Talk:List of warez groups

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of warez groups article.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 15 July 2005. The result of the discussion was keep (with recommendation for cleanup).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on September 23, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on September 14, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] What other groups should be added and why?

Someone please add entries for the IBM PC group Hybrid (HYB) and the Amiga group Skid Row.

Any sources quoted would be useful. Rich Farmbrough 00:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

You might be interested in the VfD going on at the moment -- here. You can read and add to the discussion there — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 18:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


For music video groups there is videopimp.com, a really large database of music videos.

What about "The Blue List" for creating the XP 'key discoverer' (keygen)? Are they technically a warez group?

How about BMI (Beat Masters Inc.), MF (Beat Forge) and 2DB (To The Beat) under mp3? They were all big techno/trance groups...

What about "devils0wn", for cracking xp 35 days before release?


I would like to see a group for crackers/keygen/patch groups. One I was going to mention would be Oxygen, which does a lot of professional audio software 68.55.81.223 15:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest The Last Fantasy, which releases asian movies with subtitles. 81.195.29.58 20:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

TLF is not generally considered as a scene warez group, as others listed here. They tried to be one at some point in history, but selling site accounts usually gets you kicked out from the scene pretty fast.
They also run public bittorrent tracker(s) and use it to share releases, which isn't really proper scene conduct.
S33k3r 00:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Adding The Sabotage Rebellion Hackers (aka TSRh; crack & keygen) would be nice too, since they are a very active group (almost 10.000 releases http://zor.org/tsrh/).

Where are Class and Paradigm as well? Two notable groups from the 1995-1999 scene. 71.14.101.229 19:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Avatar

what about ORiON (ORN)? where the stars come out at night

What about CRACKERS iN ACTiON (CiA)? --82.152.138.226 16:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should the list be broken up

Maybe by group, and listed in aprox. order of formation. Rich Farmbrough 00:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that the format is fine ,but we should only keep groups with either articles here or a notable source. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 18:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe this page should be removed; it will always be a mess - eg questions like "What constitutes a list-worthy group?", "How can you have group X listed, but not group Y?", and "How about group Z, I saw them release something big once" etc. I believe this page should be replaced by a category (Warez Groups) and sub-categories for different types of groups (PC Games Groups, Courier Groups etc). Within these sub categories would be group pages (eg existing pages for DEViANCE, Fairlight (group), and Razor 1911). Questionable group pages can then by dealt with on a case-by-case basis. 153.111.226.201 00:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table vs. list

I suggest we get rid of the tables, see Wikipedia:Tables#When_tables_are_inappropriate. Does anyone have any opinions about this? bbx 04:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The table was done for a simple reason... easier to spot the vandals... most vandals suck at wikicode and would corrupt the table. I have no problem with the table format going away, but it means someone is going to have to spend more time on vandal patrol.  ALKIVAR™ 04:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm surprised nobody noticed an edit by someone called Goatse.sx c'mon guys. If you make it a list I'll watch it. It makes it a lot better. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 05:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Okay, i have now removed the table and replaced it with a simpler list. I'm not sure about the layout, maybe it's possible to make it prettier? bbx 07:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
It looks much more manageable now. Thanks, bbx. —RaD Man (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re-Write

I'm proposing a re-write are List of warez groups/Temp. Only notable groups. Criteria: Must have either an article here or a notable source link (subject to debate). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 05:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

If its going to be only groups that are on here, then you might as well stick to our already existing category. The whole point was to include other groups that did not yet have articles.  ALKIVAR™ 15:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Well I don't want to list every single newbie group out there, so I want some standard of notability. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
LMAO, you don't know any group, so you can't possibly list any newbie group. 128.100.31.201 17:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Umm...right. So, any suggestions for objective standards of notability. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
A news article where the group in question is the primary focus or one of the main foci of the article, in a mainstream newspaper, and the group is mentioned by name. This should be cited in the article, and any group which is added without a citation should be removed. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Well we sorta do have a reasonable standard to follow... the Computer Underground Notability Test.  ALKIVAR™ 03:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
We should combine them both. Just article-based stuff would limit it too much. Interesting acronym.. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] styling

There's still more cleaning to do. I'm considering of separating the historical groups to:

  1. pre-pc groups, such as commodore/amiga groups
  2. early-pc era groups/groups that are more than 10 years old
  3. other groups with mentionable achievements, first cractro, nfo, etc...

