Talk:AXXo/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Recreating page

Recreating this page because aXXo is a notable figure, google results show a large number of hits for his torrents, and the beta page that I and others have been creating has reached a point where it is ready for a real page and real edits. -- Esemono (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm utterly shocked that there is not a page for Axxo. The above arguments more the suffice to revive this page. Furthermore, the name Axxo, be him a person or not, is much more notable than, say, Leeroy Jenkins, a much less known internet "celebrity". With millions of people downloading his stuff every day (albeit illegally) surely a page is know in order. Wikipedia has tons of pages with waaay more obscure stuff that no-one cares about.193.136.128.19 (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

LEEEEROYYYY JEEEEENKINSSSSS!!!! *ahem* You say "no one cares about"; that could be worded more correctly as "you don't care about". Obviously, if an article exists, someone cared about the topic. Just a quick comment as I pass by... --Alinnisawest(talk) 02:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

refs

Hello Esemono, can you please assist me with the reference links? Thanks, DVvD 05:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the template I use:

<ref name="name">{{cite web |date=2007 |url = http |title = title|format = HTML |publisher = pub| accessdate = 2024-11-21 | last= |quote=}}</ref>

Copy this and replace the values everytime you make a ref. If you want more info go to the Wiki help for ref -- Esemono (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --DVvD 11:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

removing lords prayer

Hero and archetype for some, the identity is often hailed as an almost religious figure, to the point that the Lord’s Prayer was modified to become aXXo's prayer.

Not needed and not encyclopedic. -- Esemono (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

removed the Acknowledgements section

• An aXXo file (Pirates.of.the.Carrabian-Dead.Man's.Chest[2006]DvDrip[Eng]-aXXo.avi) was spotted running as a demo on an iMac displayed on an Apple stand in a John Lewis Department Store in 2007. Lifestyle.Hexus.com contacted the upmarket department stores chain whether the use of illegal material to promote devices was a common occurrence, and John Lewis' Corporate Press & PR Manager, Ms. Louise Thomson, responded with the following statement:

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. We have fully investigated the incident and the shop has removed and destroyed the clip. We have also taken the necessary steps to ensure that the replication and publication of pirate material in any form does not take place in our shops. This incident is not reflective of our policy and we take very seriously the copyright laws and would not intentionally break any of these rules or regulations.

— Louise Thomson, Press & PR Manager, Corporate, John Lewis

The above doesn't need to be in the article and the lifestyle link doesn't even include axxo's name -- Esemono (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Found an article that did use Axxo name in the incident -- Esemono (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Flash video ref

I disagree, the Silverlight quote does not fit under identity at all. It is not my entry, and I didn't like it in the first place. And if the John Lewis story has to go, then this one has to go also. I have therefore removed the section:

Regardless of aXXo's identity it is likely that an entity uploading hundreds of full-length copyrighted movies over the course of years will have some impact on the future of web-accessible video content. Nels Johnson a digital medium writer tangentially acknowledged the quality of aXXo's "work", and expressed a belief that aXXo's uploading of content will continue:

In most discussion concerning whether long-form Flash video does as good a job as Windows Media with, for example, fast-action sports footage or transcoding digital captures of 24 fps film content, the pre-Flash 8 decision usually favored Microsoft" ... "That being said, feature-length Flash content available at www.surfthechannel.com seems to stay in sync (if you can stand the pixelation), as does Mr. Axxo's excellent Xvid work. Perhaps one day he will switch to Silverlight and begin using the Expression Encoder.

— Nels Johnson

which could befound under Acknowledgements before as the following text:

• aXXo was mentioned in an article by Nels Johnson, a writer for DV Magazine, in 2008:

In most discussions concerning whether long-form Flash video does as good a job as Windows Media with, for example, fast-action sports footage or transcoding digital captures of 24 fps film content, the pre-Flash 8 decision usually favored Microsoft" ... "That being said, feature-length Flash content available at www.surfthechannel.com seems to stay in sync (if you can stand the pixelation), as does Mr. Axxo's excellent Xvid work. Perhaps one day he will switch to Silverlight and begin using the Expression Encoder.

