Talk:PhpBB/Archive 4

Extent of license
"On (1), the terms of that license do not, and can not, override the GPL or GFDL that is in use by wikipedia" As far as I can tell, [I don't think that is valid.] Sentences that have at least some claim to validity would be appreciated. I'd like to see you provide a justification for this sentence. Pti 02:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not license phpBB. There are other wikipedians here that have never licensed phpBB. These instances purely show that neither Wikipedia nor those wikipedians stated without a phpBB license are subject to the terms of the phpBB license. Further, it appears that the overall license of the source is GPL. &mdash;  Dz on at as  02:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It would seem that some cannot read the license regarding the SDK. Because I am a nice person, here is is from the download page.


 * The subSilver SDK is not released under the GPL and is not subject to that licence.


 * You are permitted to use the files contained within this package for personal use only. You may not use the files in any commercial package in part or in full without the express permission of phpBB Group. You may not re-distribute this package in any way, shape or form without prior agreement from phpBB Group (this includes linking directly to the package on this site). If the files in this package are used to produce images for any non-phpBB Group product the images or packaged image set should carry a name which indicates its origins as being phpBB or otherwise clearly state that phpBB originated the graphics. This package and its contents are Copyright © 2001 phpBB Group, All Rights Reserved.


 * See? Edward NZ 05:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The license is irrelevant. Please stop bringing it up. Please cease the WP:OWN campaign, Wikipedia is not your personal playground nor does it belong to the phpBB group. Stop pretending it does. (And I should know better than to respond: logic hasn't worked here in the past, and it certainly won't start now). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, so software licenses don't matter? Is that your whole reasoning behind this campaign of yours? Edward NZ 09:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * To Wikipedia they don't. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not questioned whether Wikipedia is breaching any copyright license. It is questioned whether phpBBHacks is breaching a copyright license, and whether Wikipedia's policy on linking to sites that break copyright licenses is applicable here. That's why the sentence I quoted is a nonsense sentence.
 * Well, in fact, that's half of it. The second is that if it was (and it is not) a question of whether Wikipedia was breaching copyright, saying "our license is the best full stop no returns your license loses" is patent nonsense. It's not even an argument, it's a collection of words.
 * Pti 14:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Seeing as you like to call logic, mind answering a logical question that was asked of you 9 days ago and has yet to have a response?
 * The question, incase you missed it, is this:


 * "You keep making references to WP:OWN. Can you point me to a section that states that this is making an ownership claim?"


 * I know policy is policy here, but you can't just throw policy around without being explicit as to which sections, if any, apply here. Please don't try be sly or smart by saying 'all of it', as that won't fly, cut the mustard, or any other phrase you wish to use which details that your agument is dead.


 * I do hope the response is logical, as we are all awating it. NeoThermic 08:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The initial "no links but official links" HTML comment were definitely WP:OWN material. The subsequent nearly unilateral removal of a single link over what are, IMO, minor issues, smells of WP:OWN. I don't have any vendetta here other than ensuring Wikipedia is fair and equitable, however a few people here on this talk page appear to have an extreme vendetta against this website (which is worrysome since Wikipedia is strives for a neutral point of view). One allegedly illegal link and a supposed high amount of advertising (which is extremely subjective, and appears to get played up beyond reason) are not a reason to disallow an external link with this amount of fervor. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * While we're bandying about WP: links, please WP:AGF and debate points on their merit rather than assumed motivation.
 * Pti 15:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Finally. However, let it be noted that one person only added the offical links HTML comment, and that person has never been a phpBB team member. That person did it to try curb the spam that was occuring on the article where people were just adding their forums, ones which don't add anything to the article bar spam. As I see it, you're throwing WP:OWN at everyone who dares say that the phpbbhacks.com link shouldn't be on the article page, of which as Pti points out above, is a breach of WP:AGF. No one is trying to "own" this article. It is just that there are some people who say that with the legal issues and subjectivly numerous amount of advertising content on the page in question. If the said site removed the illegal content and also dropped the advertising down to more acceptable levels, I doubt few, if any of us, would have an issue with the link being added. However, I don't see that happning any time soon.


