Talk:OpenSocial

Structure

Should I put a reference to google gadgets here? http://code.google.com/apis/gadgets/ Melvster 17:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)I didn't know what is google gadgets at first, but after I know it , I think it is useful here

https://developers.google.com/gadgets/?csw=1Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I put this here is nothing todo with the "structure" part, I 'd love to remind both of you that our talk mainly take place in the 17th part named "plan" which I created for us to discuss the whole task, since we need a whole plan first, then can we discuss in details. For avoiding chaos, if you want to talk about your whole plan, please share it at "plan" section with us.

After I consider for our task again.I think we need to identify an area of improvement, eg: missing content, missing references, missing internal links, or missing figures(based on requirement). For missing content, I think both of us need to find some related information, based on the current information, we can cut or add content into it.But we need to make sure that we do not repeat the same work of us. For the missing references or some references which are out of date, we need to update the references, and we can find more articles to go through(some articles for per person), to decide which can be used in our work, for the current references, we still need to double-check. We can not say it is useless because it is far from now. We still need to keep the useful references. As for missing internal links, it may take some time but it is not that difficult to do. We can also do together after we decide the division of work. We still need some related topics with open social, to make sure the content will be board, and pictures can not be ignored as well, we can collecting the pictures that we think gonna be useful while we doing the work ,and we can pick some of our collections to decide which to use. If you have more suggestions, please feel free to talk here.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 07:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Governance

Under what governance is the open social reference implementation? Does google have benevolent dictator status or will the structure be more open? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.42.64 (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Official Link

The OpenSocial page that everyone references doesn't actually exist, nor have I seen exist any time in the last 48 hours or so - what's going on? EAi 00:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been readded despite being a 404 at this time. I removed it again, and it shouldn't be added until/unless it works. Oren0 02:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, "rm dead link again"? When was it removed the first time? Dancter 02:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My fault. I thought about removing it in my first round of edits. I thought I had removed it at that point but I guess not. Oren0 03:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Reception

Should we add this to a criticisms section? http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/11/opensocial_social_mashups.html Melvster 14:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms are difficult to cover properly on Wikipedia, but are often important. I'm wary of a separate section for just criticisms, but perhaps a "Reception" section that includes various reactions including criticisms would be better. Dancter 15:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll see if i can dig up some articles representing various parties views on the launch Melvster 16:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, world

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<Module>
  <ModulePrefs title="Hello, PHP World" />
  <Content type="html">
  <![CDATA[
    Hello, world!
  ]]>
  </Content>
</Module>

Was thinking of adding this, as per:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(programming_language)#.22Hello.2C_world.22_example Melvster 18:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good format http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_(Java)#Example Melvster (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

the format is great but maybe a little simple, we can improve this.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

External Links

Added the Google 'Whats up with opensocial' page - is pretty much the definitive guide of what's going on Melvster (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo further embraces opensocial

http://www.technewsworld.com/edpick/62762.html?welcome=1209164370 the article talks about the Opensocial Foundation. Mathiastck (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Layperson's Perspective

For those of us who are not developers, describe the real world examples of the daily impact to people who visit participating OpenSocial sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.150.66.34 (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

Criticisms are out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.254.172 (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

While I'm not going to take on all the WP:SOAP problems here, I'm going to remove the most blatant. In the process I removed a reference that might be used elsewhere:

• Helft, Miguel (2007-11-02). "MySpace Joins Google Alliance to Counter Facebook". New York Times. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 2007-11-02. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

--Ronz (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In the to-do list, it says "List of Google products and Google Fusion Tables“， I think we should consider the suggestion from it.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Article Improvement

I'm planing to improve the article as an assignment for the Social computing Course at University of Pittsburgh. The improvement will be based on criteria of Good articles.

--Tarmin68 (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm planing to improve the article as an assignment for INFSCI 2430 Social Computing. The improvement will be based on criteria of Good articles. 

--Babylu0815 (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm planing to improve the article as an assignment for the Social computing Course at University of Pittsburgh. The improvement will be based on criteria of Good articles.

--Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we should talk about the whole plan together, it can avoid repeating the same work, and can avoid making chaos as well.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm planing to improve the article as an assignment for the Social computing Course at University of Pittsburgh. The improvement will be based on criteria of Good articles.

