Talk:Oink's Pink Palace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page was previously nominated for deletion.

Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:

Snowball keep, October 23 2007, see discussion.
Delete, June 12 2007, see discussion.

[edit] the official legal defense fund

I found it rather audacious that my short edit on the creation of the official OiNK assistance fund was removed with the curt summary "Please do not add the donation links or relief fund links." Is there any particular reason why we shouldn't? There are numerous revisions on the page detailing changes in the displayed content on OiNK.cd since the tracker's shutdown, so why is the establishment of an official relief fund not worthy of the same treatment? If it's legitimacy we're worried about, this comes from straight from the horse's mouth at [OiNK.cd], as you can see for yourself. Unless there is some compelling rationale for why a very notable development in the aftermath of OiNK's shutdown does not bear mentioning in the article about that very topic, I'm going to re-insert it. (Footnote: I'm willing to admit, in retrospect, that my edit read a bit like an advertisemt or a fundraising attempt, but that was not deliberate. We don't need that much detail, but we should certainly mention that the site is now officially accepting donations.) Thanks, Thatcrazycommie (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: The information about the SaveOiNK.com fund has been removed, and now featured is the text "Watch this space for an update soon :-)" So, while I stand by my previous complaint, I think we should probably hold off on that issue until we see this "update." Thatcrazycommie (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It would not be inappropriate or unencyclopedic to mention that a legal fund has been established, but it is really not a good idea to add the actual link, for a number of reasons, including: A) it is difficult to verify that the site is legitimate, and linking to the wrong site carries too much of a risk, and B) having the link is not really encyclopedic, it really does have a feel of going too far in terms of NPOV. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OiNK or Oink's Pink Palace

Hasn't OiNK said that it was never officially called Oink's Pink Palace but just OiNK? I think the name of this page and every reference to the site should be changed from Oink's pink palace to OiNK.130.161.248.81 11:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to statements made by the admin of Oink then, from my perspective, the answer is no. I was a member of Oink and actually saw many statements from the admin referring to the site as Oink's Pink Palace. He did not condone the useage of Oink over OPP. All references currently cited agree with such statements. Unless you can find sources otherwise the article will state the official name as Oink's Pink Palace. TTile 04:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the name changed with the logo. When i made my remark and checked back to the page i saw the screenshot of an older version of the site which did actually say Oink's Pink Palace. I can't really remember clearly what the idea of the admin OiNK was, maybe he can change the title of the page himself if he wants too.81.205.148.89 12:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Absurdity of Wikipedia.

I would like to say freely that despite countless people's attempts to create this article it was always...always...always gets deleted. But now that OiNK is in news spotlight we finally get permission to make an article. It has taken over 3 years of headaches but we finally get what we want when we lose everything. Because of wikipedia's arrogance on the subject matter, I have started a campaign on my blog to STOP ALL DONATIONS TO WIKIPEDIA IMMEDIATELY. It is absolutely ridiculous that us OiNK users were treated in this way and I believe we deserve a formal apology. Until then.

-Signed, A very concerned Wikifan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penfish (talk • contribs) 04:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You tried to make an Oink article when it was active?! Private bittorrent trackers need to keep as low a profile as possible. You're an idiot, penfish.

The OiNK staff didn't want it here, this was not due to wikipedia arrogance, it was actually due to the site being non-notable (and we did our best to keep it that way). -Paine 10:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I heard that Oink did not want their site to be published anywhere. If the article had been added Oink would have been shut down long back. Atleast be happy that now it is gone and wont come back. --SkyWalker 10:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Rule #1, You do not talk about Fight Club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.209.181.29 (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Penfish, there is no such explicit hierarchy in Wikipedia. I created the article (in its latest incarnation). I didn't get "permission" from anyone. I was surprised it wasn't on Wikipedia, so I checked the reasoning for its previous deletion. It was because OiNK was not discussed in any independent sources, except in passing. Since OiNK was now a topic of conversation in many independent new outlets, I thought the original grounds for deletion were moot, so I started up a new article. It was again nominated for deletion under the criterion of non-notability, but enough people joined the discussion and argued that it should remain. I don't think there is such a thing as "wikipedia's arrogance". Articles are deleted if they do not meet Wikipedia's standards, which are not only well-documented, but open to debate and revision from any user. --Ori.livneh 14:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

I find it funny that it's now considered notable only after it's been shutdown ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.37.28 (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

