Talk:TV Links

message: At the top of the page it says the arrest was on october 18th but the bottom says october 19th? is that an accident or am i missing something?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danos (talk • contribs) 20:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date 

message: The site actually called itself TV Links not tv-links.co.uk.  I nominate that this article be renamed to reflect that.  We don't have The Pirate Bay article named as thepiratebay.org now do we.  :) topher67 08:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Done. Thanks. --Kizor 14:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of article

message: Did "Sin" really create this site more then a year ago?
If I can recall it right, it wasn't him.
The establishment of the site should go to the ones who did.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.178.159 (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: David Rock created and owned the site and I've changed the TV Links article to say so. Phreakkk (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creator of the site 

message: With all the recent vandalism, even with the `please help expand` tag, maybe we should consider asking for semi-protection? Random89 (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection? 

message: The web page itself is now showing three words in TNR - 'Something here Soon'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.104.235 (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, since it says something here soon, i think it is safe to assume they are at least trying to rebuild the site. Therefore its status should be "Under Consruction".Random89 (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  it is under construction but not under that domain  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ACDavid (talk • contribs) 20:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Proof of that? Tehniobium (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't know if this is proof but  76.66.26.111 (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No it ain't proof, it's a fake, and i would give you proof but i'll have to kill u after lol  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ACDavid (talk • contribs) 21:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I just checked the whois for the page - it doesn't contain much info - however a copycat would surely use the domain as soon as possible, as waiting pretty much devaluates the domain name? It may be just a guess, but I'm fairly certain its back under the original owner. Tehniobium (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something... 

message: I'm not sure exactly what happened to this page, but everyone here should know not to undo or edit other contributor's posts on the talk page. I have restored the version of the page which I believe has the most comments intact. If anyone had something deleted that they feel should be heard, please re-add it. Thanks. Random89 (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Warring on Talk Page

message: Hiya :)
I've just added a POV tag. Reading the article, I seem to get the impression that it says that TV Links never linked to content, that the Act the author was arrested under didn't apply to it, that FACT's "claims" are biased etc etc. Now, these may all be true, but I just don't think the other side's been said. I know people might side with the site, against the authority taking it away, or they might be trying to do nothing of the sort. Anyway, I think it could do with a check. Thanks everyone, Drum guy (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest...I don't see what your saying. I've removed your tag. Please clarify, and only add tag If you actually have some kind of example of whats biased in the artice. Thanks Tehniobium (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: The article states piracy began with Napster.  Maybe Napster brought it into the world of the everyday computer user, but the actual distribution of copyrighted works online has existed virtually since the internet's inception.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.148.49 (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Piracy 

message: Is it Better than a TV remote or Better than a remote control? The logo on the page would seem to suggest the latter. Random89 (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slogan 

message: http://tv-links.cc/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.16.129 (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: >Your poor grammar would suggest you are simply ignorant and incapable of reading the above discussion, and not actually trying to get this added to the page, so in this case WP:AGF would seems to demonstrate your lack of basic intelligence. Random89 (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I would like to apologize to the IP editor above, my comments last night were uncalled for and I retract them, claiming bad temper from insomnia as my meager defense. It is accepted on this page that tvlinks-cc and other "mirror" or "similar" sites are simply recreations and not the original site, if you have other information please bring it to our attention. For more info please see the above comments on this talk page. Thanks. Random89 (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Just to chill this a bit, I'm requesting semi-protection on this page. ViperSnake151 13:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  it's back online 

message: Should the article not note that there is at least one mirror serving the exact content of tv-links available? Since this was the 26th most visited site in the UK and no charges have been filed against the owner, it would seem that intentionally not mentioning this fairly important detail is both asking for the edits that Someguy1221 refers to and an overt omission of information for no good reason.
I logged in to update the page to say it was back online (at http://tv-links.cc ) and only realised when checking this page that this is supposedly a mirror. Andy (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should not be mentioned since this article is specifically about tv-links.co.uk, and no other website. Only a mirror that is actually verifiably associated with the original website should be mentioned, and that has not been demonstrated. And we simply have nothing to go on but our own perceptions that this is a legitimate reincarnation of TV Links, and the new website is operating from Panama FFS. So I'll repeat, when a reliable source suggests a connection, we can mention it, and if the owner of the old site claims responsibility, we can mention it, but until that happens the only verifiable fact is that it looks the same, which, by itself, is never deserving of a mention (it would also be considered original research, claiming or suggesting the site has returned, when there is no actual proof it). Someguy1221 (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is another mirror which looks, at least in appearance, a true mirror.  HR91 (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd say that unless we can source that one of these "replacement sites" has risen to prominence in the same way the original did, we should avoid mentioning any, as unless there are one or two sites we can list with references as being the most notable, then we run the risk of simply becoming a link farm. Random89 20:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mention of mirrors in the article

message: http://www.tv-links.eu/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.123.203 (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the myriad of sites that of sprung up since TV Links became well known and then shut down. It is trying to mimic the original TV Links name and style to cash in on its popularity. Random89 06:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this? 

