Talk:Secretprojectrevolution

Sources

• http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/madonna-names-katy-perry-art-for-freedom-guest-curator-20140107
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/31/katy-perry-madonna_n_4703688.html
• http://www.popmatters.com/column/181906-on-madonnas-art-for-freedom-why-you-cant-change-the-world-with-a-twe/

For using. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Download page for officially released bundles and User:IndianBio

The Official page of the (officially released) BitTorrent Bundles should be included. This link was in someone else's (an admin's?) Dirk Beetstra's proposal in a Teahouse discussion. I said I liked the idea of using the alternative Dirk proposed and asked if there were any objections to the URL Dirt proposed and no one objected. I don't understand why it's claimed otherwise. What is your understanding of what was said about the link (the title of this section)?

I included it and User:IndianBio reverted and the rationale doesn't make sense. I can't find anything at WP:ELNO about magnet or torrent links, and if if I did, I'd expect it to be apropos the piracy concerns which are not relevant here, so an exception would be appropriate anyway. It just seems that common sense should apply. Does any one have a straightforward plain English reason why the link shouldn't be included? After all, the first sentence of ELNO indicates that "a link to an official page of the article's subject" is appropriate. If there's a specific entry of the 19 at ELNO that I'm missing, which one is it? I assert that the claim that "its a direct link to download of a magnet link" is objectively false. It (the title of this section) is a link to a web page. Visiting the page doesn't initiate any downloads or redirect to a magnet link. At least not when I visit it, in a normally configured normal browser.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Sites that have malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or content that is illegal to access in the United States are not to be included, as simple as that. You are explicitly including a link to a download site which is prohibited and promotes copyright infringement. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra::There's a dispute around link you proposed. Do you endorse adding it? When I added it, would you say I was including a link to a download site which is prohibited and promotes copyright infringement or otherwise violating ELNO? This accusation seems unequivocally false to me. I don't know what more I can do to come to agreement with IB than I already have. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

BitTorrent is a download site where users and magnet links are easily uploadable and leads to copyright infringement. Unless its a CC-BY license upload, which I can't see anywhere, I absolutely don't see any point in including a link from where our readers can readily go ahead and enter a malicious website. Just because Madonna chose to release a project on this website does not make it ok to just include magnet website links in Wikipedia articles. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

You -- while logged out, for no legitimate reason I'm aware of -- told me to FUCK OFF (diff)(history has been edited, à la 1984) and when Ariconte called you out for it, you falsely called me a spammer: diff for no valid reason and insulted me for no valid reason. You have yet to apologize. I'm quite angry because of your verbal abuse and allegations which continue to be unsubstantiated, personal attacks, and appear to be slanderous. I asked you nicely to revert or substantiate your personal attack and you did neither. The civil thing to do would be for you to take back the insults and apologize for the abuse. Instead, you are continuing to be an abusive an unapologetic bully. I've done my part to explain why the http link I added is appropriate, provided evidence to back my claims and civilly attempted to discuss it. And you refuse to provide any evidence to support your claims. At this point, I consider the case that the link is appropriate to be proven. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Where do you think there is a consensus here to add a BitTorrent link in this discussion? What proof you have given that the link is appropriate may I see? May I suggest you read point 3 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID which clearly states "Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or content that is illegal to access in the United States. Suspected malware sites can be reported by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist". IPuser, I would also suggest you get a consensus from Reliable sources noticeboard, where users can actually verify and provide you inputs. Just pasting content in the talk page of BitTorrent is of no use. A simple search in their archives shows that any torrent site is prohibited from using. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 06:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

What part of " And you refuse to provide any evidence to support your claims. " do you not understand? It seems impossible to get through to you that you need to provide evidence to back up your allegations. Provide proof. Identify just ONE clear real example from the web site I linked to of a torrent file or magnet link that if used, would cause copyright infringement. That's a low bar. I've explained. It's very simple. You have provided no evidence that bundles.bittorrent.com is in the set "Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or content that is illegal to access in the United States." --50.201.195.170 (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC) And your sinister "What concluded discussion?" revert edit summary is dishonest. I meant the one here on the talk page, as I'm confident you know perfectly well, that ended with "At this point, I consider the case that the link is appropriate to be proven. ". The complete lack of progress since then proves me right. Consider yourself warned for edit warring.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)