 * I note on your user page you do not like breach of copyright when it comes to C&P of text from a website without permission. I also know that such things apply to anything from about a paragraph onwards. So, please tell me the diffrence between putting text on wikipedia illegally is diffrent to linking to a page with an illegal download? You keep mentioning that its one download, but then again, it might just be only one paragraph someone has C&P'ed. To me, there's no diffrence, you break the licence and it is illegal, end of discussion. Intrestingly enough WP:C Agrees:


 * (From WP:C, 'Linking to copyrighted works'): Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, but in any case, linking to a site that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us.


 * Does phpBBHacks.com violate someone else's copyright? Yes. What does the policy say? do not link to the page. WP:C doesn't care if the site in question only violates someone's copyright once or a million times; all it says is that if it does violate the copyright, don't link to it, and that is exactly what is going on here, nothing more, nothing less. NeoThermic 16:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining your reasoning. I added the comment about official links simply to stem link spam, as NeoThermic mentioned; I didn't really intend for it to be permanent. I personally take no issue with linking to phpBBHacks.com now that Stevertigo has come to a compromise, though I did revert three additions for being unofficial links prior to this discussion. As with vBulletin, however, I fail to see how parties unrelated to the phpBB Group calling for the link's removal constitute WP:OWN. æle ✆ 22:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Pirated?
Still the question wasn't answered: how is it "pirated" software? If it truly is pirated software, why hasn't anybody reported the site for such distribution? Perhaps, the judgement of this should not be of or in Wikipedia, but it should be found in a source that states that the site carries pirated software. If such a source can not be found, the odds are in favor to allow the phpbbhacks.com link on this page. If a source is found and it states such site carries such status of software deemed by such authority, the odds are against it to have it link here. This follows the terms of no original research. Any objections? &mdash;  Dz on at as  17:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Objection On the grounds that WP:C makes it clear as to linking to sites with illegal content. WP:C doesn't indicate that proof needs to be from a third party source, only that a) there's a licence that restricts distrbution without permission and b) that distrbution without permission is occuring. Determination of what is/isn't copyrighted isn't original reasearch, its part of policy. Also, do we have to keep making new headline text for everything? This discussion has now spanned six or seven headlines which is making it harder to keep a singular conversation. NeoThermic 17:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope you're not suggesting that you WP:OWN the talk page. ;)
 * Pti 23:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Objection
 * This would only be relevant if we were writing an encyclopaedic article about phpBBHacks and therein detailing copyright infringements. We're not, and the same citation standards do not apply.
 * Pti 23:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't police such sites or links. An attempt here to determine such site or link as policed by somebody else is not favored by objection above.

As for multiple header text, it is for readability. These conversations here seem to diverge real quick and I've seen lots of redundancy. Let's just keep it simple. We can archive the entire text once it is over (or sooner). &mdash;  Dz on at as  00:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Direct link
Wikipedia is against a direct link to a page that holds copyright infringement. Without judgement on the content itself as if it is copyrighted infringement or not, how does a link to http://phpbbhacks.com get to the questionable content? I've tried and can't seem to find it. I've done searches for it. Otherwise, the page directly linked from this site doesn't seem to hold any copyright infringement. Can any other evidence of a direct link be provided where if somebody directed to the front page of phpbbhack.com would find such content? &mdash;  Dz on at as  00:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see a statement that the link must be direct on WP:C - on the contrary, "site" is mentioned. However, your breadcrumb trail: phpbbhacks.com -> graphics -> template psd files -> subSilver PSD files.
 * Pti 03:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That breadcrumb trail does not demonstrate a direct link from Wikipedia to the file in question. It was stated in some license text (not WP:C) about a direct link. The inclusion of the link, phpbbhacks.com, in the article does not violate any license. &mdash;  Dz on at as  18:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Will you please reread through the talk page and the linked articles, because you're just not debating the same point as everyone else. This is in no way at all about Wikipedia violating copyrights, it is about phpBBHacks violating copyrights and Wikipedia's policy on linking to sites that violate copyright.


