User talk:Newmanbe/Archives/2006/01
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Newmanbe, for the period 2006 (index). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Gopher
Dude! Gopher is not hypertext! It's a hierarchical menu system that violates a lot of the principles of hypertext as articulated by Nelson and Engelbart. For example, hypertext favors direct point-to-point linking between documents over hierarchical navigation. In that respect, Gopher has many of the faults of the early videotex systems, which were also heavily hierarchical. Please go read some books by Nelson starting with Computer Lib/Dream Machines. --Coolcaesar 20:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Umm...if gopher isn't hypertext, how can it violate "a lot of the principles of hypertext"? Gopher actually focuses on content, not format, which is a major failing of hypertext. Point-to-point linking with hypertext is fine, until one of the points cease to exist -- then you've got a link to nowhere. (Another major failing of hypertext.) (User:24.1.211.91)
Although Gopher is interesting technology whose full potential was never fully explored, and I respect newmanbe's contribution to the community, I don't think of Gopher as Hypertext. (However, I also fail to see where newmanbe claims that it is.) The two are related technologies with different strengths and weaknesses relative to each other. --David Meyer 19:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see hypertext as Nelson and Engelbart's do. I see it as as using text to move around (which just made me think that HTML is really hypermedia). And if we use 1913 Webster, the prefix hyper means above. So Gopher is above text (it is structured). ;) Benn Newman 00:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Plan 9
A careful search of [1] finds no "nightly builds", ISOs, or other releases after about June 2003, except for changes in the source tree. Do you know were these are? -- Gnetwerker 23:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[2] The name of the image is dated (you have to actually download it). I think you are confusing editions with releases (and sometimes they are interchanged to make things difficult). In the history of Plan 9 from Bell Labs, major releases are called editions. An new edition is not an everyday thing; they are big things with big changes (of some sort or another). Benn Newman 23:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. However, when I download it, I just get the filename, with no date information. Also, the release notes listed on the page are dated June 2003, and have no later information. Normally one sees release notes or a changelog for new releases -- Plan9 does not seem to have these. -- Gnetwerker 02:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)\
- It is in the name of the file system (you, for example, can see it with Mac OS X when you mount it; perhaps not the best place to put the date). It would less ambgious to call that the document you refered to as the Fourth edition release notes. Remember, editions are major releases. See also the Other Access section in Staying up to Date. You are right, the minor releases do not have release notes and there is not one change log file. The patch/applied directory in sources [3] has the patches applied, you can use the dates to figure out when it was changed (mounting it using 9P and using ls -t). You can also use replica log to be used to find any changes. One more thing, it is Plan 9, not Plan9. Benn Newman 14:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Complain to russ or 9fans, I already did a hundred times but if no else complains it wont get fixed. -Lost Goblin 16:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and there was a changelog for a while, until russ got tired of keeping it updated and claimed no one wanted it, again, complain to him or it wont happen. -Lost Goblin 16:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 20:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Except for (most of) the stubs, those are articles I would never want to edit. Benn Newman 21:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I note that the project page mentioned above has no listed members. This is not good, because a lack of listed members is one of the general criteria for deletion. Please consider adding a section for member names, and possibly your own name, to prevent anyone from incorrectly nominating it for deletion. Thank you. Badbilltucker 18:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- See Category:Wikiproject Plan 9 participants. Benn Newman 20:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Also see the second sentance of Wikipedia:WikiProject Plan 9. Benn Newman 20:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Sir
Sir, if you would please read the fourth line of Text of the Design Science License, you will read "Copyright © 1999-2001 Michael Stutz Verbatim copying of this document is permitted, in any medium." This is a universl permission given by Michael Stutz and is still valid in 2006. Please think before you delete articles, thank you. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- The operative word is verbatim. That is not compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License. As a source text, it is not allowed on Wikipedia. As a non-public domain/non-GFDL compatible work, it is not allowed at Wikisource. --Benn Newman 23:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I find the removal questionable since it was not discussed through a RFD. I also find problematic the milimeter enforcement of rules. The source text did fit in with the spirit and intention of wikipedia and posed no risk to wikipedia in any legal aspect. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 14:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Copyright violations do not go through articles for deletions. Source texts do not fit the intention of Wikipedia. As a copyright work that does not allow derivatives et cetera, it does not meet the spirit of any of the Wikimedia projects. It is not about whether the Wikimedia Foundation will likely get sued, it about "the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content." [ meta:home ] This work is not free. --Benn Newman 14:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
However, we had permission from the copyright holder to use the source text. You also neglected starting a discussion about what you saw as a copyright problem in the talk page.--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 17:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- The license was included with it does not make it compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License. If it is licensed under something that makes it GFDL-compatible, feel free to add the work to Wikisource. Permission to use it on Wikipedia is not good enough. --Benn Newman 18:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- So permission to distribute freely in all mediums is not compatible with the GNU FDL? --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 18:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Nope, (excluding "fun" stuff like invariant sections) the GFDL requires that derivatives be allowed. You are not allowed to do that with the text of the Design Science License (or with the text of the GFDL, for that matter). Right above the edit summary entry, there is a link to the GFDL; I suggest you read it. ;) --Benn Newman 00:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Newanbe, Please discuss placing the copyvio tag on the talk page of the article first so that the issue may be discussed first (there, not here) before disrupting the Wikipedia. The a.m. article is an important piece of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, which survived FA(C), peer review, and was TFA before the whole world on 23 October without any such objection. The quoted text is public domain. Istvan 16:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- The translation must be in the public domain too. BTW the text is too short to be in the Wikisource. I see now reason why it should be deleted. I remove the tag, please contact me if you disagree. Thank your for your appreciation. NCurse work 18:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- It is automaticly. Translations of public domain works are automaticly in the public domain. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 19:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Nope again. Read a summary at the public domain help page. --Benn Newman 00:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Read creative works law. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 11:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
AfD Nomination: Pakistani Proverbs
I've nominated the article Pakistani Proverbs for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. I am notifying you because of your previous involvement in the editing of this article. I do not feel that Pakistani Proverbs satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistani Proverbs. Don't forget to add four tildes (Kathy A. 18:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Pakistani Proverbs during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. Kathy A. 18:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Speeches of Weber
Hi Newmanbe,
I am the translator of the speech. It is probably not the best translation possible. I am Dutch and i translated a German text into English. If it is good enough for Wikisource, then you may use it for it.--Daanschr 13:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. --Benn Newman 21:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Random acts of deletion
In the case of the letter to the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment from the Mayor of Tall'Afar, you posted your reason for deletion as (paraphrasing) "unknown translator, and probably copyright problems, too." Do you research before deleting articles?
The letter in question was released to the Regiment as-is. As it was intended for general release to the members of the Regiment and to bring the attention of the world to the contributions of the Regiment to Mayor Najim's city of Tall'Afar, it was released directly from the office of the Mayor in English. The question of a translator is not valid.
As to the question of copyright issues, the letter was released generally by the office of the Mayor of Tall'Afar, was approved by the U.S. DoD for general release, and subsequently quoted in such publications as the Washington Times of Washington, D.C. and The Stars and Stripes (a U.S. Military newspaper), and in a news release from Senator Lary Craig. Mayor Najim also read the letter (through a translator) during an address at the 3d ACR homecoming ceremony.
I hope that this allays your concerns regarding this letter.
Isnotnull 17:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- I did not delete anything — it was just blanked. The translation issue definitely is clear (there was none, it was originally written in English). I cannot say that I am familiar with the copyright of Iraq, but being approved by the United States Department of Defense and being quoted by various groups (fair use, which does not apply to Wikisource, where the document should be) does not really mean anything. This could, however, possibly be added to Wikisource as a manifesto. The infringement (not to say that it was in this case) of others does not legitimise any other infringement. --Benn Newman 22:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Re.
I figured. It's okay. I took care of it. K1Bond007 03:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Lake Isle
I'm fine with that. When I made that article I was still fairly unaware of Wikisource was at the time of writing it, so aye —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.21.205.189 (talk) 19 December 2006, 06:01:02 (UTC)
Your edit to Chris Sacca
Your recent edit to Chris Sacca (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 16:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)