Talk:Email: Difference between revisions
imported>J. Noel Chiappa (→major edits: Still a 'derivative work') |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (Splitting?) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
: Yes, but if it was ''based'' on the Wikipedia article, it's still a 'derivative work' in copyright law, and so the Wikipedia tag must remain, for legal reasons. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 17:49, 12 March 2008 (CDT) | : Yes, but if it was ''based'' on the Wikipedia article, it's still a 'derivative work' in copyright law, and so the Wikipedia tag must remain, for legal reasons. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 17:49, 12 March 2008 (CDT) | ||
::This article actually addresses several things: the user interface to email, a bit of the infrastructure, and social behaviors of email. What do you think of having this point to a new article on messaging protocols/infrastructure, which would be non-WP? Indeed, I wonder if the social behaviors should relate to other articles considering phishing and such. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 12:07, 10 June 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 12:07, 10 June 2008
e-mail versus email
I've noticed that professionally, e-mail is used in its hyphenated form, whereas email is a casual form. Should we attempt to use the term e-mail uniformly throughout the site, or would this be too difficult/not necessary to indicate the academic level of the site? Thanks. --Dominic DeStefano 12:51, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
- It seems to be always 'email' these days. I suggest a move - Ro Thorpe 11:16, 15 December 2007 (CST)
- I recommend a redirect. It's the same thing no matter how people reference it. Email/e-mail. In fact, I took the time to read this reference link, which is written by the guy that sent the very first email! Just as wired.com proposed to stop spelling internet with a capital "I", Ray Tomlinson suggests to just stop using the archaic "E-mail" by referencing Donald Knuth's proposal. --Robert W King 11:47, 15 December 2007 (CST)
major edits
Since pulling the source material from Wikipedia, the article has undergone major edits and revisions to both format and structure, so I've removed the "content is from wikipedia" tag.
As this is my first major attempt to modify an article, any advice and suggestions prior to editing by other users is welcome. I've applied a formula that will be uniform throughout articles that feature major revisions by me, explaining first "what it does" in simple terms, then "how it works" for the knowledgeable user, then "when it came about" and other pertinent details for the purpose of academic research. This structure allows for a tiered level of complexity for the reader and I've found it successful, but am open to further suggestions. Thanks! --Dominic DeStefano 12:51, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
- Yes, but if it was based on the Wikipedia article, it's still a 'derivative work' in copyright law, and so the Wikipedia tag must remain, for legal reasons. J. Noel Chiappa 17:49, 12 March 2008 (CDT)
- This article actually addresses several things: the user interface to email, a bit of the infrastructure, and social behaviors of email. What do you think of having this point to a new article on messaging protocols/infrastructure, which would be non-WP? Indeed, I wonder if the social behaviors should relate to other articles considering phishing and such. Howard C. Berkowitz 12:07, 10 June 2008 (CDT)