 * Just to restate again what is already all over this talk page: there is a file on the site www.phpbb.com that is copyright to the phpBB Group and has a license that prohibits redistribution. This file is being redistributed by www.phpbbhacks.com, in violation of copyright. Wikipedia policy, by my contention and that of others, disqualifies links to sites that violate copyright. As I interpret it, this is because Wikipedia is not a political playground for information anarchists, but a community-created open content encyclopaedia with a respect for copyright and rigorous rules regarding it.
 * Pti 18:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If the site truly violates a copyright, either find a source that states it does or report the site to somebody that does police such activity. It is not a violation of any rule to post copyrighted material. It is a violation to distribute the material for other then educational or personal means. If you suspect the file is used otherwise, contact the phpbbhack.com and ask them to remove the file. If this is the only file in question on phpbbhacks.com, the solution is deal with that file more directly -- not here. I question the intent to go around and announce to the world such disapproval over a site in general because of one file. &mdash;  Dz on at as  20:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "If the site truly violates a copyright, either find a source that states it does" uhhh... the license agreement? Edward NZ 21:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That is an attempt to use the license as a primary source by the personal research of a few editors here to discredit the use of related information from this article. It must be a source that follows no original research. &mdash;  Dz on at as  22:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If anyone other than Dzonatas actually believes what he's saying, let me know so I can bother to spend the time required to argue this point.
 * Pti 23:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, read the policy, "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas." This includes when you make an argument to refute such an inclusion by use of a license. I have not condoned the illegal use of copyrighted material. I have simply redirected these arguments elsewhere. &mdash;  Dz on at as  23:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Technically speaking, claiming that the site violates copyright is original research. You need a secondary source for purposes of verification. This is pretty much what I meant above when I said "Wikipedia is not a court of law". —Locke Cole • t • c 00:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So what you're saying is thatwe should totally ignore the license agreement the files are under? Edward NZ 00:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. It's not our place to decide what is legal or illegal. That's what courts are for. If we did decide, that would be original research. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Understanding "No original research" for fun and profit
WP:NOR: "Like most Wikipedia policies, No original research applies to articles, not to talk pages or project pages, although it is regarded as poor taste to discuss personal theories on talk pages."

I really do not think that NOR applies rigidly to justifications for removing a link from an article; this does not mean that everyone's word should be taken as gospel when reasoning for link removal, but it does mean that it's ridiculous to require thirty-three published authors to have written books on the subject of why the link was removed. Sufficient citations for the copyright claim have been provided: the page containing the file, and the license of the file. And, of course, sufficient citations for the objectionable advertising have also been provided. Unless, that is, you believe citations should be provided of credible external sources describing the advertising as objectionable.

