Talk:PhpBB/Archive 7

Other BB's
Many other BB's pages link here, however every time i add links to the pages that link here someone seems to remove them. Could who ever is doing this stop as it is a vilation of the Neutral Point Of View official policy. Nekng
 * I've deleted your changes. Saying phpBB sucks or phpBB is awsome is POV.  Not linking to competing software packages has nothing to do with POV, at all.  The list you've added is hardly comprehensive, and is itself POV since it excludes a ton of other message board packages.  If you want to read about competing message board packages, read Category:Internet forum software, instead.
 * I also don't mind MyBB linking to phpBB because MyBB is obscure. It was even considered for deletion, once.  People, when reading the MyBB article, are more likely to be familiar with phpBB than they are with MyBB so comparisons to phpBB are useful.  With phpBB, tho, comparisons to MyBB are pointless and are not going to mean a thing to anyone. 70.98.54.10

I'm going to add my 2 cents here because this phrase is propping up on all the internet forum software pages. Many of those pages have something like "it is comparable to other forum software such as Simple Machines Forum, Invision Power Board, phpBB, UBB.threads and MyBulletinBoard." That particular phrase was taken from, of all places, vBulletin and in my opinion it's a God awful phrase which is open to abuse (how much longer can it get?). I don't think it needs to be anywhere, even on the lesser known forum software pages like MyBB. We have an article all about the Comparison of Internet forum software. We don't need to add phrases to all of them stating they're similar. If you really want, make it a link to that article like "it is comparable to other forum software" and leave it at that. Don't start listing things. Yay unto the Chicken 09:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that "Yay unto the Chicken" is right and i have added a link to the comparison article. Please do not remove it. PHPBB is a buggy forum software just like any other and should have the same links to the other less/more buggy forum softwares. nekng

Screenshot
Is it really a wise idea to have a 3.0 Beta 1 screenshot as the one in the article? As it's a development version, and will change (with the new style), would it not be better to have the more static 2.0.x one? Anon 23:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, a phpBB2 screenshot would be much better. 84.56.39.88 16:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

phpBB1
Article lacks information about the original phpbb release. While 2 and 3 make up most of its history something should be said about the original gen.... 121.45.22.89 (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, little to no information is currently available about pre-phpBB2 history, and here on Wikipedia, if you can't find a source for it, you can't post it. 03:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmacster87 (talk • contribs)
 * Actually, there is enough information on the PhpBB site if you use the search feature. For example if you are curious how it looked there is a forum |web screenshot. That should be at least good enough to add some rudamentary info. I'm scratch some later if nobody adds it or is against adding info on v1.x 7ghost (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What nationality English?
I\'m curious about the recent Americanization edit I observed here some days ago, and the recent revert to British English. The reason for the revert was \"this article is GB-en.\" It is? For a software package hosted on an American web site, I would have expected an American English article about it. The stylistic conventions guide doesn\'t help much, only says the language should be consistent (which it was, before and after the revert). I\'m curious how the version of English is decided in an article that anyone can edit, or why it even matters. -Amatulic 04:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * First we have this talk from early 2005: Talk Archive #1 - Quit it...


 * Secondly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:mos#Disputes_over_style_issues


 * Thirdly, although the server is indeed hosted in the US, the founder is Candadian, and all of the developers (bar one) are European. Infact, the majority of the team is non-american anyway, and phpBB 3 is shipping with only an en-GB language pack


