User talk:JeremyWJ

TPB Trial

You did a great job with the article. Floker (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but most of it I didn't actually do. I got the article rolling, that is about it. JeremyWJ (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the way things get done, isn't it. Floker (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Home Improvement

Actually, I sourced the Home Improvement edition of E! True Hollywood Story which aired December 18, 2005. In addition, I simply linked Hollywood Story to its Wiki page. Would that suffice, or do I need to link to online video footage from the Hollywood Story episode? I frequently see citations from books or TV episodes without links to the actual information as available online. And regardless of whether or not it will suffice, the Home Improvement article definitely should have the information I included regarding the show's end and ideas for a ninth season. Cale (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You must source where you actually got the information from. Saying it came from E! is not enough. You can't reference another wikipedia article either as that violates WP:RS. I agree this is valuable information you added (if true). If you can actually source it, a direct link to the video would suffice, that would be great. It would probably be better though if you could find a site that has an article about it. If this is true, I'm betting one exists. JeremyWJ (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

TPB

Just wondering if you have any affiliation with the TPB. 86.43.178.17 (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No. However I do support them very strongly. JeremyWJ (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Me too... sort of. They probably should have removed the autopsy torrent. 86.43.178.17 (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sick, yes. But I stand behind them on that decision. The only torrents that ever should be removed are fake ones and child pornography. Beyond that you can't start drawling lines in different places or you destroy what TPB stands for. You may wonder why I'd say draw the line at child pornography then. My stance on that (outside of it being extremely wrong) is that just accessing it could get your users (from anywhere in the world) in serious trouble and land them in jail because its illegal everywhere basically. So that line must be drawn to protect the users. Keep in mind that sharing copyrighted data is not actually illegal in most of the world. Its a civil offense, not criminal like child pornography. Although the MPAA and others may claim its stealing, that is not the case. If it was, people would be locked up for it. JeremyWJ (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. Big greedy corporations get away with overcharging on their products everyday. I wouldn't lose any sleep over them making a big fuss over it. I hope TPB takes down the cp torrents though, that stuff is simply evil. 86.46.219.9 (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

ITN for The Pirate Bay trial

On 17 April, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article The Pirate Bay trial, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You Seem to Be The One To Ask This...

How are those who downloaded torrents going to be affected? I've used TPB before, and I was wondering if this makes all of us who do, legally vulnerable. 86.46.200.106 (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay verdict does not affect in anyway the site itself or the users of the site. You are no more or less "vulnerable" to getting caught than you were before. Keep in mind that you have a better chance of dropping dead ... now.. then ever getting sued or anything for filesharing. JeremyWJ (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)