Talk:Online creation/Archive 5

vaguely related article name about another topic
Why does Monster (MUD) redirect to here? This seems comparable to having De Lorean DMC-12 redirect to Gull-wing door. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 14:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Now it redirects to an article about the guy who wrote it, so this has apparently been addressed at some point. Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 21:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Isles Copyright Release Date
According to the U.S. copyright office, The Isles OLC was first written October 15, 1993, not 1994. Source: US Copyright Office. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.5.120.85 (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Please provide a link to this information. The only item in the U.S. Copyright Office by you is something called "Coocoo" from 2002.  --Thoric 16:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no link to this information. You must call the office and inquire about TX 6-452-128 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.5.120.85 (talk).
 * That is an incorrect registration number. Try again.  --Thoric 16:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Record: TX 6-452-128, TX0006452128 Issue date: Dec 31, 1993, Date of Registration: Oct 27, 2006 70.5.172.129 03:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How can you register something in 2006 and have an issue date of 1993? --Thoric 03:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The 'registration date' is when the copyright was registered, and the 'issue date' is when the person registering it claims to have issued it. It's a bit confusing because one might assume that the issue date was when it was registered or something... just remember that 'issue' means to 'put out' or 'publish', etc.  The copyright office just accepts registrations, they don't have the resources to investigate the accuracy of claims or to look for plagiarism or anything else that some people might think that they do... that's why it's only $45 to register something.  --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 13:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well then I can hardly see how it could be considered an authoritative source. I could register that a competing product was issued 10 years prior.  --Thoric 16:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, basically they're an authoritative source as to when something was registered and assuming no typos were made in the computer or anything, they're an authoritative source as to when the registering person claims to have published their work... they aren't an authoritative source as to when something was in fact published. That's why people who anticipate a dispute will register something as soon as possible.  If I publish something on Monday, register it on Wednesday, and you copy it and publish it yourself on Thursday, then I can refer to my copyright registration and refer to the copy which I gave the copyright office to hold on file.  The registration date makes it pretty easy for me to show that I wrote mine on Wednesday or earlier, which is enough to show that it predated the copy you published on Thursday.  If you published your copy on Tuesday though, then I'd likely have to show some sort of evidence that I in fact wrote it earlier.  With your example, if you register for a copyright on an article that you grabbed out of the newspaper today, and claim to have had it in your own magazine 10 years ago, then if the newspaper sues you, then you will in fact need to prove in some way that you had in fact written that article 10 years ago. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 21:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's actually not true. You have to prove that the copyright holder has no right to the claim, otherwise they are falsifying documents and testimony (or there is a minor discrepancy in reporting).   If they stand by their testimony, and you do not provide sufficient evidence, ie: wrongdoing, malicious intent, evidence to the contrary, or otherwise.  Since this article ignores a lot of evidence, it's hard to use this article as the sole justification for the release date.  One example of ignored evidence in this article (Online Creation) is the removal of certain key article sources which originally put The Isles at 1993, October release date.  In the same respect, a lot of those sources were included in the NiMUD article, which was deleted by the slanderous administrator User:Nandesuka.  68.246.92.133 09:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That source is:  and 

Around the time of the software's first release, to a private publisher. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.246.92.133 (talk • contribs).


 * We were talking about a public release date for TheIsles OLC code. The above mentioned reference was to privately shared CthulhuMUD code.  TheIsles was based on the Merc 2.x code, and therefore cannot possibly predate it.  As TheIsles displays significant modification of the Merc code, one also must consider reasonable development time.  According to the NiMUD 2000 release, the first version of TheIsles to contain OLC code was version 1.1, with a release date of September of 1994.  --Thoric (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Online creation ; Isles OLC ; ILAB OLC ; NIMUD OLC, et al. Type of Work: 	Computer File Registration Number / Date: 	TX0006452128 / 2006-10-27 Title: 	Online creation ; Isles OLC ; ILAB OLC ; NIMUD OLC, et al. Copyright Claimant: 	Herbert Elwood Gilliland 3rd, 1977- Date of Creation: 	1993 Date of Publication: 	1993-10-15 Authorship on Application: 	text of software code: Herbert Elwood Gilliland 3rd & Christopher Woodward, 1976-1995. Copyright Note: 	Cataloged from appl. only. Other Title: 	Isles OLC ILAB OLC NIMUD OLC Names: 	Gilliland, Herbert Elwood 3rd, 1977- Woodward, Christopher, 1976-1995

ILAB OLC Beta 1.0 Jason Dinkel Apr. 07 1995

What is ILAB OLC?

ILAB OLC = "I Love Amy Barr" On-Line Creation.

ILAB OLC is a constantly revised online creation system distributed by Jason Dinkel. It was based on the public domain version of OLC written by Surreality and distributed by Locke in The Isles 1.1. The first release was in December of 1994. Since then many changes have occured that make it a much better system to use for you online creation needs.

We just aren't going to do this debate again, Herbert. Filing a copyright registration both backdating the publication of one's work and claiming another's work as your own is fraudulent. More to the point in regards to reliable Wikipedia sourcing, it's the equivalent of an author creating a bunch of external web site sources to support a crank POV. Besides you are banned from Wikipedia Herbert. Jlambert (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not "backdated", it's accurately dated. Stop libeling me on the Wikipedia. There is plenty of evidence on Usenet that suggests a 1993 timeframe for the writing of The Isles / NIMUD's OLC. 98.111.199.226 (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

MONSTER release date
Monster was first distributed with VAX/VMS as "MONSTER.EXE", a single-player multi-user game. Richard Skrenta's "MONSTER" appears to be the same game. Its structure is remarkably similar to DikuMUD, even in function naming (Do_fun). Its source code was not released with it, and was only recently released, without a license, on his home page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.5.120.85 (talk).


 * It was definately released in 1988. Someone removed the source link from the article.  http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sources.games/msg/c95f01a4febd9fb1 Jlambert 13:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you mean definitely. 68.246.92.133 09:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

banned user
There is no way to accomodate the banned user, and apparently no way to deal with anonymous users with access to endless IPs repeatedly inserting fictitious information or vandalizing pages, other than undoing it. Removal of dates and sources only encourages the banned user (see MONSTER release date discussion above). Stating nobody cares is apparently not true as the article is apparently in some sort of historical order, with some importance attached to Monster to the detriment of all other OLCs. One I disagree with as older article versions attached no particular notability to any particular OLC. In other words, I see no valid reason to continually delete valid information from the article. Jlambert 08:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that there's no reason to try to accomodate the kook. But neither should his existence paralyze us from improving the article. My main objective in rewriting the relevant paragraphs was not, in fact, to frustrate him, but to make that paragraph better to read.   With that material in place, the paragraph is a collection of dates, unsourced puffery ("really popular!"), and intersticed references to unreliable sources (specifically, google groups).  I ask you to read my revision again and ask yourself if, really, isn't it more readable?
 * Please note that I specifically left in the citations to the authors of the works, which also include the dates. So the dates are still there, they're just not gumming up the text.  I think the only difference here is the SMAUG date goes away, but I'll add that in a reference to make it more parallel to the other items in the paragraph. Nandesuka 13:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. I've also found a reliable source for the description of Monster as the first publically available system with online creation, and added a citation (collapsing the intersticed multiple citations that made that sentence harder to read).  I hope this is responsive to your concerns. Nandesuka 14:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)