 * Finally, as noted in the first point I\'ve made, the article started out as en-GB, and there\'s no valid reason to change it to en-US. NeoThermic 17:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You should\'ve mentioned the fact that the en-GB spelling is more common around the world than en-US. That is IMO the only really valid reason (along with the reason stated by Triona below). I wouldn\'t say that the phpBB-Team matters here, because in that case you could argue that the article should be written in some German-English spelling, as the Dev team leader is German. Yea, I know I\'m making silly examples, but that\'s just to explain why I don\'t think the whole canadian, dev-Team, and phpBB-Team reasoning counts. 84.56.14.223 07:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My third point was only to counter the point that Amatulic made about \"\'\'For a software package hosted on an American web site, I would have expected an American English article about it.\'\'\"; mainly that it doesn\'t matter where it is hosted, it matters as to what type of \'\'\'en\'\'\' the article is started in (plus the fact that the founder would agree the project is British English rather than American English, but that is beside the point of my third point). NeoThermic 02:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I wasn\'t really making any point to counter — just expressing curiosity based on an observation. You answered my questions quite well, thanks. -Amatulic 03:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If an article is in British english, or American english, it should be left that way - if someone\'s editing it just to change which version of english is used, I think a revert\'s appropriate. AFAIK the general rule is to use the version that\'s already there, unless entirely rewriting the article or there\'s an overwhelming reason to change (american spellings in an article about a british town for example). - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 17:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it\'s a losing battle. I\'ve seen different users \"Americanize\" the spelling now. It is quite likely that a person who changes \"customisation\" to \"customization\" honestly wants to correct a bona-fide spelling error, \'\'not\'\' change the article to US-English. After all, dictionary.com (which uses multiple sources) spells it that way, and it \'\'doesn\'t even have an entry for \"customisation\"!\'\' The best solution is to avoid these words where possible; for example, \"customisation\" could be \"custom modification\" instead. That would avoid having to fight editors who are simply trying to do the right thing by correcting perceived spelling errors. -Amatulic 04:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OED lists \"customisation\" as a perfectly good word. alternative spellings list \"customization\", however given the fact that many American conversions of en-GB words with \'s\' in them end up as \'z\'s, I reverted it. It isn\'t a losing battle. The article started out by Pti as en-GB, and the MOS indicates that unless there\'s a compelling reason to change it, it stays in the version of English that the article started out as. In this case it is en-GB, so reverts will continue until people get the point, or MOS backtracks on the \'en\' usage part. NeoThermic 12:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It\'s one thing to continually revert changes from the same user. It\'s quite another thing if you get a different person each week who comes along and \"corrects\" perceived spelling errors. Those people aren\'t likely to get the point unless they continue to participate as editors of the article. By all means continue the reverts, but also try to avoid those words if possible, which prevents the problem for arising. -Amatulic 16:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Amatulic, you say in your original paragraph \'\'\"I\'m curious how the version of English is decided in an article that anyone can edit, or why it even matters\"\'\'? You should take a look at the Talk Archives. You\'ll see that this is really not a Wikipedia article; it\'s a PhpBB Group article that happens to be hosted by Wikipedia. By that I mean that all edits must be approved by the phpBB Group members, who closely monitor this article and any changes to it. For example, it was like pulling teeth without anesthesia to even get a section on security issues with past releases of phpBB. And, until I petitioned for mediation, non-official links of any kind where not allowed. So, in a very practical sense, no, not everybody can edit this article. Jake b 06:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Let\'s not forget that the reason \"it\" was like pulling teeth was because \'\'\'you\'\'\' wanted the phpBB Group to write it. God forbid, after all, Jake b do \'\'anything\'\' other than complain.  For example, if Jake b were hungry, I\'m willing to bet that he\'d rather complain about it then actually make himself a sandwich. 19:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Jake, please stop making unfounded allegations of \"ownership\" of this article. You are simply flamebaiting. æ² ✆ \'\'\'2006&#x2011;11&#x2011;22\'\'\'\'\'t\'\'\'\'\'16:07\'\'\'\'\'z\'\'


 * Chris Cunningham seems to think he owns the artical. Jake b 22:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * and u seem to think that any1 who disagrees with u owns the article.
 * wanna now who i thinks owns the article? u.  a security section was created because u wished it, spam was allowed because u wished it, and the nationality is going to be us because u wish it? 72.36.251.234 20:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