— Nels Johnson

--Dr-Victor-von-Doom

Dr von Doom, please use the method of signing your posts with four tildes. You removed content without discussion, other than "if x has to go then so does y". I'm reinstating the quote. Please see WP:OWN before you do any more edits. User:Pedant (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I already added it back in to the opening section. Don't need to have it twice. -- Esemono (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving stuff around

I separated the interviews and the identity section as it seems they deserve separate sections. Moved the naming format to the intro because its not really part of who he is. Also moved the scene sentence too as it doesn't have anything to do with his idenity. Maybe a controversy section would be in order to explain why people don't like his format -- Esemono (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Scene

Correct me if I am wrong but aXXo is not technically part of the Scene. He also releases directly to torrent sites which is generally considered a Scene no-no. I will be removing any reference to aXXo being a Scene group on the article unless I am corrected by September 15th.--Taboo Tongue (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Useful references

Here are some useful references that can be used to expand the article. These are considered to be pretty reliable sources:

• The Axxo effect at The Hindu

Added -- Esemono (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Return of the "aXXo" Legend! at TechTree

Added -- Esemono (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• aXXo torrents exploited by malware peddlers at Help Net Security

Redirect for a Torrentfreak page we already have up -- Esemono (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Going for a song at The Age

Already used -- Esemono (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• John Lewis branded a pirate at The Inquirer

Added -- Esemono (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk)

Thanks for the sources. -- Esemono (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Subjective Line

"Assuming US $3.00 as cost for a movie rental, this equates to about US $36 million pa in lost revenue for the entertainment industry."

This is really subjective and frankly, hearsay. To assume that one would rent a movie if not given the option of downloading it for free on the Internet is simply a fallacy. I suspect this was simply added by someone with special interest in the subject. Mobius One (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I removed it. Gary King (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Stealing an apple at the markets still results in a loss for the vendor, even if the thief did not have in mind to get an apple in the first place. Since it is illegal to steal, and since there are thousands participating in it, it would be of interest to put a figure against the damage. I don't consider this "special interest", but complete information, even if it is only indicative. It is not at all subjective, but rather objective since it put the damage into perspective, and it is not hearsay, but an educated guess in lack of reliable empirical sources. Dr-Victor-von-Doom 00:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr-Victor-von-Doom (talk • contribs)

Stealing an apple is different from copying an apple. If you copy and apple, you have two apples. Gary King (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

logic behind erasing the headers?

Why was the identity section trimmed and condensed? I liked the ability to fast reference the two names because they had their own headers. Now you have to search to find the names. -- Esemono (talk)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:AXXo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. This is a very interesting article. However, I have some major reservations about it that perhaps you can clear up.

• Are the sources reliable? Some of them seem to be forums or other unreliable sources. Some do not seem to contain any relevant information, e.g. http://www.zipile.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20323
• The article seems very speculative. AXXo is "an individual or group..."; "aXXo's identity is not publicly known, due to pending legal action" - no date attached to when or whether this legal action will occur. The aspect that aXXo may be a group is not explored.
• Language like "A news article clip supposedly from The New York Times suggested..." is vague; "supposedly" is not a good word to use in an encyclopedic article.
• It is unclear whether this "individual or group" is still operating as the last incident you report is last year.
• The organization of the article makes it difficult to follow a timeline, as you mix descriptive information in with the time sequence.
• It might be helpful to have more information to orient the general reader rather than the computer geek already familiar with the issue.
• Although the lead says AXXo "is the popular Internet celebrity alias", his (their) popularity and celebrity status is not explored in the article.
• On another note, quotes should not be in italics as your blockquote is.