Active groups, some groups might be under wrong categories, and there might be some already retired groups mixed still among them.

For adding new active groups, I suggest rule of atleast 100 releases, which should be verifiable from some dupecheck. That should stop the "never-heard-before,never-seen-in-dupes"-group spam.

Perhaps separate categories under movies for DVDR and XViD groups?

S33k3r 15:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

dupecheck? all i know is what i see on nforce. ;)
i also agree with the 100+ releases... even i can't verify any of this :(
and dvdr/xvid groups could be a bit difficult to keep track of. how about a table with asteriks as to what scenes the groups participate in? ie mVz in MV scene + DVDR + somethingelse, i can't remember. same with TWC...
Plonk420 08:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft uses pirated tools?

[1] Can someone please source this? And which sounds? —RaD Man (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... OK. There we go. Excellent. —RaD Man (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the Microsoft "Learn Visual C++" book contains an example for displaying a bitmap which uses a packaged image by a Razor-1911 or INC artist. -- Greg Dallimore, 12 November 2005.

[edit] Criticism on Alkivar

see Talk:Warez#Criticism on Alkivar for original post and my reply.  ALKIVAR™ 19:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"Warez - I was involved in the illegal transfer of copyrighted software for a good 15 years."
"uNITED cRACKING fORCE - a cracking group I was a member of for 5 years."
"aPOCALYPSE pRODUCTION cREW - a music piracy group I was in for a few years"
--- courtesy of ALKIVAR's home page. ZenDude 17:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories of the warez groups

Personally I think some of the categories used for the groups are a bit off. If you were to break it down into detail for the PC software scene you would have the following.

For games there are floppy, CD-RIP, ISO

Then you have cracking groups which just release cracks, patches and serial generators but don't package it with the actual software its designed to break.

And then finally you have application/utility groups which release the application and include a crack, gen or even just a serial number.

It was not often that groups dabbled outside their specialised area, rather they often created a new spin-off group to handle the miscellaneous releases they might have. For example

INC created INC Utility Division for their apps Razor 1911 for the PC was a originally floppy game group, it created ROM 1911 and later RazorCD to handle cd-rips. Then when the floppy scene died, RazorCD reclaimed the title Razor 1911. Years later RazorISO would again spin off from Razor 1911 for ISO releases. TDU-Jam was the cd-rip division of the floppy group Genesis Hybrid was the cd-rip division of the floppy group Eclipse The recent Fairlight (ISO) used to release cd-rips in the mid-90's under the name ROM-light. ROM-light again was a spin-off from the earlier Fairlight PC floppy group that used to be around in the early nineties.

I believe the following categories are incorrect ..

"Applications and 0day groups" .. 0day was a term created in the BBS days to say how quicky the site obtained the releases after they were released by the pirate groups. Applying this term to release groups is a bit of a misconstruction, because in reality the good groups will always get the title (at the very latest!) on the same day as its shop release date. If there is a delay with the release then it is usually a cracking related problem rather then a supply problem.

"Application (ISO) groups" .. you might as well remove the ISO part unless you are going to divide it up into Application (ISO) and Application (RIP). Because during the 1990's nearly of the application releases were rips rather then ISO images.

It might be more clearer if you just divided the apps into three sections .. Cracking, Application (rip), Application (iso) as they are three distinctly different types of release groups. Or if that is too segregated then maybe just use Cracking & Application .. because there needs a clearer distinction between cracking groups and pirate groups imho.

Also here are some corrections I think need to be done within the list..

  • The Humble Guys (THG)

This is not an active group and hasnt been for a decade.. needs to be moved to historical

  • United Software Association (USA)

Was a games group not a 'Application (ISO) groups', needs to be moved to historical --Ipggi 03:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Good to see you here, Ipggi! Some of us have taken a break from Wikipedia for a while, but you are welcome to be bold and make any changes you deem necessary. —RaD Man (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

You could also group the groups by their inner connections. Many groups share members and co-operate on cracking or supplying, but distribute the releases under platform or type specific labels. Equally common is renaming of distribution label names, while preserving the whole group or parts of it. Simplified (simple) example: STATiC (PS2 majors)/HOOLiGANS (PS2 junk) renamed itself to MiRACLE (PS2 majors)/ORGASM (PS2 junk/majors)/STARCUBE (Gamecube majors)/MOONCUBE (Gamecube junk). A brave soul could take the time and dedication to figure out the details behind the ORiGiN/MYTH DVNiSO/DEViANCE offspring.