External links?
Yea, I know we've had this issue before, and slowly I'm getting sick of it. Over the past few weeks, some people have repeatedly added links to third-party-sites that are nowhere near official, and most of the time only here to get visitors. We've kept removing those links, but slowly I'm getting tired. Could anybody ask for this article to be editable for registered users only? Yes, I know I'd be locking myself out as well, don't worry. I'm just slowly getting tired of all that link spam. 84.56.18.232 06:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * WHY where you removing unofficial links? Do you understand that not all unofficial links are "spam"? If you take e look at the archives, you will see that this issue has been discussed, and indeed a mediator decided in favor of allowing unofficial links. Yes, yes, YES, it takes some work to keep the spam out, but that's life. Unofficial links are here to stay because in the end, they benefit the Wikipedia reader. Jake b 05:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As much as I agree with you in that I don't like it, link spam is just one of those issues wikipedia has to deal with as an ongoing problem. All restricting editing does is put a big banner on the top for a while and I don't think it's policy to keep it up there indefinitately, which is what would be required. Truth be told, the odd link that gets added in to this article here and there is nothing compared to what some other articles have to put up with either. Yay unto the Chicken 11:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For your information, you can "semi-protect" a page, which prohibits editing by anonymous users or by accounts less than 4 days old. See the semi-protection policy page for instructions on how to do it. -Amatulic 17:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Link Spam is really not a very big problem with the phpBB article. What few spam links show up are easy to spot and not much of a hassle to remove. What's more disturbing than Link Spam is the idea that only "official" links should be allowed in the article, which is supposed to be user edited, as in all users, not just phpBB Group members. This is a Wikipedia article, not an article hosted by the phpBB Group. The content of the article should be based on the value to the reader. The idea that ONLY "official" links have value to the reader is silly. Jake b 06:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * All the "unofficial links" bar one were non-educational. I've removed them. The only way to avoid extlink spam is to have a zero tolerance policy towards it. Chris Cunningham 15:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly who gave you the right to remove all the non-official links? We've had this discussion before, AND INDEED IT WAS MEDIATED AND DECIDED that unofficial links would be allowed. You had no right, zero right to remove them. Refer to the archive where this topic is QUITE THUROGHLY discussed, and where it was clearly decided by a mediator that external non-official links would be allowed. It seems I'm going to have to keep a much closer eye on this page. External "non-official" links represent a great resource to the Wikipedia reader. Jake b 01:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thumperward did not say that unofficial links were not allowed. Also, please be careful when reverting — you reverted my addition of the Open Directory Project link, which is recommended by WP:EL. æ² ✆ 2006&#x2011;11&#x2011;22t16:04z


 * Still non-educational, still spam, and I'm still not a member of the "phpbb junta" whatever that may be. These links were removed because they were worthless to casual readers of an encyclopedia, not because I'm doing the bidding of my shadowy masters. The mediation dispute wasn't over encyclopedic value, so it doesn't apply. Maybe if you'd made an effort to keep the list down to important links instead of using it as advertising space it wouldn't have attracted attention. Please do not add that huge mess back without current and rational justification; ancient flame wars are not that. Chris Cunningham 16:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you are out of line, and since you removed several that don't even have adverts, your argument is clearly bullshit. You just don't like "non-official" external links, but guess what? It's not up to you alone. This was discussed long ago; there was a decision by a mediator. The links you unilaterally decided you didn't like had been there for some time. I'm putting them back, and will continue to do so. If you insist on starting a revert war, I will take the issue to mediation again. THIS WAS DECIDED LONG AGO. Neither you nor the phpBB Group "owns" this article. Jake b 17:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm agreeing with Jake b here (I hope you were sitting down when you read that Jake. :P). Chris, you removed far too many links in your quest to remove all "unoffical" links. Hell, you even removed the IRC links which are shockingly offical. I won't go as far as saying your reasons are bullshit, but they are suspect at best. If you wish to suggest any links to be removed, you're more than welcome to talk about it here, giving reason(s) as to why they should be removed. Else please do not go around pruning links. NeoThermic 19:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not removing links because they are "unofficial". This is a straw man argument. I am removing links which are non-educational and thus have no place on Wikipedia. This is a reference site, not a resource site, and the intention of WP:EL is pretty clear on the matter. The IRC links still don't really add anything which can't be gained quickly from the phpBB site by interested parties. Jake can take this back to mediation if he likes, my motives are squeaky-clean and I'm not the one resorting immediately to expletives, capitals and bold markup because my pet section was edited. Chris Cunningham 19:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Non-educational has absolutely nothing at all to do with it. The issue is if the links add value to the article, to people’s search for information and resources related to phpBB (hint: they do add value). And, who the hell are you to be making the decision as to what is “educational” or not? PhpBB is not “educational”. It’s a bulletin board system. I will request mediation, which was done long ago, but we will do it YET AGAIN. Jake b 22:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No it isn't. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of the extlinks section, and you're projecting all over the place


