everything interesting, extraordinary, and notable about the subject (except for the expressions of racism that were inextricable to Davis' writings and personality).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Terry Davis 2000 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The fact is there are major problems with this Operating System:

1. Nobody, except the creator, Terry Davis, writes in "Holy C." 2. There has NEVER been a single application written outside the original Operating System itself. No modern program can ever be added! 3. An obvious weakness is that this O/S cannot even access the Internet. 4. There is nothing that I have ever seen that indicates that this Operating System can print output to a Printer. 5. There is really no reason to write this Operating System for a 64 Bit Only Computer, it will never need more than 4 GB of RAM.

The article does not talk about the obvious question, "Why would someone put this as their main O/S on a computer?" It may be fun to play with inside the VB, not as a main O/S. For example regarding functionality of TempleOS: The functionality of my first computer 386sx 1 MB RAM 40 MB HD DOS 3.3 Win 3.1 Okidata 400 Laser, Megaword, a Bible Software, WordStar, First Choice, Excel 5.0, Word 2.0, Wolfenstein, (beats Frankie), is more Functional for a Business or Home User than TempleOS will ever be. User:Easeltine|Easeltine]] (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Easeltine (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

And? This isn't a general discussion page about TempleOS. 2601:204:E780:D3B0:59B9:A458:6BAA:810B (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of TempleOS is stated in the lead, an "operating system designed to be the Third Temple prophesied in the Bible". I don't know what's so hard to comprehend about this. JAYFAX (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

To reflect on what was possibly an attempt to make a dot point, C+ is rarely used as a programming language/shell simply because we already have tools that do the same thing, tools that are very well established and have been in constant use since the computational Paleolithic era. People are also kinda squeamish about writing code in a language written by a solitary schizophrenic - who knows what he put in there?

To answer to your "obvious question", TempleOS is not for using as your main OS, just as Wikipedia isn't a "general discussion page" (thank you, fellow Unknown IP Address). It's more of an inspiration to people that the AppleII-age idea of one lone (mentally unstable alt-rightist) programmer creating their own system from scratch is not dead in the age of GitHub (which I cannot function as a programmer without).

As much as I fear programming languages with a C at the front, I quite admire Terry. He was one of the last "real" programmers, who built entire systems from scratch. Terry Davis, a lone Jesus nut, still managed to make a surprisingly complete and streamlined lightweight OS without no pharmaceutical aid apart from off-brand Diet Coke and his schizo meds (when he remembered to take them).

Sniff.

What a complete ^{[citation needed]}. 159.196.158.42 (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Why there is a a HolyC logo on this Article? But where is the source of this image. I don't think it's an 'Official' nor Fanart. Flankbed (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion as a trademark violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

See below. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• HolyC Logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• HolyC Logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Links to merchandise have been added to the page. The seller is seedy and may be using this article to promote their business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8150:9CE0:E89F:6189:6432:E457 (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Lots of new unsigned edits / posts / talk stuff. If it dies down shouldn't be an issue but may want to nominate it at some point before people sperg out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiskeyFoxtrot7 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

After I reverted them, an IP added back some information which were sourced from the Fredrik Knudsen channel. @Johnuniq: had already reverted those information at a time where they were not sourced. @Dgpop: corrected the style of those information.
I am not really aware of the situation, so I ask for confirmation: is the Fredrik Knudsen channel considered reliable? And, are we facing an IP POV pusher? Veverve (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

No, YouTube is not a reliable source and Fredrik Knudsen is not a recognized authority on anything. I haven't examined the "mostly favorable reviews" claim but the IP should understand that there is no need to balance that because the situation is obvious—it doesn't need to be shoveled on. Also, the opinions of people with no understanding of programming bare metal are not relevant. For another example, consider Gamergate—try adding the views of random people from the internet there. Johnuniq (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok I will find all of the reliable sources which he has used for his video. You are wrong on every accord Veverve. You have shown no evidence or reference that the original edit is more reliable and if anything that is far more opinionated due to the lack of reference and incorrect information. It was not a well received project and I am simply outlining that TempleOS has objectively no point and the thousands of thousands of people on fourums and reddit reminded him of this on the daily. Your opinion holds no weight. To say that YouTube/Fredrick Knudsen is an unreliable source is also false, I doubt you have actually seen his content and his content is a completely neutral historical look at different events throughout histroy. I will be editing the page again to be factually accurate. If you wish to find references to support that there is indeed a use case and application then fine and THAT IT WAS MOSTLY POSITIVELY RECIEVED, but you will not find any. It was by all means a complete failure and this is the most widely supported opinion (not for no reason either). Gamergate is completely unrelated and makes you seem biased and stupid to mention that :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.188.218.18 (talk • contribs)

Hello IP. No need to be agressive right off the bat. Wikiepedia is not about WP:TRUTH, but about WP:Verifiability.

Why do you feel Fredrick Knudsen is a WP:RS? To me, the channel seems like any amateur video essay/documentary youtube channel. Again, it about being a RS, not being neutral.

