Talk:King Kong defence

Merge proposal and the prospect of deletion

Previous messages

{{{2}}}

Note: This article is now up for deletion. To express your opinion, please join the discussion here. Skomorokh 04:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for inline citations to Swedish and Norwegian sources

Can speakers of these languages identify which claims in our article the Swedish and Norwegian sources support, and add the sources after the claims using <ref>source goes here</ref> tags? Any help appreciated, Skomorokh 22:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I checked the metro source and the popularization section was a direct translation from the article. The article is copyrighted and it wasn't written as a quote. Thus, a copyvio. And to say that a subject has been popularized by already having a Wikipedia article, is like me writing an article about my socks, proclaiming the popularization of said socks because of the Wikipedia article. /Grillo (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, did you accidentally post this in the wrong section? This is a request for inline citations, not a discussion of popularization. If you are willing to help verify the content of the article using the available sources that would be very welcome. Regards, Skomorokh 22:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I checked the sources as you asked, and removed a section because it was a copyvio (that is, the text was supported by the source, but a direct translation). If you can't write a sentence about something related to the subject then enwp has gone further on the road to bureaucracy than I thought. No wonder why I stay away from this language project. /Grillo (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Merger.

Deleting this topic would be completely pointless in every imaginable way. This defense is/was being used in a current court case, and has already taken on a name. Lets at least give these guys a chance. If the Pirate Bay wins, then they have not broken any laws, therefore I would personally see this as a valid defense.

RatKnight (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is underway here, should you want your voice heard on this issue. Skomorokh 04:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

King Kong != Chewbacca

Drawing a parallel between King Kong and Chewbacca is inappropriate. The Chewbacca thing is about distraction; Samuelson's use of "King Kong", ostensibly a real user name, is however pure genius. The use of "King Kong" + "Kambodia" is simply a way of introducing a bit of low key comedy - a way of subtly claiming the charges brought by Roswall are patently ridiculous. This is almost impossible to translate - or for anyone outside the country or the culture to understand. Samuelson is very very good!

Circular references

As it is now, most references reference to this particular article, which, I don't think makes them valid sources; are there any sources, neither referencing to this article directly, nor reference to torrentfreak (which in it self references here). _→AzaToth 03:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There is an issue here, but it is best to leave 'em be for the time being so that editors weighing in at the AfD can judge them for themselves. Skomorokh 04:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)