 * Ok then Thumperward, for each link you wish to remove, please detail why you think it is non-educational. We can then have a discussion about each link and come to a concensus. Then everyone will be happy. NeoThermic 00:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I think this is as it should be. The standard should be (in my opinion) if the link offers knowledge value or substantial resources related to the article. I really do think the "Non-educational" thing is a red herring to get rid of “non-official” links (and certainly not consistent with the majority of Wikipedia articles), but I’ll try to have “good faith”. However, don’t expect a “kangaroo court” to be acceptable. Jake b 00:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Extlink removal rationale
External links gives an overview of things which should and should not be linked to.


 * Under What should be linked to: 0 of 4 apply to the template sites or IRC links.
 * Under Links to be considered: 0 of 3 apply to the template sites or IRC sites.
 * Under Links normally to be avoided:
 * point 1 fails because "unique resource" remains unsatisfied by any criteria in What should be linked to or Links to be considered.
 * point 3 fails for forumtemplates.com, a skin seller website.
 * point 7 fails for the IRC links, which are "discussion forums" in the basic sense of the term. It arguably fails for phpBB Styles, which is a forum.
 * I can't even get forumimages.com to load right now.

So, the proposed list to keep would be:


 * phpBB web site - no-brainer
 * phpBB development web site — provides directly relevant current information on the project
 * phpBB at OpenSourceCMS — small amounts of review sites with an appropriate content level are sensible EL candidates.
 * phpBB.org.in — code documentation is a good inclusion
 * phpBB at the Open Directory Project - links to ODP are an acceptable way of linking resource sites.

Thoughts? Chris Cunningham 08:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Forumtemplates has some free themes which are unique. Yes, it has some paid themes (I could only find 6 out of 27 that are paid), but that is not a reason by itself to deny linking. If it was, vbulletin.com wouldn't be allowed to be linked to. After all, it does exist primarily to sell an item.
 * Additionally, phpBBStyles, forumimages and phpBBHacks which do not directly sell items, but do have unique content should be allowed. We have been over phpBBhacks before, and since that was allowed phpbbstyles & forumimages should too.
 * if i make my own template or hack and do not submit it to phpbbhacks.com or forumtemplates.com, or whereever, does that mean i can get a free link on wikipedia, too? after all, this would mean that i know host unique content, does it not?


 * my point being that unique content, alone, cannot be the criteria on which links are judged. getting unique content is something that almost any existant hack or template author can already do.  hacks, atleast, are sort-of like windows apps.  should the article on microsoft windows link to every single webpage that has a unique windows app, too?


 * in summary, i agree with chris cunningham. most of these links do not offer enough unique and notable content to merit inclusion. 72.36.251.234 19:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * IRC is not a discussion forum. Yes, it can be for discussion, however in the way #phpbb is used, it is primarily for support rather than discussion. Therefore it is a useful thing to link to.
 * Anon 09:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * vbulletin.com is linked from vbulletin's own article; it shouldn't be linked from elsewhere for the given reason. Linking to its article is perfectly fine, because its article isn't an extlink.
 * I still can't get forumimages.com to load and I'm at a different location now. Is it still alive?
 * A support forum is still a discussion forum, and prescriptive information doesn't add anything of value to the article.


