Talk:HP 48 series

message: I left the following message for the anon user that added material recently, but I'm not sure he or she will ever get the message: "Thank you for your additions to the HP-48 series article. It seems that your are claiming you have the copywrite to the material in the book you added as a reference. Are you the author, M. Mastracci? Wikipedia needs to be very careful to avoid copyright infringement, and substantiating that you do in fact hold the copyright to the work is important. Please respond on my talk page. Thank you." - Taxman 14:48, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
In the edit summary she/he claimed to own the copyright, but anyone can claim that. I think we need to treat this as a copyvio. Anyone have any thoughts? - Taxman 22:12, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
:I think that someone should try to contact Mastracci to confirm.  His current email appears to be mastrac - at - canada - dot - com.  --ChrisRuvolo 02:48, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those changes were added by me (Matthew Mastracci).  I'll update the documentation that I'm referencing here with a new license (at least for the parts of the document that have my copyright), but someone can email me (at mmastrac - at - canada dot com) in the meantime to verify.  -- Matt Mastracci (no wikipedia user)
I have a Wiki name now.  I'll make the rest of my edits with this user.  Thanks for the grammer checking - this is my first non-trivial addition to Wikipedia.  --MatthewMastracci 02:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible copyvio?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on HP 48 series. 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/20061113202408/http://x48.berlios.de/ to http://x48.berlios.de/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Per WP:BRD, I've re-reverted the paragraph on CHIP-48 as non-notable and uncited. Specifically:
*This is an article about the HP-48, not some hobbyists' project on the HP-48.
*It doesn't pass WP:GNG - No significant coverage of the subject. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we cover what others say, we don't document ourselves.
*The citations are not WP:RS. That is, they are from the author writing about his own project. See WP:PRIMARY.
Tarl N. (discuss) 16:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm OK. Well, then maybe you should remove the section on the CHIP-8 page that also mentions the CHIP-48 and S-CHIP then, as that apparently also is "some hobbyists' project on CHIP-8"? And I still claim that the CHIP-48 and S-CHIP projects was significant enough in the programming community of the HP-48 to be mentioned. Possibly I could write it under their own heading like "Hobbyist's projects" or whatever, if that's better. Also, about "we don't document ourselves", I would like to argue that I didn't make stuff up, I concluded what was written at my sources. About the fact that I apparently cannot use what the authors themselves wrote on their project I guess I will try and find other sources that isn't directly from the author but I am not sure I will succeed. If you read WP:PRIMARY I am pretty sure that my citation in the first version of the text (https://github.com/Chromatophore/HP48-Superchip) could count as a secondary source, as it is the owner of that GitHub repos own interpretation of the text that the authors of the programs had written rather than the authors own text. But when I had that source you said that it was invalid, could you please elaborate as on why it is an invalid source? Gositi (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  See WP:QUESTIONABLE , part of WP:RS.  Whether it's the author himself putting stuff on github, or someone else collecting sources and putting them on github, it's an individual with no editorial oversight writing what he wants. In a reliable source, an author's writings are subject to review by an editorial board, which itself has a reputation for reliability. In essence, we trust organizations more than individuals. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

text: I forgot to address the issue of notability. You might have (for example) an article where someone documents an article about a fantastic ride they took in a Dodge Charger. Maybe the author was notable and the story got some attention. But whether that drive was notable or not, it would not be notable for an article about the car model Dodge Charger. Whether CHIP-8 is notable or not, and whether CHIP-48 deserves mention in the CHIP-8 article, it doesn't deserve a mention here. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I can agree that the GitHub source is questionable. But on the notability issue, I think that the authors ride would have it's place in the "Rides" section of the article of the car - if there was one. That section could be compared to the "Programming" section in this article. But anyways, I guess that if I can't find any sources I still can't include the CHIP-48 and S-CHIP sections in this article, so it doesn't really matter anymore. Gositi (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  CHIP-48