[edit] A note to editors from a sysop

Please stop removing the commented notice from the top of the page. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Despite my personal warning on DickyRobert's talk page, he removed the information again. I have blocked 24 hours for vandalism. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert wars on this page

This is really annoying me now. DickyRobert's 'comments' are pointless and redundant, but why does Alkivar deem it necessary to keep reverting it? --Jeffthejiff | Talk 21:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps because he is continually using it as a personal attack on me? as well as being the reason he was banned. In particular his repeated threats to email/phone the FBI. Oh and his email threats too... you would likely do the same faced with a repeated stalker/harasser.  ALKIVAR™ 01:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Well alright, but i dont think continually reverting it is going to get you anywhere. If he really wishes it to be there, cant it just be left? The text itself is doing no harm, and its only stuff copied and pasted from your user page or whatever. I know it is a personal attack of sorts, and this guy does sound like some sorta psycho, but is it worth wasting your time over? --Jeffthejiff | Talk 15:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
LOL, repeated threats to email/phone the FBI? I joked about it once. Email threats? Nope, never e-mailed you. I think you are just scared of the FBI tracking you down(hey, it's the truth), and your former warez buddies at UCF aren't happy about you yapping all over the net about your affilation with them. 142.150.204.247 17:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I can't really comment on any of Alkivar's former or present affiliations with scene, but if his claims of "was involved before" are true, I believe it gives him some insight to edit this and other warez-related pages to begin with.
As for the revert wars, I don't think it's appropriate to list web pages related to some group, site names, irc channels, member names, group leaders etc for many reasons. From scene point of view, it's a security risk to list such information, and from wikipedian point of view, it's not very encyclopediatic information and basically vanity. People still completely ignore the readme at the beginning of the page, which gives pretty good guideline for adding material on the article, and sometimes while reverting, destroying later added information about some groups.
I think the main purpose of this page should be to give the reader the generic idea of what each mentioned group does. For example when they see a file with some group tag, and search web for that tag, it reveals this page within results, and gives some generic idea of what the file is and what it might contain.
--S33k3r 02:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Tons of member names here, include Alkivar's own, even a huge crack database. Thus it's clear that Alkivar wants all the vanity for himself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Cracking_Force Bisentio 23:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
the articles is where this data belongs... my god man, I've told you three times already... if you want to include that stuff write a damn article on the group!  ALKIVAR™ 01:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
It's really not that difficult to understand, Bisentio. This is called "List of warez groups" not "List of memberlists of warez groups". If you want to expand the content of an individually notable warez group, be WP:BOLD and create an individual article for that group, complete with references. —RaD Man (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Self-Reference

The intro to this article is self referential.


I am going to attempt to fix that. TastemyHouse Breathe, Breathe in the air 18:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Broken link

THe link in "* Fairlight (FLT)" is broken "Demoscene division was not affected by the raid. Group NFO after the bust. " I deleted it, I would really aprreciate if someone could restore it as I am looking for it for academic purposes

[edit] Nostalgia

The number of groups are too numerous to count. There were many AOL warez groups and I even ran one once (I was a minor at the time). DyslexicEditor 09:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Console

Hitmen and Utopia should be added. They started it all on PSX and Dreamcast. Long before Kalisto was known.

--

And while adding more console stuff, PI (xbox360 games) might be worth mentioning for being first to release those.
S33k3r 01:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Almost decided to put this up for AfD

I had decided to AfD this for a third time, but in the midst of of looking over past discussions, I decided not to. Why do we need to list all of these groups here? Hell, why does this need to exist?

I do not see a good reason for this article exist mainly because all we're doing here is promoting these groups. There is no historical relevance of any of these groups for doing their criminal activities. In the end, this article is just for boasting and nothing more. :: Colin Keigher Canada 07:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Warez groups are modern day version of organized crime, or more like crime syndicates.
Yes, they are mostly invisible and rarely (read never) break your legs if you don't pay and leave horseheads to your bed,
but some might find it interesting to read about them anyways.
Call it reasonable doubt.
As for historical relevance, some of these syndicates have existed already over 20 years.
Think back 20 years, did you even own a computer back then? Unlikely, you were only 2 years old.
Yet, some of us were doing more hackerish stuff back then than most sceners and programmers today,
have evaded the law ever since and still go about on our daily business cracking and distributing
warez without getting caught.
Following your logic about good reason for this article,
we should also delete Cosa Nostra and most pages listed here.
I don't agree with that logic. The informational value is still low on per-group basis, but go to a
library, and check any encyclopedia which is dated 1920s or so and see how much information it
carries under term mafia or other crime syndicates of that era.
- S33k3r 01:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