—Mattisse (Talk) 20:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've done a few GAs in my time but I'd like to try something new with this article; it's extremely difficult to find reliable sources on it because of its nature (computer piracy) and so we have to rely on using other means to add content. That doesn't mean using unreliable sources; rather, it means using sources that may be considered unreliable in other articles and using them here but only using them for content that makes them useful, such as the Mininova statistics page or a forum post and then explicitly stating that the content comes from a forum post. Anyways, I will go through your list now. Gary King (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand and am interested in what you can do. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Things like Google searches, blog/forum posts, and mininova search results, are NOT reliable sources, and cannot be used as reliable sources. For one, search engine pages are constantly changing, and even if you put a date on them, the previous search from even just a few months ago CANNOT be verified. These sources need to be replaced or this article will NEVER, EVER, become a GA (or an FA, for that matter). Dr. Cash (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take another look at the article now. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You have definitely improved things. But what about such references as http://digg.com/tech_news/The_BitTorrent_Legend_Returns_I_Am_aXXo, and http://web.archive.org/web/20080210163727/http://www.zipile.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20323, and the search engine links? References like Torrent Freak, is that an industry news source? Also, you reference a New York Times article without a citation. I don't have time now but I'll read through the article again tonight or tomorrow. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The Digg link is just to show that aXXo was discussed on Digg. I've removed Zipile as the archive doesn't contain the image that we are using as a reference. TorrentFreak.com is very popular in the BitTorrent community and reports on pretty much anything that comes in and out of the community. The New York Times reference was a hoax, so there isn't a link available to the NYT website. The website that hosts the hoax is referenced, though. Gary King (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• "aXXo's identity is not publicly known to protect themselves from prosecution." - not publicly know as a protection from prosecution? Or some rewording, since "themselves" implies more than one person and the number of persons is unknown and may be just one. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

How about using "itself"? I've reworded the sentence to state that their identity is not known so that it's more difficult for authorities to track them down. Gary King (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• The article does not follow Wikipedia:LEAD. Maybe the article could be fleshed out more if you explained more. The information in the lead is not dealt with in the main part of the article. (I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but this article must fulfill the GA criteria, since promoting it to GA might be controversial.) Also, I wonder about the organization. Should Statistics come before Identity or any explanation in the article of the subject matter? —Mattisse (Talk) 16:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten a large part of the lead and the article in general. I am trying to keep the lead at a decent size in proportion to the rest of the article; since the article is fairly short, the lead is also fairly short. Please take another look at it. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This article still falls far, far short of meeting the GA criteria. Most of its references are horribly sub-par, and barely, if at all, WP:RS. The lead is still too short and doesn't conform to WP:LEAD (as previously discussed), 'statistics' is too short and too sketchy, 'incidents' is horribly inadequate and doesn't describe the issue/person/whatever at all. In its current state, I'd say the article is a good candidate for WP:AfD, certainly not WP:GA. If it were to pass GA, I would bring it to WP:GAR immediately,... if I didn't decide to just boldly delist it,... Dr. Cash (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I am slowly chopping away at unreliable sources. Gary King (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI I am still working on this. I will post back here when I am done. Gary King (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you take another look at the article now? Gary King (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

Do the TorrentFreak links remain constant? Or do they rotate, as some news pages do?

If so, I will pass the article, but be prepared for opposition! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which link you are referring to, but all of the links are static – their contents do not change. None of the links in the article are to search results or anything that changes dynamically. Gary King (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The TorrentFreak pages don't change content, either. Gary King (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):This is a well-written article on a phenomena important to the file sharing community b (MoS): There are no obvious MoS violations

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):The references are stable and verifiy the information in the article b (citations to reliable sources): The sources are reliable for information pertaining to the file sharing community, and include references from mainstream publications as well. I have thoroughly checked them. Although one, TorrentFreak, can be seen as pop in content and presentation, it responsibly controls its content and is judged as a reliable informant for the subject of this article and related subjects. c (OR):There is no OR.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):Context for the article is provided. b (focused): The article remains focused on the relevant information pertaining to the subject.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: The article is neutral in stance.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): There are no images.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Hard work has gone into making this article reliable and in avoiding OR. Congratulations! This passes GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing unreliable sources

I am currently removing unreliable sources to fit the criteria laid out at WP:RS. Please have a look before adding any more unreliable sources to the article. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Darkside link

I removed the link but if you can find where the admin stated that aXXo is taking a break then you can readd it. Also, to make a full circle here is a link to the darkside thread talking about the wikipedia page. So now you can look at a thread talking about them looking at us -- Esemono (talk) 05:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead too short?

