Talk:Paradox (warez)

message: xfd quit narcing on everyone
Im sure that paradox doenst rls for the Usenet or p2p. There is still a core of real sceners!
Is this an article or an advertisement?
Don't really know what to make of this article. Can someone please clarify? --Dysepsion 05:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Thank you for the link to the music. I've always loved the music from their 'software' and never thought there would be a site that archived it. Time to burn a CD :) --71.169.121.142 (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Music 

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PARADOX (warez). Johnleemk | Talk 19:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed AFD 

message: Well, the best i could do was upload PNG image of the softwares. I would like to expand more, but dont know mutch about the team. --R2cyberpunk 18:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Should there? Syberwolff 09:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should there be a section on Arrests or something of the sort?

message: Below is the garbled mess that didn't belong on the article page. It looks like a cross between campaigning against the AFD, talk, and an AFD debate copied and pasted. I'm going to do a little more cleanup on the article and see what becomes of it. Pjbflynn 07:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no polite way to say this, so I'll just say it. You're obviously too young to remember the composition, timeline, impact and effects of the cracking scene ca. 1985-1995, and you have no idea what the giants whose shoulders you are standing on were up to in their heyday (and they or their successors apparently still are to an extent). I'm having a hard time to refrain from throwing words like "trigger-happy" and "complete ignorance" around. I wish people didn't have such short attention spans and would pay more attention to history, including the history of the IT industry. Also, don't confuse legality with notability. User:REMOVED 05:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its got nothing to do with legality. Wikipedia requires citation to establish notability and it hasn't been provied. Also read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA while you're at it.--Crossmr 05:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thats kind of the issue. In order for content to exist here there has to be an assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, or every warez group, high school club, or otherwise would have an article here.--Crossmr 04:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unidentified user please calm down this is a civil discussion. Crossmr: Personally I would assume that "It was founded in 1990" and the vast variety of consoles would lend itself to their notability but if not I could do some research and find some. The only thing I ask is, and I don't know if you did this before-hand because I just looked at the article out of curiosity for the first time, but to mark it as needing varification, or as a stub or something (I'm still new on Wikipedia) instead of marking it for deletion. I believe every informative article should be welcome on Wikipedia as someone may be looking for information on Paradox and this is a good source (perhaps with a little more information, a great source.) And Vironex, he's saying that the article needs more sources citing how elaborate, and more evidence of how popular the group is.Syberwolff 04:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because wikipedia has a threshold for inclusion and articles which do not meet that threshold get removed. So far the comments have been in the same vein as the article. A bunch of claims that this is a notable topic, yet nothing to back it up. --Crossmr 05:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not required to do any homework here. The article fails to establish the notability of the group with any references from reliable sources. Wikipedia is based on verifiability. Regardless of how big and important the group may be to the warez scene if that can't be verified it doesn't count for much on wikipedia.--Crossmr 04:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Above user: Yes that does describe their RECENT popularity but it says nothing of past feats and past popularity.Syberwolff 05:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thats a blog that is not a reliable source per wikipedia's standards.--Crossmr 05:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't a blog, but a news site, http://www.uploadcrap.com/blog/ would be a blog. --Vironex 05:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need blog in the url to be a blog. Look at it, "Posted on 03 Mar 2007 by rjodwyer" and it has a comments seciton. That is a blog.--Crossmr 05:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Crossmr, That is indeed a blog. Syberwolff 05:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I suppose Digg.com is a blog by your definition. I disagree. --Vironex 05:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has a similar format for posting stories. Digg isn't useful as a citation either. The fact of the matter is, this is presented in a blog format, and we have no idea who richard is, or why his site should be considered a verifiable source of information on this. There is no assertion of editorial oversight either. Whether he wants to call it something other than a blog, or you do, there is no evidence that this site would be useful as news source.--Crossmr 05:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As I already pointed out, thats a blog and not a valid citation so it hasn't gained anything.--Crossmr 05:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Provide the evidence then. Wikipedia requires citation.--Crossmr 05:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On their website they have cracked software avaliable from back to 1998, I'll provide a link momentarily. While this doesn't provide any notation of them being popular it does prove they are one of the oldest groups.http://www.paradogs.com/pdx_rels.htm - Dec 98 is the earliest.Syberwolff 05:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately age isn't the issue. The problem is notability, not longevity. They can be an old group without being notable.--Crossmr 05:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that but you were asking him to provide evidence of the longevity as was my understanding. Going back to my earlier comment would you support merging it with Warez as a category?Syberwolff 05:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as any merged information was verifiable yes.--Crossmr 05:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what kinds of sources are verifiable and I don't know how to go about finding such information and I doubt that there is much seeing as it's a warez group. But that sounds like a fair compromise to me.Syberwolff 05:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Start with these two pages, they should give you lots of information on how to start figuring out what is and isn't a good source: WP:V and WP:ATT.--Crossmr 05:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All the stuff that didn't belong on the article page... 