OiNK has played relatively large role in the internet piracy scene, being known as THE tracker for music for the last few years. I would say it is at least as relevant as Suprnova (which also has a fairly detailed Wikipedia entry). Putting this article up for deletion was a ridicules idea.Random6 19:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

pwned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.132.251 (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

OiNK is now the subject of extensive coverage on several news outlets, among them the Telegraph, the BBC, the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Reuters, the International Herald Tribune, and others. If it wasn't notable before, it definitely is now. --Ori.livneh 17:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is more verifiable information about OiNK, this article should be deleted. Nothing is being said about OiNK in the media that is useful as Wiki material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.176.236 (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous that this would be considered for deletion...Oink has previously generated extensive media coverage, even before its raid...and should have had an entry to begin with.

QFT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.45.189 (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyway OiNK made some kind of history or news coverage... let's start deleting history ? .luizhp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.28.13.198 (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to delete this article. --John Lunney 19:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be off-topic but do you really think they'll go after all 180,000 members? It seems only logical they'd go after the big fish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.30.235 (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You cant be serious if you think they're going after 180,000 members. HA HA HA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.104.222 (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Either this article expands with more information about OiNK and it's services, or it should get deleted. A blurb about the media hype is not enough for an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.176.236 (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Rather than promote its deletion, why not hang around for a few days to see if anything else gets added? 70.230.18.214 20:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. How is this site not notable enough? Is 180,000 members -- enough people to fill out the capitol cities of several U.S. States -- not notable enough? OiNK membership is a coveted thing, judging by the numerous request threads on forums around the internet. This article needs to be expanded, but as is should not be facing deletion. 69.224.75.57 21:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The site not being notable before it was shut down does not mean that it is not shut down now. The site is now under investigation and that makes it notable. Not to be offensive, but Lee Boyd Malvo was not notable until he was involved in the Beltway sniper attacks. Oink deserves to be mentioned, because whether or not it was notable before, it is definitely notable now. The-bus 21:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been notable the whole time, my understanding as to why there has in the past been no article is because the vast majority of OiNK users didn't want there to be an article. The site was and still is exceptionally notable as the single best private music torrent tracker up until it was shut down. 67.185.164.169 08:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the only reason there wasn't an article before is because the users wanted it hush-hush (which they failed at, and now it is closed), and secondly, besides the fact that it is quite notable, this is one of the only places getting the facts right. I was appalled to see all these big news sources get things flat out wrong. I don't know where they got there information, but they need new people. And it is pretty clear that interpol never got an invite... 67.173.245.215 15:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think they got that information from IFPI. I was said that BBC was used in their propaganda 130.161.235.164 09:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC

[edit] OiNK.cd?

The title of this article should be OiNK.cd, not OiNK, considering the site was called OiNK.cd officially, OiNK.me.uk before the switchover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenthkarma (talk • contribs) 19:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

or "OiNK's Pink Palace" which is the actual name. oink.cd and oink.me.uk were just the domain names. Whysyn 20:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean "Oink's Pink Palace", in compliance with our style guidelines regarding nonstandard capitalization. —Burn Down Babylon 23:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Those style rules are abhorrent and should be sloughed off like dead skin. - BalthCat 02:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If we let every mark owner tell us how to capitalize words, EvERYtHiNG®® WOULD LookLike* This™. Trademarks are designed to STAND OUT and GRAB YOUR ATTENTION. This works for advertising, but in an encyclopedia it's a train wreck as far as readability is concerned. We have those style guidelines for a reason. They're a great idea. We should follow them here. —Burn Down Babylon 03:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, capitalisation is obviously not the same as colour, blinking, or font size. We are quite capable of accepting one, and not accepting another. Secondly, the name, at creation, of a website, is a proper noun, with potential artistic nature. It's none of your business what is capitalised and what isn't. If some one moved ohGr to Ohgr I'd be tempted to give them a good solid one. And you know what? Who cares if evErYthinG starts to look that way? If that is how the "brand", as you seem to call OiNK, presents itself, that's how it is. If it is never referred to as "Oink" (which, in this case, I admit it is) then it is *ERRONEOUS* - BalthCat 04:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Toning down irregular capitalization is a standard recommendation of style manuals. It should come as no surprise that ours recommends the same. It is absolutely Wikipedia's place to normalize the orthography of proper nouns, and we have done so quite consistently -- really, the only exception in common practice is for musical groups. I suspect, however, that this is mostly due to people becoming tired of dealing with irrationally rabid fans continually insisting that Wikipedia should follow the inane whims of anyone who tosses a watermelon at a keyboard.