Pti 01:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Somewhere between the complete removal of the link and the complete inclusion of the link is nuetral. I have ideas on how to find that point, but this is about as far as I go with this article on the link issue. The NOR does not mean you cannot discuss theories on the talk page, but what is the point? The furthest you can get is to find a nuetral point of view. If the claims are sufficient, why hasn't there been any report to some police? Those claims are rebuttable with allowable enforcement if it can be enforced at all. Has the license been peer reviewed by lawyers? Have all the terms been covered? In the U.S., software and data are considered a form of free speech, so, if the distribution is not sold, anybody can post it. The license does not affect wikipedians that do not use the site. You see, these are arguments that belong elsewhere. Have you tried to report it to any police? Have you tried to send mail to the site webmaster to remove the link? Is there a forum on phpbbhacks.com to discuss this? Does the webmaster of phpbbhacks.com want to be listed in Wikipedia? &mdash;  Dz on at as  02:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "In the U.S., software and data are considered a form of free speech, so, if the distribution is not sold, anybody can post it."
 * I don't think we need to listen to Dzonatas' posts any more.
 * Pti 11:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read and try to remain in compliance with WP:CIV. I'd hate to see you blocked. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My wording was poor because my patience was exhausted. I just doubt on an objective level his knowledge of the issue. Dzonatas' statements about copyright are simply repeatedly false, and I don't think his views should be considered on this issue until he develops a better understanding of what the issue actually is. We're here to (and it may be a ridiculously naive hope) achieve consensus, but I despair of any willingness on Dzonatas' part to base his arguments in fact or to read the policy that we're actually talking about. He has continued to argue on the basis that Wikipedia is not infringing copyrights despite being informed that this was, in fact, not what was being discussed. Thankfully he seems to have disabused himself of this idea, but he now argues on the basis that works not sold for monetary value are public domain. This simply is not even approaching true.


 * It is true, of course, that Dzonatas may suddenly begin arguing on a sound basis; I am just concerned that people should take his statements with a large grain of salt.
 * Pti 13:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Locke Cole, you raised WP:CIV. Thank you. &mdash;  Dz on at as  15:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Pti: please note these sources to back-up my claim (which does not infer public domain)
 * Source code
 * http://www.philsalin.com/patents.html
 * http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1362020&displaytype=printable&lastnode_id=1362020
 * http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2000-all/ghosh-2000-05-all.html
 * These all relate to "software as free speech." Also note, there is still a dispute in court. That dispute won't be solved here. This directly relates to the patentability of the license for the questionable file.
 * Pti has thought I didn't read the wikipedia's policy on the link. The point here is if such file is truly in violation. There is no proof shown that the site is in violation with such file. If the site is truly in violation, has Pti or anybody reported it? &mdash;  Dz on at as  15:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Free speech is nothing to do with copyright. It is to do with censorship. Music is protected by free speech, but this does not mean that copyright restrictions cannot legally be applied to it.
 * "Software as free speech" is not at all relevant here, because it is not relevant to copyright, and it is not relevant to the file in question, which contains images, not software.
 * But just for giggles, here's a quickly visible quote from one of your links:
 * "Computer Programs are Writings. As such, they should be subject to copyright law"
 * Pti 16:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. The dispute is still in court, and that is one of the arguments. Part of WP:C also states how it is still disputed in court. "Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, ..." &mdash;  Dz on at as  23:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? Which dispute is still in court? The software as free speech dispute, which is not applicable to this discussion? Because if a dispute which is not applicable to this discussion is still in court, that doesn't actually really matter.


 * And the sentence you quote is again not relevant. The argument for dismissing the link on the basis of copyright can so far be summarised thus:
 * I and others contend that phpBBHacks.com is violating copyright
 * Wikipedia policy prohibits or discourages links to sites which violate copyright, on the basis that Wikipedia should, for purposes of reputation and ethics, avoid association with sites that violate copyright
 * I and others contend that, amongst other reasons, this policy disqualifies a link to phpBBHacks.com


 * The only argument regarding copyright here is whether phpBBHacks.com violates copyright. Wikipedia policy does not state "if it is illegal to link to a site which violates copyright, do not link to it"; the legality of linking to sites which violate copyright is not relevant here and is not a part of the argument. Wikipedia policy states that, regardless of the legality of doing so, we should not link to sites which violate copyright. That is part of the argument.
 * Pti 23:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Other sites
the 3 websites being linked to, right now, in the other sites section, are borderline spam and have no business being linked 2 from this article.


 * ForumTemplates.com — A collection of free and commercial templates for phpBB
 * both phpbb.com and phpbbhacks.com have more templates than forumtemplates.com does. further, forumtemplates.com doesn't even come up on the first three pages when doing a google search for phpbb templates.  finally, as the second sentance already hints at, there are lots and lots of sites w/ templates - linking 2 one of the least notable ones is nothing but spam.


