Talk:Shareaza/Archive 2

Cleanup
I've tidied the article a little. The features list still needs completely rewritten. Chris Cunningham 22:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As does the Controversy section. It's unclear which bans are still in effect, which bugs persist, and someone has littered the section with justifiable  templates.  Also, the final para seems to imply that Kazaa Lite Pro is a version of Shareaza (?!?), which it certainly is not. 12.22.250.4 21:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * When the lock is lifted, I'll write another section that describes how it can download from other networks and so. Without copying from the feature webpage. Neglacio (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I added some stuff. If you want to trim it, adjust or add things, feel free, but please make a response why ;) Neglacio (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've tidied the language and style up a bit. I've tagged it for further work, we could work on the language used and we seriously need secondary sources. Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to anyone who tidied it up! My English isn't my mother language, so sorry ;) About the references, well, I can't find any references which wouldn't be self published, since I don't see why someone else would just make a blogpost about this or something like that (talking about features). Neglacio (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What's with all the Wikipedians?
Whenever I do a search on Shareaza, I get tons of results offered from people with usernames on Wikipedia. Has Shareaza all of a sudden become the favourite file-sharing tool of Wikipedians? --  Denelson83  20:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If anything, I assume it's because many in the Shareaza community embraced Wikipedia fairly early on, like myself, rather than the reverse. I would assume that if you dig deep enough, you could find plenty of other p2p projects with authors on wikipedia. -FrYGuY 20:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just spam. The spammers needed a list of believable names and apparently harvested Wikipedia for them. The spam should be blocked in the newer versions of Shareaza. --70.188.5.44 13:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge eTomi clone with Shareaza.
The eTomi article is small and repeats a lot of the information available in the Shareaza article. I think the articles could be merge with a section on eTomi and have eTomi redirect to Shareaza. Bpringlemeir 21:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

how long was this in the article?? anyone editing using it??
Shareaza can not download the same file from several networks simultaneously. They have different hash systems for one thing. It can(like most protocols today) download from more than one source within one network. The different colours are not networks but just different users. --Echosmoke 01:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As a former developer for Shareaza, I can authoritatively tell you you're wrong. Shareaza takes all the different networks hashes and uses them together. If it has the SHA1, BTIH, and ED2k hash of a single file, it can (and does) swarm between networks. Not to mention, if it only has an SHA1 Gnutella and Gnutella2 can cross swarm easily. -FrYGuY 03:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * well, i can see how it would be maybe possible in theory, but i ve never seen a download with sources from several networks. So now im trying some files that i would expect to be most likely candidates (the notorious linux/ubuntu e.g.) so far they all "split" completely to either G2 or edonkey. So do you have a file at hand to test it? Also, how do u resolve conflicts stemming from differing chunks? --Echosmoke 21:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, no, I don't, as my laptop now runs Linux thanks to some bad ATI drivers being installed by the Thinkpad update manager (Shareaza works under WINE, but not well), hence the reason why I'm a former developer. If you ask on the Shareaza forums, I'm sure they could recommend a few candidates with some magnets to boot. Conflicts are resolved by only using one of the hashes (the Tiger tree, as it's the most granular) to verify chunks, and the SHA1 to verify the file after completion. Please note that while it can swarm cross network, it does REQUIRE that the file is held by at least one Shareaza client, as otherwise there is no way to verify that a given SHA1 hash and ED2k hash represent the same file (It is still, to my knowledge, the only client which hashes every file with all the various required hashes and will transmit them), so it is not a feature which will always happen. With only an SHA1 hash, from a non-Shareaza client, however, downloading the file from both Gnutella and Gnutella2 is trivial, as that is the 'native' hash for both. In the download window, both networks are shown as Blue "HTTP transfers" rather than trying to figure out which network the other side actually represents (a pretty tough task, actually). Your task is also further hampered by the fact that ED2k and Gnutella have traditionally centered around different types of content (Larger files for ED2k, smaller for Gnutella), so the 'common files' of one network may be rare on the other and vice versa. Also, I'm not sure if this bug has been fixed, but at least it used to be that if you had a file with a few dozen Gnutella/G2 sources and a few thousand ED2k sources, the Gnutella side of the sources would be choked out and the sources eventually dropped (I never could figure out the reason, though I believe the leading candidate was that the HTTP sources were being timing out while the client was being overloaded with ED2k sources). But cross-network swarming is, in fact, possible. -FrYGuY 06:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * i have been using this since 2004,and though KAD/ed2k-only downloads are still best on eMule, most widely shared files are easily availaible on Shareaza client through multiple access,
 * maybe Echosmoke above have witnessed ed2k download only or gnutella download, or torrent download only because some files are shared on those networks only, some very popular files (WINK,WINK) can be seen on all 3 networks but not received through bittorrent, which usually use a different version of the file
 * —-— .:Seth Nimbosa:.  (talk • contribs) 02:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