If this is really a problem for you, please propose your changes at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks) rather than wasting our time here. Thanks. —Burn Down Babylon 05:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Proper nouns are defined by their creator, to rewrite capitalisation is to argue that you have the right to redefine/recreate a proper noun. For evidence that this rule is already subjective, please see iPod and McDonald. Are we only to consider sheer corporate size, or tradition, as valid excuses, rather than creative prerogative and consistency? - BalthCat 17:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You will note that the style guide makes a special distinction for words like iPod, where internal capitalization improves readability. You are also not seriously suggesting that a 1000-year-old formation in surnames is anything like the use of toggle caps in writing the name of a web site. —Burn Down Babylon 23:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I sure am. Thousand year old, or ten year old, I don't particularly respect tradition's right to be more applicable than creative right which is backed by consistency. The iPod thing being about "readability" is a cop out. It also implies camelCaps are somehow acceptable. If the i in OiNK represented electronics, as does the lower-case I in many other brands, it would remove meaning from the noun, which is not (y)our place! I am tempted to use WP:IAR to move the website, however I would have to use the Wayback Machine to look up all past layouts of the site. (I admit to not being energetic enough.) - BalthCat 01:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am serious when I recommend that you bring this up on the MOSTM talk page. Please do. —Burn Down Babylon 01:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if you look up Google it isn't Google.com, also does that capitalization rule apply with names or proper nouns?

Yes, it is written especially for proper nouns. Go have a look -- Oink is not a special case, it's a standard, prototypical case. —Burn Down Babylon 00:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There should at least be redirects from oink.cd and oink.me.uk. 70.18.173.142 03:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Done oink.cd and oink.me.uk now redirect here. —Burn Down Babylon 03:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be much easier to take all the capitalization indignations seriously if the same flames were cluttering up the iPod and iGoogle discussions Khigh 16:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's funny how someone named BurnDownBabylon has a problem with internal capitalization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.149.140 (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Do anyone know the reason they changed the name from oink.co.uk to oink.cd? wasn't it something about some fantasy author can't remember his name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardel Murzighiz (talk • contribs) 23:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the original domain name was oink.me.uk, not oink.co.uk. Second of all, the authorities responsible for .me.uk domain names suspended the domain for registering the domain with fraudulent information. OiNK registered the domain with an address that matched the "cute" theme of the website, it was something like, 123 Oinky Street. A phony city was also given. It had nothing to do with any fantasy author being unable to remember a name. Phuzion (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

This page was looking heavily biased towards opinions of OiNK fans. I took out the word "propaganda" and removed some unfounded claims stated incorrectly as facts. Rasi2290 17:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. The page needed to rewrite. --SkyWalker 19:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, also cut down a bit on the talk about the share ratio and that part of the text --> it's a bit too much info perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WijzeWillem (talk • contribs) 21:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It got bad again. I tried to get rid of the worst of it. kmccoy (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where to go?

Is there some place where oink users are going to discuss the recent events (ie the shut down)? This should perhaps be listed. Additionally, I need a place to lament, and to also possibly find more information about the investigation's status.Teimu.tm 21:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, start your own blog. That is the great thing about the web, you can do it yourself. In any case, the place you are looking for is not Wikipedia. Hugh2323 23:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)~

Not another blog :( 130.161.235.164 09:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admins release and pending charges

Thoughts, will the mighty pig return? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredpaik (talk • contribs) 00:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether OiNK itself will return is completely unknown to us. It is definite that something will return/be created. Should this be in the article? Sp3z1aL 01:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would add something, but i'm at work and can't get anything apart from company and competitor websites, plus loopholes through to wikipedia. Jaredpaik 02:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredpaik (talk • contribs)

[edit] Donation Site

Please don't add links to donation sites until there is some verification that the sites are legitimate. Remember, Wikipedia:Verifiability is what matters, not truth. The fact that the people running the site say they're legitimate (or that they're former OiNK members) is irrelevant--you need a reputable source to put it in. MrVibrating 05:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Official News

One of the moderators of OiNK has started a blog here: http://tehpaine.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.137.96.126 (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Would it be possible to get a picture of the website before the shutdown? Notthegoatseguy 14:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not the website, but the logo? [1] ? 129.120.94.148 17:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oink.cd seems to have banned archiving, but oink.me.uk has been archived at archive.org as recently as April 2007. If someone is interested, they can cap from there. It was fairly similar for oink.cd, but admittedly, it's not the most recent screenshot TheHYPO 20:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Oink's Pink Palace Screenshot .png

Sadly I wasn't logged on when I took this screenshot but at least it's something. Also it clearly states that sales of invites is prohibited (mentioned in the article amirite?)