--RelaxAbyte (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Picture

One of the criteria for a good article is being illustrated by images. This article does not have any image. Where do you think we could get a good picture that would represent OpenSocial? --Tarmin68 (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we can use some pictures of API, like twitter API or Facebook API. They are very easy to find. --Babylu0815 (talk) 07:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the pictures of API or like twitter API can represent exactly what open social is. and we can also put some relevant pictures into it to show more information about this topic. BUT， we should make it clear that , we put pictures only when we need them, not add pictures in order to make the article in order to meet the criteria , even there is no need to put a picture. Our goal is to make the content better.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is a picture I drew for example Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry , I failed to upload the picture. Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I know that it is not possible to have a picture for every article, but I think for OpenSocial there must be a Logo Picture or a specific picture representing the project. --Tarmin68 (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I‘ll try again tonight to upload the picture that I drew, it is only a draft and I hope it can help our to make the article better.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Is that Ok to upload the picture we draw by ourselves? Will that become a kind of original research? --Babylu0815 (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It can not be loaded, since it is drew by myself, I think that would be a problem.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Last time I misunderstood the conception of OpenSocial, and the pictures of other websites' API are not very property to be added. Sorry about that. I find an article, and there is a picture in that shows opensocial reference architecture. I think that one can be added to the part of structure. I have put the name of the article in the part of List of references in this talk page. --Babylu0815 (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

pictures are not that in rush for our task, so we can find the pictures while we are doing the task. Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

What about including the group photo of the current W3C Social Web Working Group (SocialWG) members that are working on OpenSocial. An image of the people working to push the project forward would be engaging content. I do not see a creative commons tag under File Usage so we might have to check its copyright usage with W3C. RelaxAbyte (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I linked to the Social Web Working Group page rather than bringing in the members of the group and image. While it is true that they continue where the OpenSocial Foundation left off, this page shouldn't overly concentrate on the Socialwg. RelaxAbyte (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

List of References

A good article must be verifiable and list of all references should be presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. It seems that there is a problem with one of the references, which has an error message "Invalid ref tag". In addition, some of the other references are out of date, and must be updated. --Tarmin68 (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That "Invalid ref tag" error was the first thing I noticed before I even read the rest of the page. RelaxAbyte (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the references problems could be an issue for this passage since the error message and the update problem, we should check them and fix the problems. And in my point of view, update the old one should be considered more in this edit part.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

In the references list, the year is mainly around 2007, which is far from now, so we need to update the references badly since the speed of update information goes too fast.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 06:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The last version of Open Social was released on August 28, 2012, I think this is one of the reasons why references are not up to date. It seems to me that after 2012 less attention was paid to OpenSocial. --Tarmin68 (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We can update with information from the W3C page that took it over when OpenSocial Foundation said it would close down so that one central group could focus on creating the standards. RelaxAbyte (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to put a lot of effort to do this part. we can do it by revalue the content of the references which are too early from now.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I second this. Diversity of references is something to keep in mind as we reference information. When possible, it's good to only take a few talking points from each reference as opposed to taking all points from one reference.RelaxAbyte (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we can also add some new references, because we may add some new content of this article. --Babylu0815 (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I find an article from our school library -- Häsel, M. (2011). Opensocial: an enabler for social applications on the web. Communications of the ACM, 54(1), 139. doi:10.1145/1866739.1866765 I think we can try to use the information in this article. And I also think the picture about OpenSocial reference architecture in that are very suitable to add to this page. --Babylu0815 (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a great idea. We should plan to use some part of this paper to make the article "Broad in its coverage" which is one of the good article criteria. We also should add a reference to this paper. --Tarmin68 (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I go over the whole article, find it can be used for us, and I find some more about open social. And I will put them into talk page later.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

http://www.technewsworld.com/edpick/62762.html?welcome=1209164370 would be useful.we can go over it to learn some more.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Mathiastck thought so too and mentioned it in a talk comment in 2008 above our section. Perhaps it's time that it makes it to the page if it isn't too outdated at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RelaxAbyte (talk • contribs) 02:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

So do you have more specific plan about the references? I'd love to know your plan and it is good for us to make the final decision.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I focused on the new content that was missing. In the process, I added new references based on the material that I included. I realize that you asked this almost a month ago and we addressed it in our overall plan, but I didn't want to leave this question unanswered in this section as to what we did. RelaxAbyte (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Missing Internal Links

Some internal links such as tag-based language, RockYou, Plaxo, Ning, and ... are missing and must be fixed. --Tarmin68 (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

So you mean we should add links of this words? But I think some of them are very hard to find the internal links. --Babylu0815 (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I tried to find some of them, it really hard to find.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by it is hard to find links to them? I checked all of them and they have pages in wikipedia, so the only thing we need to do is to link these words to their pages. for example this is the page of tag-based language (which is known as markup language, too). If any of them does not have a wiki page, there is no need for doing anything for it --Tarmin68 (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I just searched some of them on google, and it is a little hard to find their conceptions. I should try to do that on wikipedia first. Sorry about that. So I agree with your opinion. If we can find their links, we should add them. --Babylu0815 (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we just made the same mistakes here. Thank you for explaining.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Missing Content