 * phpBB at OpenSourceCMS — A demonstration of phpBB along with user reviews and comments
 * a google search for phpbb will yield more demonanstrates of phpbb than you could ever hope to link to on a wikipedia article. phpbb.com and phpbbhacks.com, in particular, are good examples.  and if you want a demo of the acp, here's a good demo:
 * http://www.phpbb.com/demo.php
 * opting to link to one particular site as an example is nothing but spam.


 * phpBB2mods.com — phpBB MOD (add-on) site
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PhpBB#phpbb2mods.com_removed
 * link says it all.

personally, i think the only unofficial site that should be linked to is phpbbhacks.com. whether or not it has tons of ads or pirated copies of stuff is irrelavent. it has a google pagerank of 7, a high alexa rank, is the 2nd hit that comes up when a search for phpbb is done, etc.

the fact that such trash links have been included as an alternative to phpbbhacks.com smacks of utter immaturity. so maybe the phpbb junta is being immature when they refuse to link to phpbbhacks.com, but youse aren't any better, since youse allow such trash sites to be linked to, and any1 who would attack those in the phpbb junta as being biased really should look in the mirror b4 they spout such hypocritecal nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.57.177.154 (talk • contribs)


 * Junta.
 * Pti 23:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Was the above really written by Pti? 67.42.93.179 04:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, see here (and in the future, if you want to go trolling the edits of this page, just use the "History" link at the top). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What Total Garbage!
So now the phpBB Group Junta here are claiming the merely linking to publicly available web content is a copyright violation because the phpBB Group has asked people not to do it. Well that’s just silly. It on the net and anyone who wants to link to it can link to it. Get real and stop grasping at straws to support your LAME attempt at controlling this article and furthering a personal vendetta. Your behavior is that of a child. If the phpBB Group does not wish people to link to content, they need to put it behind a password. What a bunch of prima donnas. I think it's time to call the mediator back (as I did the first time), the issue of phpBBhacks does not seem to be resolving itself, indeed it seems to be at a stalemate. 67.42.93.179 04:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, leave out the personal attacks.
 * Secondly, you're more than a bit mistaken. This is not mere linking as you suggest, this is redistributing copyrighted files EVEN WHEN THE LICENSE EXPLICITLY SAID YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO. I sincerly hope that you understood that, as it would seem as some others who are pro phpbbhacks cannot Edward NZ 05:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Garbage. And how is it a "personal attack" to make a perficly reasonable observation that this article has been hijacked by the phpBB Group? And if I think it's obvious that the phpBBhacks issue has some questionable motives, I'll say so. It is relevent. Any case, just because the phpBB Group asks people not to link to a particular thing, does not make that a "copyright violation". And it does not make phpBBhacks not worthy of inclusion. You don't like phpBBhacks, that is a personal issue. Other people seem to think phpBBhacks is fine. What makes YOU so right? Your shear arrogance? Get off the throne, you’re not royal. 67.42.93.179 05:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Junta', 'silly', 'Get real', 'grasping at straws', 'LAME', 'Your behavior is that of a child.', 'prima donnas', 'hijacked', 'sheer arrogance' all seem like insults for me. Kindly stop, unless you wish to have action taken :)
 * At any rate, I think you'll find that it isn't just linking. az has actually downloade it, modified it and made it available for download from phpbbhacks. This is against the license (modifying and redistributing by uploading to a 3rd party unauthorised server) and is in fact a copyright violation. Feel free if this confuses you or anyone else at all.
 * Additionally, please WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Ta. Edward NZ 06:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a personal attack, I believe, to vandalise the User page of another wee Kipedian. Please correct me if I'm wrong, and please feel free to register rather than hide behind rotating IPs.
 * Pti 12:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It does not disqualify phpBBhacks as a valuble resource, which should be the prime consideration.
 * There is no consensus to remove this link, it should stay untill that consensus is arrived. Certainly it is as valid to leave as not, untill such time as there is agreement. 67.42.93.179 06:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the primary concern is whether or not it breaks Wikipedia guidelines or not. At this time it does, so until it gets sorted it should be removed, unless you can come up with compelling reasons (Not just "Because I like it") to include it until it is properly debated. Edward NZ 07:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus to remove this link (indeed, there is no consensus it "breaks the rules") ... 67.42.93.179 07:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning for all
Please keep in mind Wikipedia's three-revert rule when engaging in our revert war over this single link. If you revert a page more than three times in any 24 hour timespan you may be blocked for up to 24 hours. Violations should be reported to WP:AN/3RR. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