Until someone comes up with a better screenshot. Feel free to crop / edit it so it doesn't show the interface of my browser. Dnkroz —Preceding comment was added at 20:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the main page from a few days ago from a logged in user

Plorkyeran 22:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oink creation

When was Oink created? 2004? That'd be useful information for the article. 129.120.94.148 17:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

30.5.2004 was launch date (or least 30.5.2006 was 2years birthday) --Zache 21:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Divide the the text

Text should be divide two sections. One for what Oink really was (based on facts) and second for the raid, statements from copyright agencies and pirates and how mainstream handled news etc. I don't do it because my english pretty much sux. --Zache 08:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. While my English doesn't suck, I'm unfortunately too exhausted to do it right now. I added a shutdown section, which should really actually be about the shutdown and its aftermath. --cut copy 07:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories?

Does this article really need a listing of all the music genres listed on the site? Is that relevant or important to anyone? TheHYPO 20:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is needed Sp3z1aL 22:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree that it shouldn't be in the article. MrVibrating 23:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in the article because they allowed all genres of music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.205.148.89 (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How much music there were

It would be nice to have some info (with refs) how much there actual was music . --Zache 12:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC) No it wouldn't —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.155.197.98 (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I kind of agree. I think after mentioning how many users there were, it should be mentioned how many torrents there were (over 150,000?)81.205.148.89 12:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Roughly about a million-zillion albums all encoded in high end FLAC. Jaredpaik 05:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredpaik (talk • contribs)

Of course I can't really link this to any real "verifiable" facts but as a member I can say with certainty exactly around 208,000 torrents (of albums, singles, etc) this also includes e-books, applications, comics, and all that. Edit by original user: 208 000 does not mean number of tracks. Single tracks were not allowed on OiNK unless it was released as a single. This means you couldn't take a track out of a album and release it. Because of this the 208 000 torrents are of full albums so there would have easily have been 1 000 000 tracks of music. This is, I believe, bigger than iTunes even and in higher quality.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.227.53 (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The number of torrents is not at all indicative of the number of albums. Most albums were up in multiple quality levels, some with 4 or 5 versions. Pumpkin Industry Magnate Thornhill (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the site's currently hacked

unfortunately no first hand research on wp, meh. still, it's hacked, take a look http://oink.cd has a picture of waffles--x1987x^(talk) 01:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

seems torrentfreak says the owner did it.--x1987x^(talk) 01:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It was done by OiNK or one of the Admins. Jaredpaik 23:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredpaik (talk • contribs)

It was done by OiNK's origional creator directly after regaining control of the webspace. According to him, he recieved several e-mails from someone who remains nameless about a replacement site and a system of invites based on OiNK membership. Confirming that it was not a scam unlike the rest of the oink sites out there (oh how many scams there are) he decided to make obscure references to said site. However, he has made it clear that he is not a part of said site, does not support said site, and probably will ever. He has also made clear that he will not be resurrecting OiNK due to the mess it has put him in. Kyuuketsuki47 (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Kyuuketsuki47

[edit] Legality and Trial??

uhh, so what happened after the raid, anyone care to add to the article a legal section? What happened to due process, and Alan's rights? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.246.168.213 (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The New Oink?

from looking around the web, it appears that [blank] is the new oink.cd Tresmius (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well it isn't. -- 82.31.187.163 (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

“Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views” -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines

Until discussion of the "The New Oink" receives “significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject” -- and you can re-include such information along with (a) credible reference(s) – please leave the information out.J4ne0315 (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, that was rather personal. When i typed 'The New Oink?' i meant similar private torrent tracker websites created shortly after oink was shut down, not oink itself. From the page at [blank] you can see [blank] was intended to be based on oink. I didn't intend to state a fact, nor break any rules or guidelines, i was merely offering some data/ consulting the talk page, as i'm sure that is what the talk page is for, and that is why i posted my question on the talk page rather than the subject page. Thanks for taking the time to read my post on the 17th, i did not have much time when i posted it, so it was rushed personal and unprofessional. Tresmius (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FTWR link

There's currently a link on Oink.cd to FTWR (follow the white rabbit), a private torrent tracker that tries to hide its existence. The description of the link to FTWR on Oink.cd has been removed several times now.