 * As for phpbbhacks, if it's there by itself then it's not too bad, but people have been using it as an excuse to add other resource links with the same rationale. This isn't good. Chris Cunningham 09:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the "non-official" external links qualify under 3 and 4 of External links. Under Chris Cunningham's rational, no "non-official" external links would ever qualify. As for getting rid of PhpBBhacks because it is an "excuse" to add other links, that's just idiotic. PhpBBhacks should (and does) stand on it's own merits. Also getting rid of links because the sites are commercial is not by itself an acceptable reason. Jake b 21:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 3 fails because they provide no information on the subject (phpbb). Themes and extensions are not information.
 * 4 fails because the content is supplemental rather than descriptive. The OpenSourceCMS link passes this, the theme and extension links do not. Chris Cunningham 22:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In your narrow opinion. In any case, all of the links provide information on the subject. Your interpretation is self-serving and arrogant, designed to further your political view of how the world should be. In all practical senses, none of the links violate any Wikipedia rules for such content. What is not specifically prohibited can be included. Err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion. Jake b 01:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then show how the content doesn't fail criteria 3 and 4 as Thumperward claims. æ² ✆ 2006&#x2011;11&#x2011;24t04:26z


 * I am not the one who wants to limit resources in this article to "official" links. Last time we visited this, a similar weak subterfuge was tried, but the mediator saw through it, and ruled in favor of allowing "non-official" external links. The mediator understood, recognized that using the strict rules that Chris Cunningham et al are proposing was in effect the same thing as restricting links to "official" links only. Improper manipulation of the rules of what is and is not acceptable within the Wikipedia guidelines. Jake b 18:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:EL specifically recommends the opposite of "err on the side of inclusion" in the very first point on the page: Links should be kept to a minimum. My interpretation is not "self-serving" because I have nothing vested in the outcome. Chris Cunningham 11:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Improper manipulation of the rules of what is and is not acceptable within the Wikipedia guidelines. A weak subterfuge that is in effect the same thing as restricting links to "official" links only". Dishonest. Jake b 18:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't. phpBB.org.in, OpenSourceCMS, and dmoz are by no means "official". æ² ✆ 2006&#x2011;11&#x2011;24t18:57z


 * Jake, it's great that you're fighting for your rights, but if you could tone it down. Yes, there was conflict in the past, but that is no excuse for you to continually attack it. We are discussing whether links should be allowed, not who can use the biggest words or subtly attack another party the most. Anon 20:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, the fact is, the people arguing against inclusion of these particular links wish to establish "rules" so strict that only "official" links will be allowed. This is their obvious objective. Not to remove these particular links because they don't meet the test, but ALL "non-official" links. In the past this has proved unworkable because it's obviously bullshit. So we get these subterfuges about "non-educational". It will mysteriously turn out that the only "educational" links are the "official" links. Very dishonest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.36.251.234 (talk • contribs)


 * Fact: There was not a huge list of link spam. In fact, the "non-official" links where quite few, and until the pot was recently stirred, not much of an issue at all. This is a non-issue. Leve the links and move on to something worthwhile. Jake b 23:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * so? Your obvious objective is to replace the phpbb junta with you own junta.  You come up with a ridiculous scenario - with slippery slope as an argument to hide fact that you have no case.  very dishonest. 72.36.251.234 01:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, my objective is to insure that useful, relevant, and valuable resource links are allowed, rather than excluded based on a designation I think is over-restrictive. I also think it is dishonest because it is so clearly an attempt to define what is "acceptable" so narrow as to only allow "official" links, which is improper. By the way, I see from your Talk page, 72.36.251.234, that your IP has been used for vandalism... Jake b 03:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * phpbbhacks.com is not an official link and Chris Cunningham did not suggest it be deleted.   yet you claim he did.  that is misrepresentation.  what Chris Cunnignham did say is that phpbbhacks.com is being used to justify the addition of links that should not be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.36.251.234 (talk • contribs)