During my search about OpenSocial I found that some web sites such as Friendster, hi5, LinkedIn, MySpace, orkut, and Salesforce.com are currently using OpenSocial, but the article does not mention them and their experience in using OpenSocial. --Tarmin68 (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. These are kind of OpenSocial's usage. And the coverage of content should be broad. So I think we can add a new part in the article and talk about the usage of OpenSocial. --Babylu0815 (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

we can find some by us, and try our best to find some articles, but if the result is not our expected, we can figure it out another way. for now, we have Friendster, hi5, LinkedIn, MySpace, orkut, and Salesforce.com , we can keep on finding more.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

A major gap in the content is the missing text about the action going on primarily through the W3C that may call for new sections. Right now, it's a mention in a sentence. RelaxAbyte (talk) 03:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the Version History was a nice start, but should include a synopsis of the version upgrades based on the release notes. The notes are already mentioned in the references and can be used to summarize the version history. Before deciding, take a look at adobe photoshop's page and notice how useful the information is in terms of how the software developed into it's current version. RelaxAbyte (talk) 03:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need no give every version a heading? It may looks not succinct.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The Relationship Between OpenSocial and Google Gadgets

These two pages provide interesting information about OpenSocial gadget which I think should be included in this article :

OpenSocial

OpenSocial gadget basics

--Tarmin68 (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we can also try to read one or two papers about OpenSocial. These papers can also be added to the references. I will try to find some from our school library. --Babylu0815 (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The related topic can be added.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Plan

Hi everyone. I think it is useful to make a new plan.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we can schedule of our work. Each of us can choose a part to focus on. We can also make deadlines of each part. What do you think about that? --Babylu0815 (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I can try to add some new content of usage of OpenSocial.--Babylu0815 (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Both of us need to talk about the idea about the article. we should both talk about the plan by yourself. We can decide which is the best or combine some of them. And then ,we can do the different part of the task to work together.That is the main purpose that I create the new section here.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we can choose which part we are interested in. After we finish this talk and decide what we want to improve, we just focus on the small part, not the whole article. So do you think it is too early to decide which part to focus on? --Babylu0815 (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

since we have already find something(eg:the reference ), we should put it first. And I agree with the idea that we should pick the task mainly by our interest cause that can do a better job.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

some specific tasks in our work have already been talked. which are: references update(finding more articles;correct the mistake in the current references;); finding more sources that may not concluded in the articles yet, and I'd like to collect them for our team; links (both)Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

There will be overlap as we pull in new references and source materials, but this is perfectly fine. Wikipedia has built-in versioning control. If there is an issue, we can do a rollback when needed. This way, we aren't forced to work in silos once we declare areas of interest just because we chose one article or section over another article or section. My immediate interest is the relation to the W3C and what the W3C are doing with it. This will surely overlap other areas that may be developed. RelaxAbyte (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I added information about the OpenSocial Foundation merging into the W3C in the introductory paragraph. The fact that OpenSocial as an independent entity wasn't fully clear to me until after I added the Release History. I added the part of the W3C based on where it was merged into the W3C. Work done beyond that point would be more appropriate for a completely separate Social Working Group page on Wikipedia. Given that the W3C already had its own page for the group, I linked to that instead. RelaxAbyte (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, after I consider for our task again.I think we need to identify an area of improvement, eg: missing content, missing references, missing internal links, or missing figures(based on requirement). For missing content, I think both of us need to find some related information, based on the current information, we can cut or add content into it.But we need to make sure that we do not repeat the same work of us. For the missing references or some references which are out of date, we need to update the references, and we can find more articles to go through(some articles for per person), to decide which can be used in our work, for the current references, we still need to double-check. We can not say it is useless because it is far from now. We still need to keep the useful references. As for missing internal links, it may take some time but it is not that difficult to do. We can also do together after we decide the division of work. We still need some related topics with open social, to make sure the content will be board, and pictures can not be ignored as well, we can collecting the pictures that we think gonna be useful while we doing the work ,and we can pick some of our collections to decide which to use. If you have more suggestions, please feel free to talk here.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 07:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I forgot one important thing, since we may not native speakers, we must make sure that when we doing the article, we use the correct words and forms, as well as grammar, so we may need some native speakers to help us before we change some contents. If one of yours or both of yours are native speaker, please tell us. Cause we really need to use standard English in this task.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 07:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that because non of us are native, we should ask someone to check our writing, but I suggest to make changes first and at the end ask someone to correct our mistakes.--Tarmin68 (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I am a native English speaker. I will spend a little extra time reviewing the Manual of Style. However, it would still be helpful to ask others. An independent proofreader may be more effective than us attempting to proof our own work. RelaxAbyte (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