The first time the edit summary said it was to protect the privacy of the site. There's no Wikipedia policy on protecting the privacy of sites that are freely accessible on the internet. Then someone removed it saying that the link didn't work (it still does). Then someone changed the link to point to www.prfal.com, which is the site that FTWR has mirrored as a fake front. Then it was removed entirely.

Please don't remove this information without discussing here first, and don't add intentionally misleading information to this article. MrVibrating (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy requires topics to be NOTABLE -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability -- personally, I'd say that whatever links, pictures, etc. exist on a web pages is NOT NOTABLE. None of those details have any relevance to the Oink place in history, etc. To quote the policy page, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Have any reliable secondary sources detailed waffle and bunny icons? Furthermore, Wikipedia is NOT a place for any and all information about a topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information

Moreover, Wikipedia policy also demands VERIFIABILITY -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability -- personally, I don't see how anyone can make any claim about what a link/picture/etc. is/means/etc. without using original research. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S TRUE -- it has to be verifiable , that is PUBLISHED IN RELIABLE SOURCES. If it's not verifiable, it should be deleted. Again, to quote Wikipedia policy, "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Again, a Wikipedia article is NOT a place for unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

I am deleting the last two paragraphs of this article which deal only with this sort of unsourced, unnotable material -- which, at any rate, has no relevance to the topic heading "Shutdown and Media Response" (since it describes, without any references, the current state of the web page (which hardly needs to be mirrored here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#MIRROR). :J4ne0315 (talk) 07:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

First, please don't delete sections of my comments or rename this section. See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines for generally accepted etiquette for talk pages. I've restored my original comments.

Notability applies to article topics, not to the contents of articles. The link also isn't indiscriminate information--it's one of the few items on the titular website, making it quite relevant to the article. And something not fitting in a topic heading is a reason to move it, not delete it. That being said, I think you're right about the verifiability part, so how about we say that the bunny link exists without saying that it's a link to FTWR's website? MrVibrating (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The link on OiNK.cd has now been removed and issue seems to be resolved I ask that references to the rabbit site are removed from this talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky326123 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Talk pages are meant to preserve discussions for the benefit of other editors, and so the comments shouldn't be removed. See the link in my post above for details. MrVibrating (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I can understand that you think its relevent to keep the discussion here. But since the link and picture was removed from OiNK.cd there is not really any need to keep it here. However even though having talk about the link here is irrelevent now i am sure you think it should stay, so i ask can you at least remove the refference to the sites content in your first talk post.--Ricky326123 (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the link is gone (from Oink and/or from the article) doesn't matter. The talk page is a record of conversations, and things aren't deleted the moment they are seemingly resolved. What if people start adding the link again? What if an article about Oink mentions the link? What if someone wants to know the explanation for the edits regarding the link? In any of those cases it would be helpful to see this discussion. I think there's a misunderstanding of how talk pages function. Talk pages aren't like article pages--they aren't cleaned up and made to show only the most recent information. MrVibrating (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact a topic is notable, does not make ALL information marginally related to the topic relevant, worthy of notice, or worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article. Per the notability policy page, the content of articles is governed by Wikipedia guidelines such as using reliable sources -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS -- and handling trivia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TRIV . The titular website, as you put it, of this article is a “prominent BitTorrent tracker”, which is now defunct. The minutia of HMTL artifacts residing at the same URL after the shutdown – whether that minutia be links, images, or font selections – is irrelevant trivia. You seem intent on using Wikipedia to advertise specific information which is not only not published in reliable sources, but which also contains (what can only be described as) wildly speculative and highly editorialized original research. (How do you know the unstated name of a web site? How do you know the 'intentions' of a web site?) Wikipedia is not the place to publish “MrVibrating’s Guide to the Secret Internet”, nor a place to provide pointers to “The Next Oink”, nor a place to chronicle, mirror, and archive the content of a particular website through time -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#MIRROR . Until the time when and if any of the post-shutdown content of oink.cd becomes notable and non-trivial enough to be receive “significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject” -- and you can re-include the information along with (a) credible reference(s) – please leave the information out.