message: This article is being considered for deletion for the 2nd time in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
--- I'm very familiar to the topic and I know personally some of the people quoted in there. I can say that, even if not very elaborated, this article is now factual compared to its previous version several years ago, and properly references the course of the events. I have just added the following facts:
. 1991-1993 period when the group collapsed and was reformed
. Arrests of ex-Paradox members in 1991. Here is a link to an interview of Olivier where he briefly talks about his own arrests. As it is not an "official" source, I hesitated to quote it in the article: http://zakalwe.fi/~shd/texts/imr/a185oliv.htm
. Then, two consecutive arrests of Maximilien, in 1993 (France, just before Christmas) and in 1994 (USA), with two references and links to press articles.
Keep. Title of Le Nouvel Observateur article may be translated in English into "The world leading network of software counterfeiters has been dismantled". Le Nouvel Observateur is one of the four serious weekly news magazines in France (along with L'Express, Le Point, and Marianne). Other articles were also published at that time. To the request for deletion, I would kindly respond there are sources to prove that it is not only a Web group with attitude.
I don't know what happened after 1994 and I am not familiar with any recent stories about warez, cracks, etc. so I can't be of help regarding this. In fact, it was not a Web group at all at the beginning, because nobody were using the Web in 1990. 
Also, I think Max Louarn could deserve an article just for the story which led to his second arrest - the one about calling cards. 5 years and 7 months was a record sentence for a pirate at this time, plus he was French on a "business" trip to the US when he was busted, and it was the first time that a non-US hacker was arrested and jailed in the United States for such acts. 
He has been ranked one of the five biggest pirates of all times in some charts several years ago, next to Kevin Mitnick and Kevin Poulsen. He was also a friend of Kim Schmitz (who himself has been a member of Paradox). All of them have their Wikipedia pages. One of the stories about Max was entitled "When Greed gets the Grifter" if someone knows where to find it. It was pretty accurate. These charts and related articles seem to have disappeared from the visible web.
At last, Paradox has been the transition group between two periods. It closed the old era started in the 70's-80's, when Olivier launched it in 1990 as a normal "crack" group mainly for fun, with little money connections. Then it became a large business enterprise with Maximilien. For instance, losses in the calling card affair have been estimated at around $50 millions. Tens of thousands of card numbers have been acquired by him who sold these to his contacts all around the world. And it was only one of the branches.
From "just for fun" pirates to "big business" mafias: that's how software piracy has evolved - ask police around the world - and Paradox has been the main architect of this terrible change. --N00w (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no polite way to say this, so I'll just say it. You're obviously too young to remember the composition, timeline, impact and effects of the cracking scene ca. 1985-1995, and you have no idea what the giants whose shoulders you are standing on were up to in their heyday (and they or their successors apparently still are to an extent). I'm having a hard time to refrain from throwing words like "trigger-happy" and "complete ignorance" around. I wish people didn't have such short attention spans and would pay more attention to history, including the history of the IT industry. Also, don't confuse legality with notability. User:REMOVED 05:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its got nothing to do with legality. Wikipedia requires citation to establish notability and it hasn't been provied. Also read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA while you're at it.--Crossmr 05:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thats kind of the issue. In order for content to exist here there has to be an assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, or every warez group, high school club, or otherwise would have an article here.--Crossmr 04:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unidentified user please calm down this is a civil discussion. Crossmr: Personally I would assume that "It was founded in 1990" and the vast variety of consoles would lend itself to their notability but if not I could do some research and find some. The only thing I ask is, and I don't know if you did this before-hand because I just looked at the article out of curiosity for the first time, but to mark it as needing varification, or as a stub or something (I'm still new on Wikipedia) instead of marking it for deletion. I believe every informative article should be welcome on Wikipedia as someone may be looking for information on Paradox and this is a good source (perhaps with a little more information, a great source.) And Vironex, he's saying that the article needs more sources citing how elaborate, and more evidence of how popular the group is.Syberwolff 04:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because wikipedia has a threshold for inclusion and articles which do not meet that threshold get removed. So far the comments have been in the same vein as the article. A bunch of claims that this is a notable topic, yet nothing to back it up. --Crossmr 05:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not required to do any homework here. The article fails to establish the notability of the group with any references from reliable sources. Wikipedia is based on verifiability. Regardless of how big and important the group may be to the warez scene if that can't be verified it doesn't count for much on wikipedia.