That's great! now we have native speaker to correct the mistakes in English.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not seen many edits to proof at this point. Most of the edits have been minor revisions or updates to a reference. I've completed the new sections I said I was interested in and didn't see anything in anyone's sandbox. I'll check back one last time tonight for a final proofread of the page. RelaxAbyte (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

And just for reminder, we should be careful about plagiarism when trying to add information from papers. --Tarmin68 (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Just use them as citations. --Babylu0815 (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

plagiarism is not allowed, and we need to be careful but don't worry about too much cause we will do everything by the requirement. Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I have talked about the whole plan about my edit to this article, and how about yours, cause time is limited, we need to decide the whole thing as soon as possible.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Please look at my sandbox. As suggested, I am creating a release versions section. The release dates differ from what is currently listed on the page. That table was added several years ago. I don't want to overwrite the existing dates, but none of those references exist anymore. I can't find a new source to support those dates. I have a list of release dates from the OpenSocial GitHub account. Because I have references with dates, I opted to use those dates instead. I have a question. Would it be better to create individual sections summarizing each release as I am developing, or should it only be the table? I was thinking it would be helpful to the reader to have the versions summarized here. RelaxAbyte (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind. With the approaching deadline, I made the executive decision to include a synopsis of each revision. RelaxAbyte (talk) 04:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I add a picture to info box.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I make a picture about the structure of OpenSocial and add it in the page --Babylu0815 (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Babylu0815 - Please re-evaluate the sources you chose to add for the Usage section. They are mostly 2008, but the verbiage treats it like up-to-date information. For example, in the paragraph about Friendster, it says they will use version 0.8, but that came out in 2008. After looking at other references of the usage section, I favor taking Usage out. When searching Google, I couldn't find a current source claiming that any of these sites are still using OpenSocial today. The reference for websites currently using OpenSocial is not dated. I went to Friendster's website and it said that it has suspended all services as of 14 June 2015. At the very least, Friendster is definitely not a current OpenSocial user. Please reconsider these additions. As an alternative, you could expand the other section that mentions Myspace and other systems as major supporters and use past tense for everything. Then you'd still be able to use your references. RelaxAbyte (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Last time we talked about the missing content and we mentioned the usage of OpenSocial. We tought we could add those websites as the usage of OpenSocial. So I did not check that. I just found that information from other articles in Wikipedia. I will try to check that on google, and if they are not using OpenSocial any more, I will delete the usage section. --Babylu0815 (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

RelaxAbyte - So you mean I can try to add these usage to another section? Like usage history? Because the conception of OpenSocial is a little out-of-date, it is very hard to add other content to this article... --Babylu0815 (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

When you and Tarmin68 brought this up, it was stated that these sites were using OpenSocial. References weren't provided then so I took it as fact. Based on the current article, it reads more like promotions for other websites. This was a previously discussed issue between other editors years ago. If the section is rewritten to focus more on the usage of OpenSocial and why it was significant than what those sites are, then I would agree that this section could be used to demonstrate real-world application of OpenSocial. As it is, I don't feel that it provides more information. It could be a sentence or two in the Background section, or added to the intro paragraph list as Enterprise websites that used OpenSocial. I removed the "Currently" section out of background.

I think the version part is too detailed, it may catch too much attention for someone who read this article, the catalogue is too detailed, is this really need to make the catalogue that long and detailed? Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Decision of changes

I create this new section.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

3 major changes we are going to make which is a reflection of the discussion we have had:I think we need to identify an area of improvement, eg: missing content, missing references, missing internal links, or missing figures(based on requirement). For missing content, I think both of us need to find some related information, based on the current information, we can cut or add content into it.But we need to make sure that we do not repeat the same work of us. For the missing references or some references which are out of date, we need to update the references, and we can find more articles to go through(some articles for per person), to decide which can be used in our work, for the current references, we still need to double-check. We can not say it is useless because it is far from now. We still need to keep the useful references. As for missing internal links, it may take some time but it is not that difficult to do. We can also do together after we decide the division of work. We still need some related topics with open social, to make sure the content will be board, and pictures can not be ignored as well, we can collecting the pictures that we think gonna be useful while we doing the work ,and we can pick some of our collections to decide which to use. If you have more suggestions, please feel free to talk here.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I find it is really difficult to delete some of the references cause both of them seem somewhat useful, I think I gonna find more useful references and add them into it. So I would love to take charge of the references part and internal links part. I gonna do it and if you have some suggestions, please talk to me as soon as possible.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on OpenSocial. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://blog.pmarca.com/2007/10/open-social-a-n.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)