I agree the agree that the source given did not say those reviews were mostly positive, and changed the paragraph accordingly. Veverve (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

YouTube is listed as unreliable (with certain exceptions that do not apply in this case) at WP:RSPYT. The point about Gamergate is that a million sources on the internet (including YouTube) say the opposite of what is in the Wikipedia article. Having one YouTube video that disagrees with this article is totally inconsequential. Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

IP, you have added information which cannot be found on the sources you provided. Veverve (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

So give an example as it can all be found on listed source (if you can read) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.235.29 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

85.255.235.29 (talk · contribs) made this edit which introduced:

TempleOS received mixed reviews (Davis was a subject of Trolling due to his narcissism, personality, mental health issues and advertising on unhospitable internet forums)^[1]. He would become easily enraged when people would fairly or unfairly criticise his work and therefore became a target on internet forums and Reddit which would cause him to be banned from multiple sites^[2]. Some of those were more patient with Terry Davis than others but due to the OS having no use case or application (for personal use past playing around/learning basic code or in any industry)^[3], he developed the Operating system largely of his own accord and mental illness ^[4].

That has three references (one of which is repeated):

1. https://tipsmake.com/a-programmer-writes-an-operating-system-to-communicate-with-god-through-computers
2. https://xperimentalhamid.com/os/linux/templeos-best-review-2020/
3. https://thenewstack.io/the-troubled-legacy-of-terry-davis-gods-lonely-programmer/

The first reference does not mention mixed or reviews or trolling or narcissism so it fails to verify the first sentence. Are the other references also inappropriately used? Johnuniq (talk) 10:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: This ref. does not claim he was trolled or became easily enraged, only that "Davis was banned from participating in many Reddit forums or Hackernews because of his schizophrenia and his religious obsession."

This ref. (which does not look like a RS at all, especially when looking at its main page) only has the following information which the IP added to the article: "TempleOS doesn’t really have any practical use, it can mostly be used to learn to program and to play around with. It also won’t work on any modern computers that have a UEFI." It does not state anything about others reviews being more patient with the OS. Veverve (talk) 11:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed these problems as well. Information in an article should always match sources given, and avoid going into what is not covered, even if it's the truth. Eik Corell (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no mention of Terry's career working for Ticketmaster. Why? He clearly is not just a hobbyist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.226.211 (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the Terry A. Davis article. Do you have some proposed wording for this article? —DIYeditor (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure. "Programmer Terry A. Davis (1969–2018) began his career working at Ticketmaster. In 1996 he began experiencing regular manic episodes..." I just think his experience working at Ticketmaster had a much greater influence on the product than his mental health issues. 92.9.226.211 (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @A Cool Username Not In Use: argues the mention TempleOS is the first undeletable operating system in history, because it has been published on the EVMFS, the Ethereum Virtual Machine File System, which is a permissionless undeletable cross-network file system, must be omitted from its article because there aren't either nor about the EVMFS nor about the Ur currently; the Ur here being the user repository, the software catalogue which in particular upgrades and deprecates the AUR, the Arch Linux user repository, as it makes it permissionless and undeletable, as it is hosted on the EVMFS instead of an HTTP server.

The immutable undeletable URI for the TempleOS image file (evmfs://.../temple-os.iso) is inside the temple-os package recipe build (PKGBUILD), which can be accessed either through the Ur application, with a blockchain explorer or on Github so one doesn't necessarily have to install the Ur to verify this particular statement.

So I don't much see the point (I see the irony though) of deleting the undeletability statement because it refers an undocumented entity (the Ur), in particular because the EVMFS link for TempleOS is a valid value for the full work available at property on the Wikidata item for TempleOS.

I have furtherly specified in the statement having been written on the EVMFS as the direct cause for undeletability. I have thought of removing any reference to the Ur but I've thought it would make very little sense because it would have been the same as saying "man has been on the moon" while explicitly willing to omit who has been on the moon because it's supposedly not popular according to the editor.

I suppose I should specify I am the author of the edit, of the file system, of the repository and in the past I've got money from a Wikimedia chapter to write a GNOME application for Wikidata which next version of course will use the EVMFS and not Wikimedia servers to get multimedia and articles from, because the EVMFS is provably more trustable than Wikimedia HTTP servers you know.

I should also specify I have even already written an article about the file system an year ago, it has been deleted, I was told go produce authorative sources talking about the thing and I presented it at Google as well as sending it for inclusion as an Ethereum standard in December, so I guess it may be now time people like A Cool Username Not In Use may go read at the old version of that page for review if the rules of this places weren't so one can't get to read a deleted page, which I honestly think it's barbaric and that's one of the reasons I'm making so to produce a software on which one can have the same features of Wikipedia (and Wikidata) except that people can't provably delete any version of any article and all of this fuss in talk pages can finally be over.

Ogoorcs (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Since you are the author of the project, you need to be aware of Wikipedia's policies on conflict of interest and self promotion, as you were told previously. Without notable, third party sources, the content you've added seems to only serve to promote your project, and I'm struggling to see it's relevance to this article. A Cool Username Not In Use (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2026 (UTC)