I was reading the article and i feel that the lead misses the point of why axxo is notable. Axxo is not notable for being a pirate, he is notable for being a pirate that is the author of dvd rips of predictable and consistent quality who are immensely popular online.83.132.161.145 (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have a reference citation for that, you could add that to the lead. (Or perhaps one of the existing references contains that information, such as http://www.dv.com/columns/columns_item.php?articleId=196604239. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this article passed GA with such a short lead section. I suggest re-listing this article unless criteria 1(b) is thoroughly checked over and fixed --Flewis^(talk) 13:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Slate articles about aXXo

Slate's associate editor, Josh Levin, recently wrote an article about aXXo and an interview about it, which are both interesting and can be used in this article. I haven't read the whole thing so I'll leave it here for whoever wants to check them out and use as much of their information as possible:

• "AXXo You Are a God"
• Meet the World's Most Beloved Movie Stealer

Gary King (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Added the first one which suspiciously follows the same format as this article but the second article is a general interveiw about aXXo and copyrights not an actual interview with aXXo -- Esemono (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I said it was an interview about it :) I used "it", too, since I'm still not sure if it's one person or a group. Gary King (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

Does anyone know where the term or what "aXXo" actually stands for? LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Closest I could even harbor a guess would be from Axonometric projection. I don't think were gonna know what was in the mind of this kid when he came up with his handle. ^Law _shoot! 03:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Piracy Headline is mis-leading

Piracy in the case of copyright infringement requires a profit to be made. aXXo makes no money from sharing his DVD Rips, therefore his actions are not considered Piracy. I am going to change it Copyright Infringing Activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.152.87 (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You do realise that the MPAA clasify torrent sites as piracy sites? Yes they are infringing copyright but this is still piracy. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 13:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

They only recently started calling that piracy in the last few years. Some say it is to make it sound worse so less people will download the copyrighted files, but the original definition still holds that profit must be made, or attempted to be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.152.87 (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have references? Otherwise I shall revert it unless someone else or you could come up with a good ref. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 16:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, guess you haven't been following the history of this problem long enough. Just look back to the original Napster days, the news articles and terms used back then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.152.87 (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

But this is the hear and now. Anyway when this article was classed GA-Class (A class) the reviewer did not have a problem against this. You can provide refs and add this in as a term if you like. But the refs are needed to prevent the article from turning bad. Wikipedia's reputation (and the editors' involved is at stake. Happy editing. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 00:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The term "piracy" seems to refer to any copyright infringement in an electronic medium, essentially, per the Copyright infringement article. Gary King (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think piracy is at least the legal term for copyright infringement, I know it's probably the most common term today for it but a really slow thinking person might actually believe aXXo is an actual pirate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.135.218 (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

To call "copyright infringement", with or without monetary gain, "piracy" is ridiculous, orwellian and perfidious. The only people in this whole affair who remotely resemble pirates are the corporations and lawywers since they use force, intimidation, violence etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.226.3.117 (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

List

Do we really need a list of films released by aXXo? The Independant has already recognised that aXXo's been ripping DVD's for quite a while now. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 12:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I see it's been removed; yep it's unnecessary. Too many films to list, anyways. Gary King (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd removed it but some IP kept on adding to it. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 01:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Picture

The main pic gives away the name of the Ghost Town torrent. One google search later, the first result gives you the torrent. Suffices as sharing warez? --70.64.123.219 (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It could be cropped to only keep the logo? Gary King (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The picture does not have anything unique to the torrent, nor a link to the original upload. "<any movie> + aXXo" as a query will give you any torrent you are looking for. I don't have a problem with cropping it, as I uploaded it, but when I did so, I made sure that the .nfo file was not a how-to. It really is not anything unique and at best it alerts the reader that Ghost Town has been released as a torrent - but so does aXXo's blog. If the consensus is to crop, I'll get to steppin'.^Law _shoot! 01:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

On the side of caution, I went ahead and uploaded a blank aXXo template, which should be just as effective at displaying an .nfo file. ^Law _shoot! 01:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

700MB

This article implies that aXXo pioneered ripping DVDs and that he created the 700mb DVD rip standard. Quite frankly, I've never even seen any of his releases in the scene. --nlitement ^[talk] 17:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it implies that. And what scene would that be? aXXo has been on the torrent sites for years . LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 18:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the Scene, with a capital S.