message: I made my own specialized user warning template for people who add information about TV Links clones to this article. Don't forget, you have to subst it just like every other warning template. ViperSnake151 17:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. Random89 18:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well, I had to go this far 

message: tv-links.cc seems to be updated with new videos -and it has the same format as the old tv links did? Does anyone know anything about this?--danielfolsom 02:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I saw that section - however it was under the assumption that the link was a mirror, this site seems to be updated (as it has newer movies), which mirrors, at least in my experience, usually aren't.--danielfolsom 20:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mirror is simply a bad term; it's really a copycat. You can't well have a mirror for something that no longer exists. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New TV Links?

message: Okay, anyway, we got email confirmation that the .cc site everyone keeps adding back IS the real site.
BUT, this runs afoul of WP:RS and possibly WP:NOR because this is being mentioned by a primary source who is the subject, which is the complete opposite of "reliable secondary source independent from the subject". Someone on IRC suggested that we get this logged on OTRS - cause would our OTRS be a "reliable secondary source independent of the subject"? I wanna ignore this, but this is one of Wikipedia's core guidelines. ViperSnake151 19:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need IAR, and OTRS is irrelevant here. The anonymous webmaster of .cc says it's the real thing...who cares? The very spirit of WP:RS is that we don't automatically trust what we see/hear/read, especially on the internet. If the previous owner claims responsibility, or a reliable source reports this, then we can say it. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

text: If a bunch of people decided to make their usernames the same as the old staff's names, would we tell the difference? Given the multiple of sites that claim to be the real TV Links, the best practice is to wait until a reliable source backs up the claim. Relying on our own judgement that the site is run by the same people  is original research. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on mentioning of .cc 

message: I've removed the line specifying the website's current content, a text message that states "something here soon", as there is no proof the domain belongs to the same owner. In fact, the website's domain was for sale for a while before the current owner bought it (See thunmbnail images on whois.domaintools.com/tv-links.co.uk). --Nezek (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted it. You have provided no reliable source. That is original research. ViperSnake151 13:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Viper, you also reverted other modifications I've made in the same edit, watch what you're doing next time. --Nezek (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Even if there were a reliable source, then mentioning a sale would be relevant. The article is about the website that was hosted at TV-links.co.uk - the current state of that site is quite relevant to the article. It is its own source. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What some random person wrote, on the domain that used to be TV-Links, is NOT relevant information. The WHOIS information I provided above is a reliable source, to the right of the page there is a thumbnail image that shows the domain was on sale on 2007-12-28. The website doesn't exist anymore, and the article should not cite it until proven otherwise. whether or not the article should specify that the domain traded hands needs to be in it's own seperate discussion. --Nezek (talk) 08:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  ????? --79.178.115.159 (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuurent owner 

message: http://www.tv-links.ws/
This is the new Tv-Links, started up by the old staff, it has a forum, with alot of the old staff on, and is clear that it is back.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.179.135 (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's by far not the first site to claim to be the real TV-links, and this specific one has been brought up before. But for the first reason, we need a reliable source to support or at least reiterate this claim, and not simply the words of some forum posters. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I'll ante a unreliable source and raise you a no original research. ViperSnake151 21:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Those links aren't appropriate because we would have read through those dates to confirm they are real. Additionally, we are going on the word of people speaking through multiple web-forums. You have to keep in mind that content on Wikipedia is meant to be verifiable. So even if this is "true," you could consider the question: "If this were a hoax, would we be able to distinguish it from reality?" Then keep in mind that more than one site has claimed to be the real TV-Links. This is why we require the link between the sites be made by a reliable source. And the reason our own research is prohibited is that users are supposed to be able to follow our references for easy verification of what's on this site; if we have to explain how we figured it out, then we've done something wrong. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Blog of a random person - not a reliable source. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Because no one noticed until you pointed it out. Also, the "other blog" is that of a professional journalist blogging in The Guardian - certainly not a random person. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

text: For some sources, there is simply a standing consensus that they are reliable. This consensus would include most non-tabloid "big business press organizations," such as the BBC, New York Times, etc. But the basis of a reliable source is that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is generally established by demonstrating that the source is held in high regard (by means of being favorably reviewed or cited) by sources whose reliability is not in dispute. The reason for having this requirement is that anyone can start up their own website and claim to be a news outlet. As for the "random person" or not, given that literally anyone can create a blog, a blog is only reliable in one of two circumstances: 1) It has been favorably reviewed or cited by other reliable sources, as mentioned, or 2) The author of the blog is an expert in his field. The guardian blog was written by a professional journalist who writes for a respected news organization. The blog you cite, however, is maintained by just...someguy...Someguy1221 (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's Back 

message: For awhile now I have been using tv-links.cc which is ALOT like the original TV-Links. So I dont know whats up with this site, if its made by the original owner or what.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeeded (talk • contribs) 07:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Its back...twice?

