09-22-2014, 10:35 PM
Looked like content removal w/o reason, if it was good faith, that's ok. Ronk01 talk 21:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
BTW, i think, the reason why i changed it is pretty obvious if you follow the "sources". There is a forum being used to accuse the vast majority of users of copyright infringement and that same forum accuses moderators of copyright infringement, but if you follow what the forum says the user it accuses is not even a moderator (not to mention this is talking about only one user). Benjamin breaking (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Benjamin, posting copyrighted content is an infringment of copyright, no matter if it appears on a forum or in a book of science. Your position about taringa which clearly violates any rule about registered content, is anything but impartial. What a shame. Fma12 (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
(copy paste so i don't have to write the same thing again) Benjamin breaking (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Just two more things i want to clarify:
There is no point in saying taringa is not google (we could say taringa is not youtube either).
To accuse someone of copyright infrigement there must be sources that be trustworthy and the topic has to become relevant outside of wikipedia before we can include it. "the owners of Taringa are clearly breaking the law" is something that can be clearly included when it appears in more than one newspaaper like clarin or la nacion or if taringa owners be taken to the court.
Benjamin breaking (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Benjamin, there IS a point in saying taringa is not google, because if you read the interview cited, it were the owners of taringa themselves who named google, comparing both sites. This comparison is clearly wrong because taringa works in a different way than google. As a matter of fact, taringa DOES has loads of post containing copyrighted material. No matters if the website doesn´t host them in its own servers, forbidden links are ON taringa pages. And this is an infringment of copyright, because the site has moderators and the links remains for a long time without deletion. This also consists of an infringment of the law although its owners deny the charges. All the texts about laws breaking are referenced with reliable sources. You can find them on the web and read for yourself and you will understand what the article talks about. Fma12 (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you would like to read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Garnet 753 (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Take youtube as an example. The article covers copyright infrigement issues not only because you can go to youtube and find copyright material
BTW, i think, the reason why i changed it is pretty obvious if you follow the "sources". There is a forum being used to accuse the vast majority of users of copyright infringement and that same forum accuses moderators of copyright infringement, but if you follow what the forum says the user it accuses is not even a moderator (not to mention this is talking about only one user). Benjamin breaking (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Benjamin, posting copyrighted content is an infringment of copyright, no matter if it appears on a forum or in a book of science. Your position about taringa which clearly violates any rule about registered content, is anything but impartial. What a shame. Fma12 (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
(copy paste so i don't have to write the same thing again) Benjamin breaking (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Just two more things i want to clarify:
There is no point in saying taringa is not google (we could say taringa is not youtube either).
To accuse someone of copyright infrigement there must be sources that be trustworthy and the topic has to become relevant outside of wikipedia before we can include it. "the owners of Taringa are clearly breaking the law" is something that can be clearly included when it appears in more than one newspaaper like clarin or la nacion or if taringa owners be taken to the court.
Benjamin breaking (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Benjamin, there IS a point in saying taringa is not google, because if you read the interview cited, it were the owners of taringa themselves who named google, comparing both sites. This comparison is clearly wrong because taringa works in a different way than google. As a matter of fact, taringa DOES has loads of post containing copyrighted material. No matters if the website doesn´t host them in its own servers, forbidden links are ON taringa pages. And this is an infringment of copyright, because the site has moderators and the links remains for a long time without deletion. This also consists of an infringment of the law although its owners deny the charges. All the texts about laws breaking are referenced with reliable sources. You can find them on the web and read for yourself and you will understand what the article talks about. Fma12 (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you would like to read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Garnet 753 (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Take youtube as an example. The article covers copyright infrigement issues not only because you can go to youtube and find copyright material
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
