Talk:Topsite (warez)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Nuke

I got in this page through "nuke"

I have read the page and now I still dont know what nuking is or how its done (in the warez scene).

82.92.111.48 18:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Try reading this older revision of the article

84.251.9.239 11:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it still be listed in the current version? --Hm2k 10:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, "nuke" definitely leads a definition or needs to link to one. Also, "colo" is used without explanation/link. Bobbyi 14:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There enjoy some more info on nuking. Avarice7DS 17:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

---

How do you guys know this stuff, are you all sceners? If so what groups ;-)

Ex-scener.  ALKIVAR™ 01:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You should be arrested for being a pirate and raising the costs of software, movies, and music. 12.219.74.52 06:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You should be arrested for believing all the crap that organisations like the mpaa say.

Maybe you should get a job so you can afford stuff.

Pretty lame comments, wikipedia is about informations not arguing.

---

I reverted the page back to version by User:S33k3r and added some info which was removed previously. Reference 3 works as a reference for group admin aswell, since it's mentioned there. I agree with User:67.182.140.115 that forum posts alone are not valid citable sources, but it seems to be complimentary with reference 3 which has more detailed information about nuking, atleast on the technical process. As for the linkop thing, I reverted it aswell. Standard (warez) article seems to be entirely based on information that can be cited only from NFO files. For warez related articles, I would consider NFO files valid source, since this stuff isn't something you can go and research in a library.

Pda 17:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how NFO files can be a valid source, they are not 2nd party journalism, they are first party editorials. Nfos can be written by anyone, modified heavily as they are passed from the source, and a frequently contradicted by other nfos. Since they are not reported by a peer reviewed or reputable 2nd party source, quoting them is original research, akin to quoting a conversation in an IRC channel.

None of this information is verifiable, it's just conjecture based on dubious sources. No reputable source has ever published a detailed account as to the specific workings of the release scene and as such this article shouldn't go into those workings, such as linkops vs siteops and how nuking works, etc.

67.182.140.115 08:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The NFO's referenced here are scene notices. Those are distributed usually in unpacked(easier to read) and packed form(for verification). The packed form has checksum attached.

There are also nfos without packaging, but general scene conduct dictates that you do not edit material once it's released, and that includes nfos. (hence .nfofix. releases)

In most cases, you would need siteop privileges to edit uploaded material.

In order to change the NFO, you'd have to unpack and repack the archive, which would change the checksum, and you can easily verify that the checksum is invalid if you try to upload the changed version to another server with original SFV. The server would just reject the modified version.

Same works the other way around. And if the uploader notices that the two packages differ, the contents can be compared.

I would consider dupecheck to be peer reviewing, invalid/bad stuff gets nuked.

Nfos are a bit dubious source for information, but until someone actually publishes real article, those are the next best thing to reference to.

S33k3r 09:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous. The fact is that NFOs are first hand accounts, they are not verifiable sources (read WP:VS). Using them as sources is original research, no question. Just because there is no good verifiable source for something, according to the basic policies of wikipedia is not an excuse for publishing information based on bad sources.

Also, not all NFOs are packed in the release, for example ISO releases (which are most commonly found on topsites) are not distributed with checksummed infos, only the data is.

Since you agree that NFos are a dubious source, I'll go ahead and get rid of all the un-sourced information through the article to improve its verifiability.

67.182.140.115 22:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want this turning into a revert war, so here's link to the old revision which contains disputed information, incase someone reading this page later wants to find it faster.

Disputed version of the article which uses source information from NFO files.

S33k3r 19:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

---

[edit] FTP daemons

In older versions of this page there was these: FTP daemons

   * glFTPd
   * DrFTPD
   * ioFTPD
   * RaidenFTPD

Now there is only glFTPd listed, what's going on? --Hm2k 10:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's censorship by user(s) from 67.182.140.x range. Instead of using "citation needed"-tags, they keep deleting the information as unsourced.

S33k3r 23:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)