"The aXXo files gained popularity due to the fact that aXXo produces files of comparatively small size and consistent quality. The file size, aproximately 700 megabytes, is deliberate as to allow the user to burn the file to a CD-R.[5] This quality results from aXXo's reliable synchronization using codec encoding programs to encode digital files.[6] "

Who can take that seriously? I mean, anyone who has any knowledge of the scene, that is? Torrent sites consist 99% of warez scene leaks, and claiming that they gained popularity due to that is extremely superfluous.. ANY DVD RIP RELEASE in the past 10 years has been like that. --nlitement ^[talk] 20:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah right now I'm getting a feel for what you mean. However he/she is the most popular for getting quality DVD rips. I mean have heard of any other DVD ripper that does the exact same as aXXo and is as famous as him? KlaXXon is not a candidate as he is just an imitator of aXXo's. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 21:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I picked up on the issue and removed the offending text before seeing this discussion. I'm in total agreement. The information here that is being attributed to aXXo is the basic standard that every single group has used for years, and for the exact same reasons. The quality is the same as any other DVD rip, because everyone uses the same codecs. None of this is notable to the person in the article, who is just known as a name-brand for movie releases. His notability comes from his cult following, as he doesn't do anything technically different from any other releaser or distributor. Rurik (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

True, but he's the notable one. He may not be the only one to use the 700MB standard, but it is what makes him popular. The timing of his releases, the consistency, and the cult following. Just because someone comes first, doesn't automatically make a predecessor less notable. If that's the implication given, it's most likely given by the sources. We write what we can verify, not what is true. ^Law _shoot! 00:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think too much credit is given here. The tools used to create DVD rips are nearly all automated and all create standard sized rips, based on a decade old set of rules called the Standards. In the references that exist, I don't see anything that specifies that he is notable in his usage of the tools - they just explain the process to the naive readers and show that aXXo follows the rules. The 700MB movies don't make him popular because ALL DVD/screener movies are released as 700MB by standard (with very few exceptions). It's like saying people love McDonald's burgers because they use meat and condiments inside two buns to make it easier to hold. While that is true, it's not a technique unique to McDonald's and it really has no bearing in why they are popular. There are a lot of buzz words thrown around, which I had deleted, that basically state that he used tools to compress the video with a codec. The text reads as if he is the only distributor that performs these steps, and that is probably because of the badly written source article on Slate. One source cannot be used as the holy grail here, especially when many more citations can be made to show that he is not unique or notable in this regard. I am not debating aXXo's popularity or notability, just the fact that this article tells the public that he made the standards instead of just following them. Rurik (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Your analogy makes me laugh, and hungry. I see your point. You feel there is undue weight being thrown around resulting in a depiction that aXXo pioneered this standard. Can we agree his popularity is in part because he adheres to the 700MB mark? ^Law _shoot! 02:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that people like 700MB formats, which is why it became a standard back in 2001. I would say that people like aXXo's movies because they are 700MB, but that's a bit of a fallacy because, again, all movies are 700MB. However, I'll concede that point to make the article more approachable by those naive of the Scene. IMO, the text should be re-worded and should include a link to the wikipage for release standards, to provide accurate referencing. Rurik (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Having seen plenty of 1.2g and exact dupes, I couldn't say with certainty that all are 700MB. The source you provided is a good standard, but is not a third party source, IMO, as it is a direct source from the warez scene. After reading over the references, I would have to conclude that aXXo's popularity is a direct result of high-quality, well-timed releases. The 700MB doesn't need to be the main focus, but we should probably mention why he adheres to this standard, although you are certainly correct, it's not why he has the following he does. ^Law _shoot! 04:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

aXXo is not the first ever DVD ripper to create a 700 MB - we know that and we can even put it in the article - but it must be acknowledged that he is well known for them. Anything even remotely under 700 MB or over 700 MB is a fake. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 19:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