Moreover, Wikipedia Talk pages are also not the place for you to slip in details and information which don’t warrant inclusion in the actual article. As you yourself noted, Talk pages are for the benefits of the other editors. As such, 1) a discussion of a general issue (especially in a headline) is more beneficial than mention of a particular instance of that issue. And, 2) plastering a Talk page with references to your own speculative information and original research helps no one and violates the Wikipedia policy that “Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views” -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines . The fact that edits of the comments of others is discouraged is not a shield for you to abuse the Talk page as a soapbox and then insist that others let that abuse stand -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAP#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox .

I have again edited the Talk page to 1) help discuss with editors the GENERAL topic which informs not only the issue at present but future cases as well, and 2) deleting material not relevant to improving the article, i.e. the irrelevant, unverified, original research your comment advertised.J4ne0315 (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there are some problems with your interpretations of WP policy, but I first need to make it clear that you may not delete portions of my comments on the talk page. You seem to respect WP policies, so please look at Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments. My comments were made in reference to changes being made in the article, and saying once that FTWR is a torrent site isn't "plastering my views," nor does it constitute "editorializing." I didn't mention FTWR out of the blue--someone added a link to [2] to the article that was repeatedly deleted/edited w/o discussion, leading me to put something on the talk page asking for discussion. And the title of this section shouldn't be changed--it's about the deletion/edits of the link to FTWR (we can all agree that was the URL), not some general issue. I think this problem is a result of a misunderstanding of how talk pages work, but if you're certain you understand I'd be happy to go line-by-line on your arguments. MrVibrating (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

EDIT - there is no such link on Oink.cd (Shikotee2 (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

The comments at the beginning of this section are directly related to the discussion of the article. Please do not modify other editors' comments without their permission. Thank you. kmccoy (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music Industry Article link

There is a link on the site, and everyone should check it out: http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html It is a blog piece called "When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink, the Birth of Dissent, and a Brief History of Record Industry Suicide." It is well written, and provides great insight towards problems within the Music Industry.

There is indication that we should continue watching the site for further updates.(Shikotee2 (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] External links

There is now links for

The site and most official blog
Official press releases: Should be in the article
Orginal BBC news entries, which other news relayed as truth to all around the world: should be in the article
Interviews of Oink and it's hosting company: should be linked to the article
news by Paste and Ars Technica, just newsclips with better insight than most. Could be used as refs also.
Internet commentary: in the article should definetly be section for internet commentary and links should be used as refs, but as long nobody writes anything i am happy with external links.

Does somebody think that there is too much external links? Eg, i am pretty happy with most of them and because it is pretty unlikely that Oink will come back the news coverage were the thing what common people did see about the site, so there should be links to most relevant news items as long they are working. --Zache (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Artist to be users of Oink

General line is that if we say that some artist or person were user of Oink it has to be reffed. If there isn't any reference/citation it can't be added to article. --Zache (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Gardiner of Operator Please WAS a member of OiNK. We exchanged many OiNK emails with one another, and her username on OiNK was the same as it still is on YouTube. I've read in YouTube comments that I wasn't the only one she emailed on a regular basis. Her username both on OiNK and on YouTube is 'ividdythou'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.238.31 (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it is plausible, but we need still refs to add it to article. You know, It is not kind of enough that some anonymous person says that somebody were user of oink. --Zache (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.238.31 (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Added bit about Trent Reznor being a member (with links!) SetaLyas (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sufjan? Really?

Is there any sort of reference/citation to back up the claim that Sufjan was an OiNK member? I'd feel way better about leeching 'Michigan', if so :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.19.84 (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oink v. 2?

User:Phantomia has been relentlessly adding links to a supposed reincarnation of Oink's Pink Palace. The new one has a similar style but is covered with advertisements, which is very much a "no-no" compared to the original. I am calling shenanigans. --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It was listed as scamsite in the Paine's -blog, which least were the semi-official OiNK info blog after the bust happened. Also they removed link to the teh Paines blog from the article when they added their own link. --Zache (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources and constitute spam when they are used in the external links section. It's well noted at WP:ANI#User:Phantomia on Oink's Pink Palace. Further inclusion of the links or blogs will result in them being reported for blacklisting. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Reported for blacklist inclusion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I removed a sentence

I removed this: "Moderators and users of the site attempted to police publicity of the site and maintain a low profile by removing Wikipedia entries whenever they appeared. " Not only is it unprovable speculation with no source, but it isn't even true. The old oink articles were always removed for lack of outside sources and notability just like any other private BT tracker.