 * You say i am a vandal. Why does that matter?  Do you think that the only people who can make good arguments  are people matching certain profiles?  If vandals are not good arguers what next?  Are women not good arguers either? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.36.251.234 (talk • contribs)
 * Hello sexist comment. Please refrain from such things. pschemp | talk 06:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me spell things out for you. In plain English.  Arguments are not made invalid by examining the person who made them.  My being a vandal does not invalidate my arguments, as I said.  Similarly, arguments are not made invalid because the person who made them is a female.  They are both ad hominems and they are both equally bad form.  Do you disagree?  Do you think ad hominems are fair game so long as they are not sexist?  Please, do let me know - your repulsive accusations make me want to unload a few non-sexist ad hominems on you. 72.36.251.234 23:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And what criteria do you propose be used, anyway, for the addition of links? Does a link have to get the jake b seal of approval before being added?  That is ownership of article.  Maybe the site needs unique content?  Let us then ask all hackers and template authors if they offer downloads on their sites that are offered nowhere else.  Let us add all their links.  Alerante - you are a phpbb person.  Do you have any hacks or template that you have not submitted to phpbbhacks.com or phpbb.com?  Add your link!  here a phpbb mod from me:

language/lang_english/lang_main.php topic thread
 * 1) -[ OPEN ]--
 * 1) -[ OPEN ]--
 * 1) -[ FIND ALL ]--
 * 2) only find in right hand side of equal sign
 * 1) only find in right hand side of equal sign
 * 1) -[ REPLACE ALL ]--
 * 1) -[ REPLACE ALL ]--


 * It makes phpbb say threads instead of topics. Can we link to talk pages in wikipedia article now???

previous discusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PhpBB/Archive_2#Other_sites —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.36.251.234 (talk • contribs)

Omg, speak English please. pschemp | talk 04:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to having high standards for external links. My point is that history has shown a desire by the maintainers of this article to restrict links to "official" links, which I think is improper. I find it very hard to believe that in all of the Internet, all of the Web, there are no "non-official" phpBB resources at all that provide high quality phpBB resources. It seems to me that the maintainers of this article ( come now, it is maintained by the phpBB Group, directly or by proxy ) would have us believe this. It does phpBB users an injustice. It's dirty. And now this bullshit of links having to meet some undefined standard of being "educational"! PhpBB is not some natural element or wild animal, some scientific process, it's a software project. The standard for links should be that they provide some quality resource for people using phpBB. And, advertising / commercialism by itself does not disqualify a site for listing; the phpBB site itself pimps several commercial enterprises. Jake b 19:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jake, stop it. I have told you to cease labelling the phpBB group as the ones who are at wrong here. NeoThermic and I have 'both' stated we wish to keep the links in place, no other person who has replied has had any involvement with the phpBB team. It is incorrect for you to say that we are behind the attempt to remove the links, any further statements by you saying that we are will mean you certainly won't get my support at least. Anon 21:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What I've said is that using standards so strict that the only thing that is "acceptable" is "official" links, than it's the same thing. But if you're happy with the set of links as they stand now, that's good. The quality is not great, but not bad, and offers ideas for where to search. Everyone is more or less happy! Jake b 17:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? YOu speak for everyone?  Why do a poll when you can just ask jake b??? 72.36.251.234 17:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * neocons call anyone who disagrees with them a terrorist sympathizer.  jake b calls anyone who disagrees with him on phpbb  a sock puppet.  neocons are really just arrogant - they think only they are right.  They call anyone names who disagrees with them.  Just like jake b.
 * You say quality resource should be linked to. What is a quality resource? You say ads "does not disqualify".  Well what does qualify?  Why do the links in Talk:PhpBB/Archive_1 that are not already linked to not qualify?  Why are these link not link to?  why not, , , , , etc?  There are lots of helpful phpbb sites.  Too many for all to be linked to. 72.36.251.234 00:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The standard for links is not that they "provide some quality resource for people using phpBB". Wikipedia is not a resource site. It is not a portal. It is not a guidebook. And the issue absolutely isn't one of officiality, it's of the dearth of descriptive commentary on those sites. Please stop misrepresenting my position. Chris Cunningham 12:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The current set of links do not conflict with any Wikipedia "rules". They may conflict with your rules, but that's different. Jake b 17:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * They fail 3 and 4 as discussed above. Stop making this personal. Chris Cunningham 02:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)