One of his most recent releases is 800MB - verified hash and .nfo file. So much for the standard - which was silly considering VCD is played out. If this continues, hopefully a source will be found to verify it.^Law _shoot! 05:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

KLAXXON

I've removed the relatively lengthy mention of KLAXXON. The only connection KLAXXON has with AXXO is the attempt to capitalize on the name. --Breshkovsky (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've revereted it. Klaxxon is an integral part and should be mentioned. It is not "advertising" as you put it. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 14:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How exactly is KLAXXON "integral" to this article? If it weren't for his name there would be no connection made with AXXO. The points in the article that connect KLAXXON with AXXO use references that do not back up the exact claims given here. You can look at the Wikipedia entry alone and see that it doesn't fit. For one, this sentence:

"Uploads of new aXXo files to the Pirate Bay stopped on November 11, 2007.[1] In aXXo's absence a new DVD ripper, by the name of '"klaxxon", emerged in file sharing communities on November 8, 2007."

On November 8, KLAXXON emerged to fill "aXXo's absence" when in the previous sentence it states that AXXO did not stop uploading until November 11, three days later? What sense does that make? How can someone "emerge to fill an absence" before the absence has even announced itself? KLAXXON is described in this entry as emerging as a direct result of AXXO leaving, as though stepping in to fill his place, but the dates and references show this is not so, thus I don't see the relevance of KLAXXON to this entry. If you still disagree but accept that KLAXXON was uploading before AXXO left then why don't we also add the names of a bunch of other then-popular uploaders to the page? Why devote 3/4 a paragraph to KLAXXON over any one of them?

Lastly, contrary to the Wikipedia page, the references give no mention of KLAXXON having "been inspired by the identity aXXo," only that he capitalizes on the AXXO name for search engine purposes.

Are these not good reasons to edit the section? That's a genuine question, not rhetorical... --Breshkovsky (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've updated that section now and below I provide information about each line I've changed so as to stop you from just automatically reverting the page. If you have anything to add here, surely go ahead - a discussion would be good.

I'm not against mentioning KLAXXON or FXG or any other uploader but as the page was before, in wording and references, I don't believe it made any sense. The section I think could also be expanded now to include something more about aXXo's departure but I'm a little reluctant to put effort into that just now in case you wanna keep reverting here.

"Uploads of new aXXo files to the Pirate Bay stopped on November 11, 2007."

Uploads stopped everywhere, not to mention that a few sentences before it already states that aXXo deleted all his/her recent files from that particular site.

"In aXXo's absence a new DVD ripper, by the name of '"klaxxon", emerged in file sharing communities on November 8, 2007. "

There have been many regular, popular and consistant uploaders before, during and after aXXo's short departure. How is KLAXXON significant (or "integral" as you say) to this entry then? See also my previously posted comment concerning the dates and the suggestion that KLAXXON was filling an absence.

"The name klaxxon appears to have been inspired by the identity aXXo, and uses aXXo’s popularity to promote klaxxon files in the search results of file sharing websites."

If that's the only connection then any mention of KLAXXON would be better noted in the 'Imitators' section and even then can hardly be called "integral."

"Three months later, as people started to forget him in favour of FXG and Klaxxon, aXXo started uploading files again, with the appropriate movie I Am Legend being the first, on March 9, 2008."

Is "as people started to forget him in favour of FXG and Klaxxon" fitting with Wikipedia? Also, the only reference that mentions anything close to this is a sketchy article from The Hindu Times with:

"There were fewer cries for Axxo on bulletin boards. Some even said there was no need for him to come back." --Breshkovsky (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is Klaxxon article redirecting to this (aXXo) article? is it the same individual?Darolu (talk) It shouldn't direct here.

No they are not the same individual. In fact, there is no connection beyond the fact that the letters "axxo" appear in both names (possibly to gain more search hits for the klaxxon uploader, not that this matters). Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Although no one can directly link the two, there are a lot of similarities and a lot of people will come here expecting to see a mention of KLAXXON. 1. He uses AXXO's name to gain popularity in search results. 2. He came to prominence the same time AXXO left the scene. 3. Since AXXO returned to the scene KLAXXON and AXXO usually do separate torrents, AXXO new and KLAXXON favorites. 4. AXXO has again left the scene and KLAXXON has recently started to specialize on new torrents again. 5. Both are autonomous and the most popular within their field, infact they may well be the same people. I personally believe KLAXXON deserves a mention in the article. 220.233.41.31 (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

While all are good points, they're also all Original Research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. If there was an external, reliable source that listed those items, then it may possibly be included. At this point, though, it's all speculation. Rurik (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

POV text and a bad reference

After a few reverts by two users, I decided to put this here for others to work on. The changes being re-introduced back into the article are here, though there has been no true justification for their presence.

These edits include:

• "The aXXo files gained popularity due to the fact that aXXo produces files of comparatively small size and consistently good quality. " Good quality here is a POV term, as good cannot be defined. What is good to one person is inadequate to another. Simply taking 'good' out would suffice (consistent quality), but someone just reverted that change.

Hmm..."What is good to one person is inadequate to another" - I think this hardly justifies removing the content as this is POV in itself. Find a source which comments on the lesser qualities of aXXo's files...LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 15:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

When the statement is subjective, it is POV. So, that includes saying something "good", "bad", "better", "best", "ugly", or "big". Because those terms mean different things based on the POV of the viewer. WP has a WP:NPOV policy that tries to reduce this in all of its articles. In this case, it includes taking the subjective term "good quality" and finding a way to make it objective. We would simply say that the quality is consistent, which is a purely objective fact. That avoids the POV issue of whether the quality is good or not, and simply says that all of the releases have the same quality, which they do. Rurik (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• "On file sharing websites, aXXo files attract a large following because of their relatively small file size, ease of download and use, and their consistent quality due to their reliable and synchronous encoding." First off, this is redundant; it's already listed in near verbatim in the introduction. It's also speculative that this is exactly why people download the videos, for which there is no source. In my last edit, I've removed the questionable material, and combined it with the trailing sentence to make a more cohesive statement with speculation: "On file sharing websites, aXXo files attract a large following, with over a million users downloading aXXo files each month." That was also reverted.

Well find a source for "aXXo files attract a large following, with over a million users downloading aXXo files each month". The "million" term is a bit of a hyperbole. Plus with no source the sentence is a point of view. (The introduction should only be a summary of what the article contains. So content there will be mentioned later in the article.). LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 15:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There's actually a source in that sentence for the "million users", so I'm not sure what you're saying? While the text can repeat information from the introduction, this sentence adds a few more details that are not sourced anywhere and should be stricken unless they can be proven. "ease of download and use" is POV, based on the fact that it's implying that BitTorrent and installing media codecs is easy. "Small file size" and "quality" can stay, but reliability and "synchronous encoding" are inherent in quality and don't need repeating. As a technical writer, since this material is already repeated and is already readily accepted by the reader, the paragraph flows easier by just statating: the files are popular, here's the proof of that. Instead of: the files are popular, here's why they're popular again, and here's the proof of that. That's based on readability, but I won't have heartburn if people want it to read poorly. Rurik (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• The reference " ((cite web |date=August 2008|url = http://www.dv.com/columns/columns_item.php?articleId=196604239 |title = Click To Play: Why Silverlight Matters|publisher = DV Digital Video magazine| accessdate = 2008-08-20 | author= Johnson, Nels))" is being reintroduced into the article with these edits for no reason whatsoever. The reference has nothing to do with aXXo, it's all about why Silverlight is better than Flash. The only passing reference to aXXo in the article is that his videos "stay in sync" and that "perhaps one day he will switch to Silverlight and begin using the Expression Encoder", which lends nothing to the content of this article, nor aXXo himself. It explains nothing on how he operates, why he operates, or anything tangible; it merely states a opinion that maybe aXXo would probably use a certain tool.

