Talk:Nuke (warez)

I've read this page, but I still don't really have any idea what a "Nuke" is, can anyone perhaps add that to the first sentence please? Skuld (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a minor introduction to the page to help comprehension. Let me know if it helps! HaploTR (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

legal consequences of these articles[edit]

There is a suprising collection of articles on warez here on en.wiki. The authors seem to have a lot of knowledge, including some logs of communication. But all of this is evidence for illegal copyright violation. Aren't you legally required to report all this evidence to the police? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.231.26.31 (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are legally required to be a snitch. At least not in the sane part of the world... Everything added is publicly available on the net. Otherwise it wouldn't be verifiable. btw, this isn't evidence of anything. Ondertitel (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PreDB Websites[edit]

I've tagged a statement claiming one of the sites to be the "best" site. However, the statement itself is not cited, and the citations preceding it do not actually say that the site is the "best," and only uses the site as an example. Can anyone provide any insights into this? Leujohn ^{(talk, stalk me?)} 06:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the opinion of the person who wrote it. You can remove it if you want. Depending how you interpret "best", I agree with the statement "Possibly one of the best public predbs to date.". Corrupt-net has some good search options. e.g. searching on 'group:wiki' and the site has a good performance. Personally, it's the first database I use, but I don't think it's the largest or has the fewest errors in it. Ondertitel (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards removing it because I believe terms like "best" is better used if we can link it to an accepted source. Of course, I'd like to see if anyone else has more input. Leujohn ^{(talk, stalk me?)} 18:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar error[edit]

"Erroneous nukes are usually "un-nuked" easily, by the same people who have access to issue nukes, that nukes and unnukes happen on IRC." What is this sentence supposed to mean? Equinox (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nuke (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/20160119163526/http://rules.nukenet.info/t.html?id=2002_TV.nfo to http://rules.nukenet.info/t.html?id=2002_TV.nfo
Corrected formatting/usage for http://scenerules.irc.gs/rules.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://justsomerules.synthasite.com/onenet-rules.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]