message: http://torrentfreak.com/busted-tv-show-site-in-limbo-as-authorities-back-off-081121/comment-page-1/
An interview with "Sin" or David Rock, the original owner and creator of Tv-Links states:
"Dave told us. He has no intention of bringing the site back, particularly since a TV-Links.co.uk replacement site popped up many months ago at TV-Links.ws."
This is the real site, "Sin" will never do anything with the original domain, he's out of this and has left it behind him. He doesn't even own the domain anymore.
Hopefully this will be enough to confirm this is the new, Tv-Links, with all the original staff from the first.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.165.81 (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All he says is that "a replacement site popped up." Not "this is the new, the real, the legitimate TV Links." Regardless, what is such a thing? If Wikipedia shuts down and all the admins run off and start up their own without Jimbo Wales, will it still be Wikipedia? If you answered yes, then what if the people behind TV Links ran off and started Tv-links.ws while Tv-links.co.uk was still up and running? Kind of a philosophical stitch. The ultimate answer according to multiple policies and guidelines is that there is no question, since what is verifiable is more important than what is true. And on that note, the link is to a blog maintained by an anonymous individual, and not a reliable source. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

text: The link is an interview posted on a blog by an anonymous individual. Anyway, the analogy was made in hopes of getting you to think critically about the question, and realize that designating the "real" TV-links is subjective, as the only clearcut one stopped existing over a year ago. On Wikipedia, there is only one way to decide such an issue, and that is to rely only on what is verifiable by reliable sources. And honestly, it's highly unlikely those will ever appear, as the original got them only by having its owner arrested. And on a side note, TV-links.ws was maybe the 6th site that showed up on this page, with people claiming in one way or another that it was TV-links. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proof Tv-Links.ws is legit and the real Tv-Links

message: The section lacks notability on its own, and should be merged with the shut down section. The section says "The legality of this site could be compared to BitTorrent indexing sites like The Pirate Bay or the original Napster program". However, it doesn't cite any sources that made such connections. I can see why it's helpful to reference websites like The Pirate Bay in the lead, it helps note that the legal debate about this subject goes well beyond TV Links, but it doesn't need its own section. --Nezek (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did find an independent review of UK law cited by a TechCrunch article on this saying that "facilitation" of infringement is a crime under UK law. ViperSnake151 01:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what they were charged with though... so it isn't relavant. --bitbit (pka Nezek) (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Legality section

message: The sources that discuss how TV Links was "just linking" to content are completely inaccurate, and most of them wrote about it after the website was down. TV Links had pages containing a video player that displayed videos directly, it was much more than your ordinary hyperlink. I think that is what the quote from Roger Marles is about "[...] films and television programmes directly via the website. This is illegal under UK copyright law". I've located and cached a page that contained the player. To see similar examples you can try the 3rd Rock From the Sun listing of TV Links. We might also want to link to Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing. --Nezek (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What in the world caused this website to get shut down? Yes, the owner was arrested, but the hosting was not even in the same country! I can't find any sources about what was on the warrant (if any) that was given ot the hosting company. As the article stands now, it's main subject is not verifiable. --Nezek (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way we know it wasn't for "facilitating copyright infringement", the article itself cites sources and says the arrest was over a matter of possible trademark infringement. We need to clearify what this was about. --bitbit (pka Nezek) (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't know how reliable this source is, seeing as how it got pretty much all the facts wrong in the article, but it claims that some forum admins were also arrested: . The information has been sent directly to them by email and published on the website.  --Nezek (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, this guy is not relieble as far as fact checking goes --Nezek (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Shutdown section

message: Has no sources, it influanced Hulu's creation? I'm doubtful. I propose to delete this, and get around to writing about the many knock-off websites that sprung up due to the shut down, and where the website's community moved to. We have plenty of examples of these websites here in the talk page. --Nezek (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Impact

message: Just a side note, save-tv-links.co.uk redirects here (: --Nezek (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  save-tv-links.co.uk 

message: Are all here http://forum.tv-links.ws/index.php?act=idx
It's also no longer a linking site but a TV discussion site and is as dead as MJ. Most still lurk it but there's no real life in it.
This was mainly just for the old staff at Tv-Links who might look here and would like to say hey to the old team. Feel free too. It's such a shame it all crashed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.177.36 (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tv-Links Staff 

message: I don't think TV Links is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.
Fladoodle (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not notable