This list is really no different then say http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_street_gangs which lists Street Gangs. Your same arguements could be applied to this list as well?
(Ipggi 10:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC))
I've more than once both found this page to be a handy quick reference, and as well wished there was more on it. Dxco 23:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing disputes

Since the main article seems to be locked, until editorial disputes are resolved, please address your concerns here. First I'd like to ask people who seem to neglect the informative header attached to the main article to read it. That same context is discussed here on talk page aswell, but it's buried under ton of text, and its easier to read from the header.

Like the header tries to clarify, this is List_of_warez_groups, not memberlist_of_warez_groups, locationlist_of_warez_groups or phonebook_of_former/current_members_of_warez_groups. If you like to add this information about each group/member/their cousins/dead uncles/goldfish then create an article and add link from the group name to that article, so everyone can read about it. Most reverts seem to be falling back to add such information which doesn't belong here and while doing so, destroying later added informative sections.

If you really disagree with anything or everything I've written above, please elaborate, what do you think we should do to make this article better?

S33k3r 20:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I was just wondering why the page is protected - there are quite a few grammar, formatting, and POV issues that I'd like to fix. Thanks. 69.116.150.174 22:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, the information in regards to XOR is incorrect - they rls plenty of NUKES! User:wrboyce 213.121.151.174 04:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the page should be unprotected. Protection has occured for three weeks, with no discussion on the issues leading to protection for the past two weeks. If vandalism continues, a simple semi-protect should suffice. If there are no objections, I will request unprotection. Calwatch 23:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines?

I have been watching (and occasionally adding) to this Wiki for about six months now... and now that the entry is unlocked, I see a lot of flotsum groups being added once again.

Perhaps some guidelines are on order?

Say, a group must be dominant on their platform as proven by history (IE C64, Sinclair Spectrum, Amiga, Atari ST, et. al) or have done something of historical significance (prerelease software of note like some Windows build, first to add a "cracktro", or otherwise establish a "norm" in what is todays warez scene). All groups should be internationally known to some degree (even pre-Internet groups). Modern groups must be internationally known and notorious at what they do.

I think about 90% of the groups included do in fact belong on this list. However, on occasion some obscure group that has released nothing of note shows up. I think that it would be wise to only list the notorious groups in order to streamline the entry and to make the entry historically relevent.

Opinions?

[edit] Not every group has an acronym

Many of the group acronyms listed are obscure or incorrect. For example, DEViANCE always use their full name, and never tag their releases as DEV, which is usually associated with the courier group DEVOTiON instead (as seen here). I suspect many of the acronyms were made-up by contributors wishing to maintain the consistency of the list. I fixed all the ones I could. 202.89.153.166 21:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removal of mp3 groups / mis-naming of maVen

could someone tell me why the mp3 section has been removed ?

and also, please stop changing 'maVen' to 'MaVeN' because that is incorrect


194.168.3.18 12:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable?

I don't think that most of these groups would even come close to approaching notability guidelines, and several points of WP:NOT apply here.

I'm not sure if its possible to fix this with the nature of the article. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 16:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to be very sure about very much. If you don't understand something, it doesn't mean that it is not notable and it does not mean that it should be deleted. Removing AfD notice. Provide some sensible arguments with substance about why it should be deleted and I will support you all the way. Thanks Santorummm 21:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I am removing the AfD tag, if you look at the top of the page AfD has already been overruled two times throughout 2005, the result each time was to keep. Please stop re-adding the AfD tag. Santorummm 19:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi! An AfD is already active and is being discussed amongst the community at WP:AFD. Removing the tag doesn't stop the AfD. The tag needs to stay up until consensus is reached. This isn't a matter of debate; it's just Wikipedia's policy that an article that has been proposed for deletion needs to be tagged as such for the duration of the AfD. Furthermore, there hasn't been so much vandalism to the article that it needs to be semi-protected. Lastly, don't remove the requests for citation unless you replace them with actual citations. Feel free to contact me directly on my talk page if you have any other questions about the AfD process or if I can help you with anything else. Cheers hoopydinkConas tá tú? 20:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I think you are confused. Requests for citation on nearly every line of the article is excessive. Feel free to manually add any you feel are warranted, but every line does not need to be cited. You have been contacted. Santorummm 00:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, what is the protocol for when someone wrongly puts the article up for deletion, because they are confused or just aren't familiar enough with a subject to consider it "notable" enough? Santorummm 00:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
There's really no such thing as "wrongly putting an article up for deletion" if it was done in good faith, and knowing the users who suggested the article be discussed, I can say that it was absolutely done in good faith. I encourage you to participate in the AfD and make your feelings known. It's not up to me or you to determine notability; Wikipedia has policies outlining what it considers notable and by extension, a valid Wikipedia article. You can check out WP:NOT for what Wikipedia is not (it's not a dumping ground for upload cruft) and WP:OR, for Wikipedia's views on original research hoopydinkConas tá tú? 20:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Whatever, I'm done with wikipedia. Sick of this kind of bullshit. Do what you will with it. Santorummm 05:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] idiots editing the page

well done to whoever put maven / centropy / pot and pukka in the console category.

im done with this page, too many idiots who havent a clue what theyre doing.

[edit] Reliable sources.

Entries in the list without reliable sources have been removed, consistant with WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. This probably leaves out some groups that may have been notable, but not sourced. Theres no problem in adding those back, but they need to be added with reliable sources to be able to stay in the article. If anyone has questions, I'm happy to assist, and time permitting, I can try to help locate sources.

Please make sure you understand the Wikipedia policies on Verifiability (its linked to on the edit page!), and on No original research as you add content here. These policies are part of Wikipedia's backbone, and they are a large part of what makes us an encyclopedia rather than a tabloid. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 04:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your removal of {{fact}} tags from List of warez groups

Just thought I'd let you know, you should probably find a better reason than "was excessive" for removing {{fact}} tags. We here at Wikipedia require that all contributions are verifiable by reliable sources, and this article seriously needs citation. I've removed a lot of unsourced information from this article. — Werdna talk criticism 04:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If an article has general problems with citing sources, then you should add a label at the top, not add a ton of [citation needed] tags or delete 3/4's of the article. Your behavior on this is uncalled for. Santorummm 18:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, its entirely in line with WP:V.

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

The fact tags that were added were done as a courtesy to give someone a chance to fix it. That hasn't happened, so parts of the article that fail WP:V have been removed. If you want them back, please find sources for them. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 20:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
In almost all cases, I agree with you guys. Citing sources is most certainly important. However, given the rather closed nature of this subject (very few people who are "in the know" would tolerate being cited), it seems quite obvious that an exception to this policy is justfiable in this instance. Regardless, I am moving this discussion to the articles talk page, where it belongs. Santorummm 20:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
All articles need citation. End of story. There can be no "exceptions" to this rule. Wikipedia is NOT a primary source. If the very nature of this article states that it must be an exception to one of our core policies then I see no place for it on Wikipedia. If you truly think that the nature of the scene makes it difficult to verify, then the article is unsalvageably unverifiable, and should be deleted. — Werdna talk criticism 03:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
No, see Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. Santorummm 14:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Ignore All Rules is a guideline recently turned into policy with dubious consensus. Verifiability has been a core policy since Wikipedia started. You cannot just cite Ignore All Rules when the policies aren't convenient. Our policies on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View and Original Research do not disappear when it's not convenient for your pet article. — Werdna talk criticism 00:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You and I are obviously not going to reach any kind of reasonable resolution. Can we put it up for a vote or resolve it some way other than you trying to tell me how things are? Santorummm 00:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:V itself isn't up for debate. The reliability of given sources may be up for debate, but the inclusion of material without sources isn't. Where something clearly isn't sourced or isn't sourced reliabily, its the discretion of anyone finding it to remove it, tag it, or comment it out. We can try to work together to find sources for as much of the material as possible - even though WP:V places the burden of finding sources on those including material (or wishing to keep that material), I'm willing to help as much as time permits. There will be some groups that we can't find sourced information on, and thats unfortunately a very real problem with trying to write objectively and verifiably on anything "underground". - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 01:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Fine then, I vote to delete all of it since it will be shit otherwise. Santorummm 02:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC) (and fuck you triona and nerdgna)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_warez_groups_c322.html"