shareaza dead?
the website at shareaza dotcom has been non-functional for several days. is this software dead? 05:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, the server is simply down (for over a week now). Strange though... while writing this, the project page at SourceForge is down this morning, but was up last night. Hmmm, not sure what is going on? 24.11.243.33 12:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The last commit on SourceForge.net happened on October 24, 2007, so it is actively developed just the site is down. 217.26.163.26 12:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The site is hosted on server space donated by one of the developers. While this means that the server is pretty inexpensive, it also means the server is pretty unreliable. As a result, sometimes it can be down for extended periods of time. -FrYGuY 05:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The development still continues! You can take a look at the shareaza wikipedia page and follow the 'nightly builds' link, or go too the shareaza sourceforge project page. Wout000 15:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. They're site is still down from October it seems, but they came out with version 2.3.0.0 recently so they're still working at it it seems. 24.78.224.106 (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC) (CanadaAotS is too lazy to log in)

Discordia Ltd.
A Sourceforge forum comment now claims Shareaza dotcom is a "scam site". There does indeed seem to be a completely different "Shareaza V4" application on this site billing itself as a music service.

How do you define a scam site? It's different from the previous (v2) version of shareaza, but unlike scam sites it's on the official domain, does not ask for any money and seems to be sanctioned by the RIAA. The SourceForge version has been sued for copyright infringment and does not own the shareaza dotcom URL. If anything, there is a rift in the Shareaza development. Shareaza dotcom is certainly not a scam site.


 * However you call it it violating the license under which the original developer has published it (i.e. GNU GPL), as long as you didn't prove that they are copyright owners of Shareaza, which is extremely unlikely, they are indeed illegal hijackers of the software. 217.26.163.26 (talk) 07:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, they do make money of it. ShareazaV4.exe installs spyware, which is being payed for. And they do not own the GPL, since they don't include the license and they do not give the source free. For more information and truth about this, check the Links section beneath. Neglacio (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

How do you define a scam site? => All developers of Shareaza 2.3.0.0 are still working on the "sourceforge version" of Shareaza (before and after the domain takeover), the version on Shareaza dotcom isn't related to Shareaza at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ale5000 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but everyone who actually knows anything about Shareaza, you are all banging your head agains the most thick headed wall ever invented. The wikipedia wall, where people who have no involvement within a subject gets the final say on the subject, and people who actually knows anything about the subject (including the ones who currently manages it) has no say in the matter. The Shareaza site was hijacked, and is used unlawfully on the shareaza dotcom site according to the general public license that Shareaza comes with. There has been no community split, as all developers before the site went down are still working on the same version. The "new" version is a shareaza bundled with free spyware, and is not benefitial for anyone but the ones promoting the version to download. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.222.114 (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Links
So, we've got a bit of an edit war regarding the external links. A user supporting the link to the Sourceforge site has approached #wikipedia on IRC. Before further links are changed, could we please discuss this here?

If discussion doesn't happen and the reverts continue, I will likely just remove all the external links from the article and protect it. So please discuss this issue. It has been explained to me that the .com version of the site is now owned by a company which has appropriated the name for their own use of some commercial software, as compared to the original site which hosted a GPL project, which is now on sourceforge. What's going on? kmccoy (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm that users from the IRC channel. If you can see, shareaza dotcom offers a closed source installer, called ShareazaV4.exe, which includes badware. People should be informed that the site has been moved to the Shareaza project site on SourceForge, which is a reliable hoster. If all external links would be moved, people will simply type shareaza dotcom, shareaza.net, shareaza.org, etc... Those are all scamming sites. A lock with one sourceforge link would be sufficient, IMHO. Neglacio (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

neglacio is right on this one. The shareaza dotcom domain was hijacked. The site is now operating from shareaza.sourceforge.net. The guy is from the same company that hijacked the imesh site. If you go to shareaza dotcom and imesh.com you will see that they look remarkably similar. He also runs the scam site shareazaweb.com. Cyko 01 (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a member of the Shareaza Development Team, this can be verified by my email address. The official site for Shareaza is on Sourceforge as stated by Neglacio, this can also be verified by the SVN history for the project. Wildcard 25 (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the domain hijacking stuff. This goes on every day, and Shareaza is hardly a unique example of it. We don't source information to forum posts or IRC comments. Chris Cunningham (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is from the Sourceforge forums by an admin of Shareaza. http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=767014
 * To prove he's an admin, here's the link to the members of the Shareaza Development Team in Sourceforge: http://sourceforge.net/project/memberlist.php?group_id=110672 . The bold named are the admins, for more authentication of that, look at the project page by Project Admins: http://sourceforge.net/projects/shareaza/
 * If you don't believe Shareaza being an OpenSource application on SourceForge, check The Wayback Machine, on the bottom : http://web.archive.org/web/20070202023038/http://shareaza.com/ Neglacio (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We still don't source things to forum posts, because it's difficult to ensure that such things are going to be around for long enough to verify them. And Wikipedia is not a message board to use because of project problems. Plenty of domains get hijacked, plenty of people release spyware-infected builds of Shareaza, and this is no more notable than any other occasion of such happening. If people keep edit warring over this, the article will end up getting locked down to editing entirely. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a verified and good source in my eyes. What else do you propose? An article of TorrentFreak or something similar? On the way ;) But if you would lock it, with what site as official site? Neglacio (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The sourceforge one, of course. The facts of the matter aren't in dispute; the unprofessional daubing of news flashes on articles is what I'm opposed to. I'd rather deny the spammer the publicity entirely, because as I've said this is a very common practice. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, that would be a good choice. Thanks for everything. Neglacio (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I would lock it with no external links. kmccoy (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not? Like I said, people need to be warned. Since Shareaza has always been a GPL program, the sourceforge address has been the best. Look at this, anyway, http://torrentfreak.com/shareazacom-hijacked-and-turned-into-a-scam-site-071224/ Neglacio (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not here to give users advice on what to download and what not to download. The section regarding the domain takeover needs to be reworked in a neutral way by someone who understands the situation a bit better than I do.  Please see WP:NPOV for a start.  I will also do some looking around to see if I can figure things out well enough to clarify that section. kmccoy (talk) 08:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've shifted it into the history section and reworked it a bit. We really need to get a few citations which aren't from primary sources, forums or warez sites. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Would the template on top still be needed? The page doesn't refer to any forums anymore, only to TorrentFreak, which is not a warez site, but a P2P news site. A very respected one. Anyway, it can be deleted in my opinion. Neglacio (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we need to keep a reference to both sites. A "hijacking" has not been proved. TorrentFreak is not a reputable source and the referenced article on CNet clearly has an agenda. Get something from CNet or CNN and then we can talk about hijacking. All the complaints regarding GPL/DMCA are yet to be backed by a single identified individual. No one seems to step forward and say "I own the name Shareaza", "I own the domain", "I own the artwork" or even "I wrote some/all the code for Shareaza". How can you discuss hijacking when it's not even clear who this has been hijacked from? [Habeas Corpus] guys... 12:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If someone has an issue with GPL/DMCA they should sends a Cease and Desist to he new owners of shareaza dotcom. and TorrentFreak is not a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.180.212 (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * First off all, TorrentFreak is a very reliable source. Please link me too some articles in which they are far from objective. Even if it's a P2P newssite, it can give out P2P news. If a techsite writes an article, about e.g. a new processor, and in that they claim it too be twice as fast as normal, then that shouldn't be objective. However, most articles in the tech area of Wikipedia base themself on articles from such specific and dedicated sites. If you wish however, I could reference to some Dutch techsites, but you'll need to translate it yourself :)
 * Next too that, the installer IS violating the GPL(v2). Check the internet for any references too Shareaza, and you'll see Shareaza has always been GPL(v2). The installer from Shareaza has always been hosted on Sourceforge. You can check that yourself if you wish too and have got the searching skills. So, it has always been from the developers listed on the Shareaza Sourceforge project page. You can check up many claims they say. But when payed-by-scammers repeatedly claim it's not, well, then objectivity is far. But please, be fair. Neglacio (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * editprotected Please remove reference to torrentfreak article claiming that the domain shareaza dotcom was hijakced. There is credible source that can substantiate a "hijacking" (or any other foul play). Also, a link should be added to shareaza dotcom, together with the link to the sourceforge. As developers on SourceForge do not own the trademark Shareaza they cannot rule out the validity of shareaza dotcom. Further proof to the bias (and thus lakc of credibility of torrentfreak) can be found here - . The author (and site owner) desribers him self as a "european child of 07B2" - enigmax. Whatever that means, it doesn't sound like the Europen version of the [New York Times]...


 * Declined. Please reformulate the request in coherent English. Sandstein (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not serious anymore. This is directly attacking a journalist. Because a journalist of BBC doesn't like Obama, does that mean that any article written by him about the American elections is untrustworthy? And what about those who like all Republicans? This way, you can go and judge all articles.
 * Anyway, the SF Shareaza team does own Shareaza as in the form of GPLv2. It has always been that way. The ShareazaV4 violates that GPLv2. Can you explain that, in your own honor? Neglacio (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Does it not appear that the domain has been sold to the owners of iMesh/BearShare by Jon? I can only guess as to possible reasons: stop the SPFF from going after him (Jon) by selling it, or maybe some form of settlement? Whatever the reason, iMesh were forced to become RIAA approved for their settlement and offer a service similar to iTunes, Napster, et al. BearShare had to hand over their site and userbase as part of their settlement to iMesh. Till an announcement comes from any of the 3 parties (Jon, RIAA/SPFF or iMesh/MusicLab/Discordia) about what is going on, everything else is just going to be thoughts as to what is going on, like this message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.113.126 (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is that way. The SPPF sued Nilson, because he was the only one on the WHOIS. (They're noobs ;) ) But he couldn't afford the case, so he had this settlement. Anyway, shareaza dotcom is not the real shareaza, nor a mod since it violates GPL(v2). Why would this be placed in the article about the real, open-source Shareaza? Neglacio (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * editprotected
 * Can you please add this ( http://secunia.com/advisories/28302/ ) as a reference to the shareaza dotcom mentioning? It backups the TorrentFreak article, however, it doesn't give a complete overview, so the TF article should also be there. Secunia is a very trustworthy company/site. Neglacio (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * editprotected
 * I checked the DNS records, and it was Dec 19th, that in fact, the domain was taken over. Not the 20th. (Changes probably didn't take effect until the 20th)
 * I't should be changed appropriately.
 * 67.142.130.26 (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * editprotected
 * Here is an Article on heise-security that discibes the situation concerning the site-takeover: http://www.heise-security.co.uk/news/101548 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.188.251.194 (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This may seem like a random suggestion, but somebody needs to restore some clear thinking to this situation. Clearly, there are now two pieces of software called Shareaza - an open-source one that has definitely been around for a while, and another that seems to have sprung up out of nowhere (and which is now available from shareaza dotcom). Both pieces of software are of notability, thus qualifying them for inclusion on Wikipedia. The solution to the edit war is simple to me - make an article for each piece of software and turn the current article into a disambiguation page. Perhaps an article can even be created on the apparent hijack, containing information on how the situation developed and its various complexities (with verifiable sources). All three articles would combine to provide unbiased and fair information, which is the primary puropse of an encyclopedia. Dark-Fire (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You really don't understand GPLv2. That tells you can't say something is/was a GPLv2 program without releasing the source and making it free. If you do close it, you can not say it's Shareaza, so it's a scam. They also say they're the successor of Shareaza because of the malicious update procedure they're doing now. ( http://secunia.com/advisories/28302/ ). So, it is NOT Shareaza, it's a scam and therefore should be stay merged without any mentioning V4 is Shareaza but only a scam. An encyclopedia needs to say the truth, not the most lies. Neglacio (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Neglacio: please stop making this about copyright. If the other software were declared to be called "Shareaza" and were notable, Wikipedia would have to call it Shareaza. That's how our naming guidelines go. Dark-Fire: the thing is that the shareaza dotcom application isn't notable; it's one of dozens of cash-in scumware applications (see also: Kazaa Gold, which likewise isn't notable in itself), and hence is only notable in the content of the domain grab. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I Too don't see why this needs to be locked for this. There are 2 programs now. the old shareaza, that is hosted on sourceforge, and a imesh clone, that has taken over shareaza dotcom. wikipedia oobserves this and leaves the fight who is right to somewhere else. Fake sites with versions that conatina extraa adware is nothing new. like emule.com(wrongsite). Most other open source p2p programs have their (illegal?) clones. :Leuk he (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree completely, Leuk he, and Neglacio, copyright has nothing to do with this. Chris, the problems that the Shareaza article is suffering show that it is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia - just because you view it as a 'cash-in scumware application' does not rid the world of the fact that many people are probably now using it, and some will undoubtedly think that it is the older open-source Shareaza - an article about the new one would be able to clearly point out that it is completely different software. If you don't want to create an entire article on the new Shareaza, perhaps you could create a section in the current article for it, like the NSIS Media Malware section of the NSIS article. Either way, its existence must be acknowledged, at least while it's still around. Dark-Fire (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree completely with you Dark-Fire. But it should be made sure SharazaV4 and their company uses a bad way to force their clone and that it is not the Shareaza it has always been. Just include the truth. But do not say that the opensource Shareaza is hosted on shareaza dotcom. That's a fact. Neglacio (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Dark-Fire, you are talking nonsense. First of all, why the hell they distribute it under the name "Shareaza"? Ok, let they steal the domain, let they distribute the mod, but nobody ever used such tactics like this. To distribute their application under someones name. To announce everything as the product of theirs. They had a page which stated: "we are those who created Shareaza from beginning". Ok, now they removed that page. But I would never trust in anything after that. They still use copyrighted images. Just for such cockiness they do not deserve to be mentioned anywhere. To raise their page rank from wikipedia, after they had broken any moral norms and SPPF asked money from SourceForge? It's unbelievable. My name is Rolandas, I am one of Shareaza developers (sorry, for not providing any proof of it, I am in a hurry). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.240.42.28 (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Wikipedians, Dark-Fire, the above discussion force me to remind all wikipedians that wiki was not created for propagation of just lies and manipulating propaganda. In dark times of nazizm Goebels said "lies repeated many times becomes true" and that's just what you are about going to do. Members of true Shareaza community claims that sb after has stolen domain is using this, true Shareaza, community long years lasting reputation for his unfair business purposes, using open source code against its licence (GPL) to create badware/malware installer which installs a spyware to unaware users who trust true Shareaza reputation and want to use Shareaza. The same sb uses artwork (which is not an open source, note please) in aim to make fool of visitor and make an impression, forcing him to think that he is just downloading true Shareaza, and more he exactly says that elements (existing in frames of Shareaza community, currently at shareaza.sourceforge.net) which there are not at hijacked shareaza dotcom "is comming soon". And the most important thing when you look  inside to file "ShareazaV4.exe" propagated there you will find that there is an  alien client (suspected to be iMesh client) in skin which looks almost identically as Shareaza, but it doesn't make it Shareaza of any kind! And when Shareaza developers are telling you here that it is not true Shareaza and you try to say sth about "when it is named Shareaza it is Shareaza" how do you think, what are you about to do?  Why you just refuse true to be true itself? Is there a policy to avoid true? There were pointed above where you can verify the project history, members, archives etc. So do you want to refuse these facts a status of true facts and proves? What facts proves that "ShareazaV4.exe" is anyhow part of true Shareaza project? So Hey weak up! What else should happen? "ShareazaV4.exe" should turn in to little green monster, jump out of your screen and make a serious statement "Honey, I am not Shareaza at all!" - that would work?. Believe me or not it will not happen. And please when sb repeats lies in net, do not join him as many people has shown you here true story and where it can be verified, so you just know the reality and circumstances. Otherwise you become a part of dark-marketing used by hijackers. Do you want Wikipeadia to be apart of? (Statement of good will: When I mentioned above Goebels I wanted to remind where to lead repeating lies, not to offend anyone, anyhow nor to make any hidden suggestions, interpretations, accuses etc. and anything like this would be an over-interpretation)77.253.9.246 (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)I am known as "oce", Shareaza user from about 3 years. I am not in Development Team.


 * Firstly, I would like to advise all Shareaza developers to stay away from this argument - no offence, but such strong emotions and blatant bias are not helping. Secondly, I agree with the first sentence of the last comment but the rest of it appears (at least to me) to contradict the first sentence. I'd like to reiterate that the open-source Shareaza is clearly a vitcim in this situation, and that I am not saying that the new Shareaza dotcom scam should be given as high an importance on Wikipedia as the open-source Shareaza. However, Wikipedia is meant to be the store of all human knowledge (to a reasonable extent) and people are undoubtedly going to look up Shareaza on Wikipedia, expecting to see something about Shareaza version 4. It is advantageous to all parties involved to put some information about the scam Shareaza on Wikipedia, even if only to say that it's a scam and has nothing to do with the original Shareaza. I'd like to, once again, use the example of the NSIS Media Malware section of the NSIS article to show how such a solution would look. In that section it is made very clear that the malware company 'NSIS Media' has nothing to do with the real 'NSIS', and it also advises people to choose reliable download sources for NSIS. Is that not what the Shareaza devleopers want? The Shareaza article should clearly show that the two pieces of software called Shareaza are completely different, that the SF.net version is the original project and which download sources are reliable. Meanwhile, the scam version is acknowledged, fulfilling the purpose of Wikipedia. Perhaps some Wikipedians could even do some research into exactly what Shareaza version 4 is and the origins of Discordia Ltd. Dark-Fire (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not an advocacy site, and does not exist to steer users away from making bad decisions. The only notable verion of Shareaza is the Sourceforge version, and the article should contain nothing more than a single comment to the effect that the original project site was deposed. Any advocacy or original research which oversteps this is amateurish, and I'm strongly opposed to it. Chris Cunningham (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the idea as that one from NSIS. That's a very good idea. I don't see a point to not display any information about it. But I will repeat, the fact that ShareazaV4 has Shareaza as the first eight letters does not mean it's Shareaza. Someone should make a new part/title with all information. Saying that they're using the shareaza dotcom domain to update their non-real ShareazaV4, that they got it from our frightened middle-man, and that it is NOT Shareaza. Together with some references to Heise-Security, Secunia and TorrentFreak, making it reliable as my crane where water should flow trough. But never should the shareaza dotcom address be the real official address from this project. Next to that, I want to repeat that I'm a member of the close Shareaza community for almost a year. I have taken the task on me to inform as much people as possible. I try to do this in a most objective way. Neglacio (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(Response to editprotected requests) It looks like the article will become unprotected very soon, at which point the changes can be made without admin attention. But please take care to ensure your edits will reflect consensus. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Can some moderator/administrator make a consensus then? So we know what we may do and what we aren't allowed to do? Neglacio (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is not something that is decided by an aministrator. It is reached by discussion. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I know, but what's the compromise then? Neglacio (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The current version is fine. There's no need to go into further detail aside from noting the auto-update vulnerability. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Can it be unlocked then? I want to rewrite the Feature part, and add a part about the auto-update. Neglacio (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Protection was only for a week and has now expired, as I'm sure you've gathered from having edited it. :) Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to conclude this discussion by congratulating everyone on the progress that has been made on the article in the last few days. Not only has the Shareaza dotcom problem been addressed, but the article is being improved such that it is now of a much higher standard. Keep up the good work! :) Dark-Fire (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)