Talk:Metapad

This article was nominated for deletion on May 17, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

Wordy description[edit]

I think it is better to provide a full article, than just a set of best features, which is incomplete anyway. If there was someone to write a good review, even with a possible hidden advertisment, delete the advertisment, not all the good work. Are you a blinded fan or what? 195.113.20.80 13:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the same idea. I have used both editors myself, both for a long time. Although TED Notepad is my favourite now, Metapad was my favourite just before. The author considered several aspects of the possible usage and provided a well-written article for the Wikipedia instead of a simple list of features. Kewwinn 14:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original article just listed the key list of features; not necessarily the best, just the most prominent features that separate it from all the other text editors. And how does TED Notepad come into the discussion? I try to think you're not acting in bad faith, but that act of praising another text editor out of the blue is just uncalled for. --124.106.198.191 17:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's still an ad[edit]

After seeing your previous post, I passed by the TED Notepad article... there's probably another reason why the other user (and now, me) reverted the article. It seems the Metapad article as of now is an indirect comparison of its features and TED Notepad's. All the 'good work' you speak of is, in a way, an advertisement -- the author showing Metapad in a bad light, ultimately leading to a link to TED Notepad. Very clever.

Now I question: are you, 195.113.20.80, a blinded fan of TED Notepad or what? It seems that your edits here [1] and the other user's here [2] and Kewwinn's here [3] look like they deal with the same subjects...

The articles here are supposed to be neutral. The comparison between the two, even if it's just asserted, shouldn't be there. If you want Metapad to be rewritten, it should have the detail you could expect from an encyclopedia article while still following a neutral tone. --124.106.198.191 17:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not a fan. I have just removed the advertisment: the very link to TED Notepad. And I find the article more helpful than just the list of features. Actually, while reverting, I tried to save a lot of information that was not a lie, was it? Without the trace to TED Notepad, it was not a direct comparison or a clever hidden advertisment.

If the problem is the Future section, delete just that one. If the problem is that the article mentioned the unability to edit all Unicode characters, then I think you are also missing the neutral POV. But I am not willing to fight for it. 195.113.20.80 23:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Links => delete[edit]

The one link in there is in the article already. Will del _> MonstaPro:^{Talk:Contrib.} 11:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just removed it from the article and created a new "External links" section for it, without having read this here. It seemed completely out of place in the feature list, more like a link to general information, so that's how I treated it. If I was wrong, please undo. Following a (list item) statement that Metapad is meant as a Notepad replacement with an external "how to" link just looks like an advertisement. The "how to" of replacing Notepad with Metapad is extraneous to a neutral article about the product itself. This is an encyclopedia, not a user manual. We should be writing about how Metapad is noteworthy, and anything else is external to that (and thus an external link). 12.22.250.4 21:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License[edit]

Someone also left: I'm not really sure about Metapad's license, can someone follow this up?

...in the infobox; it turns out Mp really is Freeware, honest _> MonstaPro:^{Talk:Contrib.} 11:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metapad is now Free Open Source Software [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.228.36 (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, to be more precise, since 20 March 2009 metapad is released under the GNU General Public License, version 3 (see [5]). Jaho (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operating Systems[edit]

I replaced MS Notepad on Win 7 (64 bit) without any problems with Metapad and it works like a charm. The Homepage says also "for Windows (95/98/NT/XP/Vista/7)". So I added the "7". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.117.196.209 (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metapad. 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/20080414134619/http://www.liquidninja.com/metapad/metapad.txt to http://www.liquidninja.com/metapad/metapad.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]