Talk:Oink's Pink Palace

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: the official legal defense fund

message: 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)
thread_title: OiNK or Oink's Pink Palace

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Absurdity of Wikipedia.

message: 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)
thread_title: Notability

message: 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)
replies: text: I totally agree. The page needed to rewrite. --SkyWalker 19:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It got bad again.  I tried to get rid of the worst of it.  kmccoy (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Not another blog :( 130.161.235.164 09:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to go? 

message: Thoughts, will the mighty pig return?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredpaik (talk • contribs) 00:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admins release and pending charges 

message: 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)
thread_title: Donation Site

message: 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)
thread_title: Semi-Official News

message: When was Oink created? 2004? That'd be useful information for the article. 129.120.94.148 17:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 30.5.2004 was launch date (or least 30.5.2006 was 2years birthday) --Zache 21:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oink creation

message: 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)
thread_title: Divide the the text

message: 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)
replies: text: Agree that it shouldn't be in the article. MrVibrating 23:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Categories? 

message: It would be nice to have some info (with refs) how much there actual was music .  --Zache 12:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  How much music there were 

message: 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)
replies: text: seems torrentfreak says the owner did it.--x1987x(talk) 01:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the site's currently hacked 

message: 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)
thread_title: Legality and Trial??

message: 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)
thread_title:  Music Industry Article link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Yes, sir.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.238.31 (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added bit about Trent Reznor being a member (with links!) SetaLyas (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artist to be users of Oink 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sufjan?  Really? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Oink v. 2? 

message: 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilentFuryJ (talk • contribs) 
OH SNAP, now the word is out that the Oink admins were conspiring to manipulate Wikipedia all along. Might as well just go ahead and put that line back in
 "the site’s operators apparently nixed repeated attempts to create a Wikipedia entry, so as not to draw attention."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/oink-admin-beats-file-sharing-charges/
— TheBilly(Talk) 22:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed a sentence 

message: As per WP:BRD, external links should present different details than citations as per Wikipedia:External_links#References_and_citation. The links are NOT considered external links, these are references that should be used for citation. --Hm2k (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that if links are used in article as references they should not be at external links, but until they are used as references they are perfectly good external links. Though, it would be also very cool if someone would use those links as references to expand the notable members section. --Zache (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there's no intention of using them in the article, they should be removed from the external links section. This will encourage users to improve the article. --Hm2k (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: There is error in legal proceedings or least it need to be checked. Problematic text is ...Between 23 and 28 May 2008 six former members were arrested and questioned, but released on bail without being charged.[20][21] On 12 September 2008 five of the six members of OiNK who had previously been arrested were charged with copyright infringement. The sixth, OiNK's administrator Alan Ellis, had bail extended four times until 10 September 2008.... I think (but i am not sure) that Alan Ellis wasn't one of the six who was arrested between 23 and 28 May 2008. He was arrested before and on bail so there was six arrests and Alan Ellis was seventh. This is now more visible because IP removed some redundant text, but it was there before his/her edit. --Zache (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Hm2k (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in legal proceedings 

message: If you visit the website now, it shall say "sorry, nothing interesting here." --68.140.76.113 (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website 

message: I was a member of OiNK for about 24 hours a week before OiNK was shut down.  I struggled to find an invite and found that donors were treated preferentially by receiving buffer for their financial contribution. I donated the suggested $20, and received my VIP status so that I could begin participating.  As a newbie to private trackers, I made a poor decision in trying to improve my ratio status with the tracker by downloading the biggest possible file I could find in hopes that it would help me improve my ratio.  Confused as to why my ratio was not improving, I asked in their IRC chat what could be the problem.  I was teased and berated by several staff members, including one named Boletus.   I was then permanently banned and not allowed to appeal.  I wrote an email directly to Alan Ellis after finding his email on the whois record for his domain name.  I was surprised that his name and real address were not privatized on the whois record.  Alan would not satisfy my request to have my ban removed and did not offer to refund my "donation".  I was upset enough to file a report with IFPI and BREIN (governmental anti-piracy bureaus) on their respective websites including Ellis's full name, home address, and I shared my suspicion that the "donations" were rather lucrative for him, seeing as how some 20% of his users had donor status, and at a purported 180k users, making his overall income from the donors around $200K.  
Nine days later, OiNK was shut down and Alan Ellis was arrested.  As it turned out in the following news reports, Ellis's address on his whois record was correct, he did live in a flat in Middlesbrough.  Ellis has now set his whois record information to private.  Coincidence?  It may seem contrived to think I am responsible for supplying the necessary information for the criminal investigation, but I can't help but wonder if the law enforcement simply had no one actively investigating, and my simple contribution was enough to set them into action.  
I am now wondering, what further research can I do to find out why OiNK was shut down and Ellis was arrested?  The only thing I have to go on are the archived emails that I sent to IFPI, BREIN and Ellis, and his brief correspondence in reply.
Tertianglobe (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential, Yet Unreliable News, Needs Further Research 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Oink's Pink Palace. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://piratepartyuk.org/press_releases/UK-NL_statement_oink.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Oink's Pink Palace. 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/20060613042533/http://oink.me.uk/ to http://oink.me.uk/
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) 16:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified