Talk:G-On Riders
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Folken de Fanel in topic AniDB, Animesuki, and AnimeNfo links
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
AniDB, Animesuki, and AnimeNfo links
editAnimeSuki has been found not to violate WP:C, which is why a link to its main page is on wiki. Both AniDB and AnimeNfo contain factual information that can't simply be copy pasted into the article and aren't ads, so they pass WP:EL. Therefore, all three links should be included in the article. Buspar (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- The 3 websites promote and direct to copyright violating files, so as per Wikipedia:External_links#Restrictions_on_linking they are removed.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- You're stated justification was "Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked." Sites that index torrents have been found not to violate the copyrights of others, per recent court cases. Had I linked directly to a fansub group, then you'd have a point. Once again, your interpretation of policy is incorrect. The links are restored. Buspar (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Since when do courts define or limit the rules of WP ? If it's the decision of WP of not allowing any website involved in the distribution of copyrighted works, there's nothing to add.
- You're stated justification was "Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked." Sites that index torrents have been found not to violate the copyrights of others, per recent court cases. Had I linked directly to a fansub group, then you'd have a point. Once again, your interpretation of policy is incorrect. The links are restored. Buspar (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, concerning your newest edit summary, you had already violated the 3RR rule.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Count again. I only reverted your edits 3 times then stopped. You did four. Buspar (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Considering you've violated WP's rules and ignored previous discussions and consensuses against you, you have nothing to boast about.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Count again. I only reverted your edits 3 times then stopped. You did four. Buspar (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, concerning your newest edit summary, you had already violated the 3RR rule.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)