phpBBHacks subSilver SDK
I'd just like to clear some things up WRT the subSilver SDK available for download on phpBBHacks.

First off, the license it is under explicitly forbids redistributing the pack. This includes but is not limited to hotlinking the file, and making the file available for download on another site, which is what phpBBHacks.com is doing.

Because there are no records of phpBBHacks ever gaining permission to redistribute it, it can be safely assumed they are doing this against the terms of the license the files are under (Remember, they are not GPL) as per above. This is illegal, as it infringes the copyright of the phpBB Group.

Under the Wikipedia guidelines, you should not link to pages that violate copyright, per WP:EL. 'Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page.'

Even if it is only one file, it still breaks wiki policy, and because everyone here seems to want a good wikipeia where guidelines are followed, it is best to not link to phpbbhacks on this alone. Edward NZ 09:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Here, read this, I've highlighted the parts you might need to pay attention to:
 * External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page . Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, but in any case, linking to a site that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us (see Wikipedia:Copyrights and in particular Contributors' rights and obligations).
 * Note the use of the word "page". We're linking to the main page, not the page containing the allegedly illegal download. And in any event, I continue to bring up The Pirate Bay (and no doubt other articles) which have direct links to the sites in question (which contains nearly 100% illegal material). And no, the Sweden argument doesn't hold any water; Wikipedia is hosted in Florida, United States, not Sweden. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I quote;


 * External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, but in any case, linking to a site that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us (see Wikipedia:Copyrights and in particular Contributors' rights and obligations).


 * As for your Pirate Bay obsession, I will note again that we are disgussing phpBB, not The Pirate Bay. If you feel there is some great unjustice in progress here, you may assist me in my attempts to keep such links out of The Pirate Bay too. However, we will probably face opposition from people who believe that linking to the sole subject of an article overrides most other concerns.


 * Or if we wish to ignore reasoned debate, may I point out once more that vBulletin prohibits unofficial links, and there doesn't seem to be anyone there running to tell their mummy how nasty the wikipedia boys are being. It is, of course, your right to allow this argument to spill over to vBulletin and cause a massive stink that envelops the whole internet.


 * Pti 12:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, we are talking about phpBB not vBulletin... 131.30.121.23 16:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I said, we are talking about phpBB, not vBulletin, or The Pirate Bay, or Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Random Other Example Hay Guys They Can Do It Why Can't We. I was merely playing devil's advocate.
 * Please don't mess up the comments page. And please register, because the miscellaneous rotating IPs are messing up the talk page and the edit histories.
 * Pti 19:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As the vBulletin article is repeatedly brought up as an excuse for this behavior, I've modified that page as well. It is clearly quite wrong to claim ownership like that (on this article or any article). I really don't have any problem with the link to The Pirate Bay, I'm just using it as a demonstration of how flimsy that argument is ("OMG, it links to copyrighted material!"). —Locke Cole • t • c 12:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a wikipedia guideline. This article on a forum is, I'm afraid, not a forum for you to air your grievances regarding wikipedia's copyright policies.
 * Pti 19:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And this is not your private Wikipedia article to advance your agenda. 131.30.121.23 20:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)