Well since aXXo references (the reliable ones anyway) are so hard to come by we can only go with what reliable source we can find. So that little tidbit of information is helpful to the reader and the article as a whole. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 15:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Saying that aXXo's videos "stay in sync" lends little to the article as it centers on a very minute part of quality. You can have videos that are in sync and of poor quality. I wouldn't say that it lends to credibility to aXXo or the article, as it is really just a passing reference made for a culture reference, and not one that really analyzes aXXo or the videos that he releases. It's an extremely poor source, and the article already covers a variety of sources that deal with this topic better than this one. I can see that it was thrown in at the very beginning of this article's life, and probably served a purpose then to find any and all references to aXXo, but it pales in comparison to the others here and to the standard for a good reference. Rurik (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments? Rurik (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments? Yes... I think you likely went to the trouble of explaining these very minor edits because of just one user: LOTRrules. I had a problem with him reverting my edits before. He seemed to have the page on his watchlist and was just automatically reverting all edits without sensible reason. When you get to talking to him you find that he has little to no understanding of the subject, he just parrots the article as though it's absolute, as you see in his replies above. Very annoying, all of it. Anyway, I bring this all up because you will be perhaps pleased to know that he's been indefinitely banned now and that because of this there's likely no need to provide extensive explanations (just as I too had to before) for any further edits you wish to make... --Breshkovsky (talk) 09:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for pointing that out, I just saw the ruling. I'll leave this be for awhile to see if anyone else has any arguments that they would like to make for the inclusion of the text. Rurik (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been about a week since this was initially posted with no strong arguments for the inclusion of the text. I've removed them out again and would welcome the chance to discuss this here if anyone has any counter-points. Rurik (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Not for Profit

Not that its VERY important but I suppose its relevent to mention that there is no profit and only cost in it for AXXO to do this. People not familiar to Peer-to-peer might assume that AXXO is making a fortune out of this (e.g. like Pirates) as he's resposnible for 35% of DL's apparently (surely "35% of DVD rips downloaded" would be more accurate, if its correct).

Something like:

Profit. Whilst it cannot be confirmed, it is widely assumed that AXXO loses money by renting or buying the DVD's that he then releases onto the internet and makes no profit from their existence on the web. Whilst not unusual in the internet community to give more than you receive the scale of AXXO's uploading (1000 DVD's as at March 2009) implies at least that he has either rented or bought 1000 DVD's to make this possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.107.124.213 (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It cannot be confirmed, so it really can't be used here. And surely suppliers can and do profit from their work. Sometimes it's through ad revenue from the tracker sites where the files are published, or just through simple hardware/software/access exchange with site owners. Rurik (talk) 10:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

aXXo uses rips from other users for his releases, he would never have to rent a DVD. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.107.124.213 (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

@Rurik, aXXo doesn't make any money from the DVDs that he rips. He does it purely out of good will. People who download torrents often want to give something back to the people who created those torrents and do that by either seeding those torrents or creating torrents of their own. Also, I'd like to point out that no major torrent website (Demonoid, mininova, ThePirateBay, etc.) gives money to people who upload torrents, as they barely make enough money to keep their servers running as it is. But thats just my 2 cents, other people may not agree with all of the points I made. Charwinger21 (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Notable

So... how is this a wiki-worthy article, yet things like YuGiOh The Abridged Series aren't allowed representation? not that I support YTAS's presence here, but this seems equally trivial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.57.210.101 (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking over the references, it seems to me the subject seems to pass the general notability guideline. Haakon (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the anon. This page seems particularly trivial, and I can't understand why it's still here. Were a vote held, I would vote to delete. However, I won't nominate the page myself. I'll leave that to someone else. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? Still, you're smart enough not to make a fool of yourself. Someone made its own guidelines to test the notability for computer underground related articles: User:R.123/CUNT. And it also passes the general notability guideline. As for anons concern: it's on imdb now and they only add titles that are notable enough, although this is just some fan parody. I think it could be an article worthy. But when I look at the wikia article, I'm getting doubts here. Then I found this and it's not that much better. Stuff like "Find out all this and MORE in this episode!" pops out. However, since the last AFD 3 years ago, it has some sources now. But that article itself still needs some work, while this is listed as a good article. I think it will be added eventually. --Ondertitel (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)