--Crossmr 04:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Above user: Yes that does describe their RECENT popularity but it says nothing of past feats and past popularity.Syberwolff 05:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thats a blog that is not a reliable source per wikipedia's standards.--Crossmr 05:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't a blog, but a news site, http://www.uploadcrap.com/blog/ would be a blog. --Vironex 05:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need blog in the url to be a blog. Look at it, "Posted on 03 Mar 2007 by rjodwyer" and it has a comments seciton. That is a blog.--Crossmr 05:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Crossmr, That is indeed a blog. Syberwolff 05:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I suppose Digg.com is a blog by your definition. I disagree. --Vironex 05:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has a similar format for posting stories. Digg isn't useful as a citation either. The fact of the matter is, this is presented in a blog format, and we have no idea who richard is, or why his site should be considered a verifiable source of information on this. There is no assertion of editorial oversight either. Whether he wants to call it something other than a blog, or you do, there is no evidence that this site would be useful as news source.--Crossmr 05:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As I already pointed out, thats a blog and not a valid citation so it hasn't gained anything.--Crossmr 05:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Provide the evidence then. Wikipedia requires citation.--Crossmr 05:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On their website they have cracked software avaliable from back to 1998, I'll provide a link momentarily. While this doesn't provide any notation of them being popular it does prove they are one of the oldest groups.http://www.paradogs.com/pdx_rels.htm - Dec 98 is the earliest.Syberwolff 05:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately age isn't the issue. The problem is notability, not longevity. They can be an old group without being notable.--Crossmr 05:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that but you were asking him to provide evidence of the longevity as was my understanding. Going back to my earlier comment would you support merging it with Warez as a category?Syberwolff 05:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as any merged information was verifiable yes.--Crossmr 05:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what kinds of sources are verifiable and I don't know how to go about finding such information and I doubt that there is much seeing as it's a warez group. But that sounds like a fair compromise to me.Syberwolff 05:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Start with these two pages, they should give you lots of information on how to start figuring out what is and isn't a good source: WP:V and WP:ATT.--Crossmr 05:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia's deletion policy (PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE...)as everyone has the right to FREE SPEECH 

message: :Image:Pdx herc.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Pdx herc.jpg

message: Paradox never hacked no ps3.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.54.14 (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paradox never hacked no ps3. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Paradox (warez). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://home.c2i.net/nirgendwo/cdne/ch5web.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Paradox (warez). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3030/keeping_the_pirates_at_bay.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025085054/http://www.pouet.net/results.php?which=33&when=94 to http://www.pouet.net/results.php?which=33&when=94
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Paradox (warez). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070306081154/http://apcstart.com/5512/pirate_crack_vista_oem_activation to http://apcstart.com/5512/pirate_crack_vista_oem_activation
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130525141536/http://cyberwarzone.com/cyberwarfare/ringleader-kim-owner-megaupload-involved-calling-card-fraud-investigation-nineties to http://www.cyberwarzone.com/cyberwarfare/ringleader-kim-owner-megaupload-involved-calling-card-fraud-investigation-nineties
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified