Talk:Usenet/Archive 1

message: Internet archiving of Usenet posts began at DejaNews with a very large, searchable database. 
:Is it really true that DejaNews was the first to archive usenet posts? This doesn't sound right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusadeonilliteracy (talk • contribs) 20:34, August 9, 2003 (UTC)
::It's not, many other sites did it before, but dejanews was the first to do it for all newsgroups for a long time. --Marco d'Itri 22:21, September 8, 2003 (UTC)
::: Why is Google's usenet archive so goddamn incomplete? 
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.simpsons/browse_thread/thread/32b1e88081bc353f/ea6ef99c36dd2b11?q=google+groups&rnum=1#ea6ef99c36dd2b11
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.simpsons/browse_thread/thread/5e01a33a79053231/a9bf14751deb56cf?q=google+groups&rnum=3#a9bf14751deb56cf
71.81.49.37 06:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dejanews Archiving 

message: Hello World:-)
I have two questions:
#Not to belonging to Big8 categories are suitable topics on this article?
#If so, has Wikipedia (at least wiki-en) any related articles? (I coundn't find such kinds.)
 
I'm not so active in Big8 but in fj.* and japan.*. There has been a steady discussion in both categories Are we a part of USENET or not?. Majority claims no, because these category is not under the administratve standard (such as CFD-RFV procedure). On the other hand in ja.wiki Netnews article is linked to Usenet.
Waiting your comments, Cheers. --KIZU 07:51, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Usenet? 

message: I've chopped out a number of for-fee Usenet providers that have accumulated in the external links section, in part because some were added by those companies (making them blatant advertising) and in part because they violate NPOV (we're never likely to have every last one of them listed, and Wikipedia has no place playing favorites in a list like this). --iMb~Meow 04:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snipped some spam 

message: Both "Usenet" and "USENET" are used through the article. Is one "more correct" than the other? I think we should identify both in the article's opening and then use one throughout the article. -- J44xm 18:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
:Having been around Usenet since 1981 (even quoted on Dejagoogle's page for early articles), I believe it was introduced as "Usenet".  I don't recall anyone all-capping it until ARPANET started being the alternative connection. --Randal L. Schwartz 22:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usenet v. USENET 

message: The link to "USENET - A General Access UNIX® Network" mentioned in the References doesn't work. Is there any mirror? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.253.251.64 (talk) 14:12, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
: I've changed the reference to point at the A News tarball.  That's not as easy to work with, but at least it's a live link. --iMeowbot~Meow 16:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: While dredging for info on another matter (see Talk:History of the Internet), I ran across what seems like it might be a useful source of info for this page, so I'm noting it here for y'all; it's a talk (with copious slides with much data) entitled What is USENET? What is NNNT? or Where did all my disk space go?, by Gene Spafford. It is reprinted in the Proceedings of the 11th IETF, January '89, and is available (as part of a huge PDF file of the entire Proceedings) in the IETF Proceedings archive (two clicks from the IETF home page). Noel (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History resource

message: Today, Usenet has lost importance compared to mailing lists and weblogs.
How was this objectively assessed? 71.131.196.204 05:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it has been. Maybe this should be POV zaped. --Barberio 15:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have read, that european isp measure round about 20% of the total user traffic goes to usenet (port 119)  Q9a 21:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Usenet as a file sharing network does still see loads of activity.  It's Usenet as a discussion medium that has been fading away. People who used Usenet back when it was the überBBS will tend to see it as dying or dead today, while file traders will have a rather different perspective. --iMb~Meow 00:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usenet's lost importance 

message: At the ref desk someone said they read the article, but still had some questions. Maybe a hint for some improvement? (don't know, haven't read the article yet). DirkvdM 10:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref desk question 

message: Hello. I wrote an article about a related topic, Google Groups. As a new Wikipedia writer, I would appreciate any feedback on my article. Please help me by posting your feedback at the Wikipedia:Article Feedback Desk. If you wrote an article and are seeking feedback on it, please post your article at the Article Feedback Desk as well. If you could suggest better ways for me to seek feedback on my article, do leave a note at my talk page.  --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seeking feedback on [[Google Groups]] article

message: Why he is not mentioned there?His persistent trolling for years is something that needs to be documented —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.204.147.108 (talk • contribs) 14:24, April 29, 2006 (UTC)
: He might be of some interest in one of the articles about Google or copyright, but even then it's not clear because the outcome of his pro se litigation was no change. C'mon, he's no Archie Pu :) --iMeowbot~Meow 16:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ray Gordon Parker 

message: What item can be used to identify a usenet account when the account username is changed? -- 209.216.92.232 00:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends very much on the posting server. Some servers will include a unique hash or IP address in one of the Path:, X-trace:, or NNTP-Posting-Host: headers. Others will not transmit that information, keeping track only in their internal logs.  Still other servers don't track individual users at all. --iMb~Meow 01:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  newsgroup ID 

message: Is there any reason to keep this? It really does appear to be no more than a few paragraphs of wild speculation, and unreferenced wild speculation at that. It looks like a leftover from Wikipedia's early days when standards were much looser.--iMeowbot~Meow 15:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one called dibs so I took it out.  here is the diff in case anyone wants to try to use it as part of a referenced replacement in the future. --iMeowbot~Meow 00:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sociological implications" section -- kill it dead? 

message: The Introduction paragraph and the first paragraph of the section "Introduction" are rather redundant. Anyone else agree? GofG |||  Contribs 04:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction vs. "Introduction" 

message: Can a description of NZBs be included somewhere in the article (binaries section?). NZBs have greatly increased the ease of obtaining binary files over usenet and has brought usenet to many new people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Triedandtested (talk • contribs) 03:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NZBs