Talk:The Major BBS

message: Worldgroup redirects to here, but there's no mention of it.  I know they're related, but I don't know the history.  The article needs improvement on this point. --Short Circuit 05:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Worldgroup is, as far as I know, just a continuation of Major BBS. I think one of the big changes was internet connectivity (WG had TCP/IP, FTP, FINGER, SMTP/POP3, etc). I've been reluctant to try expanding the article to include this though as the only "source" I have is my head. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 05:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I might be able to dig up the manuals...my family used to run such a BBS. --Short Circuit 14:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Worldgroup 1 was the successor to Major BBS 6.  G'comm was very adamant with people that it was a new product, even though it seemed to be just MBBS 6.2x with the name changed and a couple more add-on modules included standard, if I recall.  It definitely wasn't anywhere near the change that MBBS 5.x to 6.x was.  It appeared (to the staff on our BBS) that the main reason for this weird insistence was so that Galacticomm could claim that sysops who had paid for the rights to perpetual new version MBBS source code didn't have the right to this "new" product.  Galacticomm's overall behavior from then on seemed to be more of that sort of thing, in my opinion.  If I remember, MBBS 6 had two competing Internet suites: one from Vircom and one from Galacticomm.  I think that, with Worldgroup, Galacticomm picked one (can't remember which) and included it in the standard package. --Closeapple 02:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The main difference between MBBS and WG was the graphical Windows client. MBBS had no client-side software (I was selling a text based client software as an addon), this was added in WG. Unfortunately this qualifies as original research but IMHO could be sourced from "The MBBS Restoration Project" Svobodat (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Worldgroup

message: High Society is the official site of the majority of Worldgroup add-ons.  If you want to remove the link, remove them all then.
:Please read WP:FISHING. RJASE1  Talk  17:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Self Promotion Links" 

message: Most of the edit war in the last month would have been avoided if the editors on each side would have read Wikipedia:Verifiability.  I suggest the editors here read it now, since this whole article is uncited and anything questionable can be removed per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence.  Some specific points relevant to recent editing:
* First item: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."  If you can't point to where it has already been verified in public, don't add it to Wikipedia.
* "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."
* "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources."  Notice "reliable, third-party, published": that means someone who isn't part of the subject being researched, and already has a reputation for factual works.
Also read WP:NOR, especially WP:PSTS - secondary sources are appropriate for Wikipedia; "primary sources" such as a subject's own website, or documents unable to be specifically found based on the citation, are not appropriate.  In short: Unless the proof has been cited specifically so that anyone can find it if they want to, it isn't appropriate for a Wikipedia article, no matter how sure the editor is.  --Closeapple 10:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Closeapple, the people vandalizing this article don't care about verifiability OR truth.  There are two groups here - one a group of pirates who released a huge archive of pirated material claiming it's "abandonware", which is not even a legal term, and not accurate since The Major BBS is now called Worldgroup and still exists.  The other group is a group who stole the assets of Galacticomm during the time when it was shutting down and getting repossessed.  This group has been committing felony fraud for several years, collecting money for what is essentially pirated software.  As such, I've done my best to remove these postings, but they simply keep putting them back.  It's one of the negatives about Wikipedia.  --forceten 13:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but at least now it's been spelled out explicitly that uncitable information is a Wikipedia violation, and that there are other editors paying attention, not just readers.  I guess we'll see if it settles down now.  --Closeapple 02:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite reliable third party sources!