Talk:TorrentFlux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
 

What happened to the torrentflux website?


deleted unproofed event "website suffered defacement attack due to script kiddie". Seems untrue as the page could have returned easily within hours after such an attack. --81.217.27.214 08:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

External blog[edit]

A blog not meeting WP:EL was readded to this article with an edit summary of "seems useful". Unless there's proof this blog has authority, the author any notable expertise or the information verifiable, the blog needs to be removed. Flowanda | Talk 06:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have added it myself because I think it is useful... I don't usually oppose the inclusion of links, IF there is no "link farm" AND if the link is useful. I know that tutorial is useful because I used it myself to install torrentflux. I know it might not be written by an expert and all that... but it seems to be the best one available at the moment, and I support it's inclusion. IF you notice, it is even the 4th result on google for "torrentflux tutorial". Regarding WP:EL... I think it does not belong to "links to be avoided" and might even be on "links to be considered". Regarding "proof of authority" there is none, but... is that really that important? Wikipedia can be edited by any 10 year old and yet claims to be an "encyclopedia", so I think it has even "less authority". Regarding the expertise of the owner, I don't know that, but if he writed that, He probably knows something. And regarding "verifiable information", anyone can follow the tutorial and check that all that applies... My point with all this is that I stronly disagree when people remove useful links just because of "notability" or "not a reliable source" or "WP:EL" without even considering the content of the website (or if there is any better tutorial/guide) - notability only applies to the subjects of the articles themselves, noting else (see: Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content), and "regarding reliable sources", like I said, wikipedia is even less reliable, because no one takes any responsibility, unlike a blog/site, were maybe most of the time the owner as some "reputation" he/she wants to keep. I really don't care a lot if the link gets removed (and I wont revert, etc...), but I HAD to give my view on this. Cheers -- SF007 (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)