Talk:Ikonboard

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ikonboard article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

no consensus, 10 January 2017, see discussion.
keep, 31 January 2010 (UTC), see discussion.

Ikonboard.com

Ikonboard link doesn't seem to work.

---

Link is working for me right now. (Pgengler 23:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)) --- Site has gone back down again, and the staff have no idea when it might come back online. 83.104.107.17 14:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

The site is down again and has been for about a week. Anyone needing support is best trying...

...I've no idea when the site will be back online. Brollachan 08:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And soon after I post that the site returns, oh well the links should be handy for all anyway. Brollachan 14:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Once again the site is back down and has been for some days now. It looks like other sites hosted via Level6Sudios (resellers account?) are also down though the main site is running. Does this mean ikonboard is now dead? Brollachan 07:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The future

I have added reference to the future of ikonboard back in the article as I feel it's a very important subject due to the very unclear future ikonboard has.

Ikonboards future is looking great so far

Keeping it encyclopedic

I've gone through and rewritten a couple of sections to make them more encyclopedic-sounding, and removed some pretty obvious POV. When making future edits, please try to remember that this is an encyclopedia entry, not "Ikonboard rah-rah." Pgengler 15:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert War

I hate to bring this up, but a reversion war seems to be in the making. In particular, a link to an interview is being removed and readded. Given my closeness to the iB project, I will not comment on who is doing each side, but I would like to see this stop. If it continues, the users invovled may be in risk of breaking the 3RR. Also, if this continues, I may seek out an administrator to help take action against this. --^demon 13:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who's been removing it but I've readded it. Being part of the iB team I feel this article is important to all as well as being a useful piece of reference. Brollachan 18:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure anyone who knows much about the iB project can assume who's doing it, but I'm not going to wage personal attacks on WP. I just warn you to be careful with the 3RR. --^demon 18:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear the revert war is happenning again... "Under current ownership the site has suffered numerous problems ranging from problems with the server to the domain being suspended." ...has been removed and reappeared a couple of times now. In my opinion until we see a couple of months of server stability this statement should remain as it is true. Whilst it has been more stable recently it is too soon to remove it I think.

Also the link fo 'Level6 studios' reappearing despite removals. Whilst it is the site run by one of the admin staff and the person has connections to John Jarvis there it is not directly connected. Prior to iB3.1.3's release when the person behind Level6studio asked for the copyright to be altered to read "Copyright Pitboss Entertainment and Level6Studios" he was told that if he wanted the copyright to be altered he had to show sufficient proof of joint ownership of Ikonboard. As the forthcoming release still reads "Copyright Pitboss Entertainment" I can only assume sufficent proof has not been shown, and therefore Level6Studios is not directly connected to Ikonboard. 82.15.143.247 07:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And once again someone keeps trying to remove the following... "Under current ownership the site initally suffered numerous problems ranging from problems with the server to the domain being suspended. However things have become more stable, with new releases of iB being made." ...I'm posting it here so all can see. The above text states that it INITALLY SUFFERED which fact, and it goes on to say that it has BECOME MORE STABLE. The wording is true and fair as it also makes clear that it is more stable. This article has been reverted quite a few times now and must be close to breaking the "3RR". Brollachan 15:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC) A further note to say that I know (and have proof) as to precisely who has been removing the text, based on the IP address of the person removing matching elsewhere. Brollachan 19:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latest reverting

Quick request, can those editing please keep personal grudges against Ikonboard out of this entry. It is becoming clear that on IP based Wiki user has been banned from iB for being seen to "deframing" on the iB community forums, whilst another IP based Wiki user happens to be a member of staff.

This is mainly in regards to: "Additionally, advertisements continue to appear on various pages of the Ikonboard website, despite claims being made that Ikonboard would not accept any money.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} The advertisements have been removed and re-added several times."

@209.150.223.87: "(Revert - I can't find the post (my IP address has apparently been banned from iB), but I did see a post made by Spectre saying so. I will gladly find it once my access is restored (if post not delete)" As you may or maynot be aware Spectre stepped down from iB admin, though the situation is still the same as such. Ikonboard doesn't accept money in so much that the software is free to use, advertisements appear only on the site to help towards the running costs of hosting. In regards to you being banned from iB / posts removed, the posts were not removed by 'Countryboy' (as you suspected) but by a number of other staff who are fed up of iB being undermined, myself included. Brollachan 08:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pot is calling the kettle black... And remember, just because you may have authority over Ikonboard does not mean you have authority over this article. This is not, as another poster here put it, a place for "Ikonboard rah-rah." Ikonboard has a history of ups and downs, and the future for Ikonboard certainly isn't bright as people prefer PHP solutions, or communities with a more professional leadership and appearance. It's sad how everything has degenerated, and how a clown has ended up running the entire show. 209.150.223.87 09:44, 9 March 2006

More reverting

I've reinstated the line...

 | developer = 'The Ikonboard Team'

...as Ikonboard is developed by 'The Ikonboard Team'. Prehaps the template is slightly odd by changing the word "developer" to "Maintainer". If this line is to be removed can the person removing it please provide a reason below, as to my knowledge the information is accurate and should not be removed. Brollachan 19:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of the reversions

I am pretty sure who has been insisting on making reversions which tend to remove negative references to Pitboss and Level 6. Unless these statements are false, or belong elsewhere in the article, do not delete them. This is not an Ikonboard and Josh Johnson "rah rah" article. This is an encyclopedia. 67.190.204.178 02:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also bored of the constant reversions by a certain IP, whom I know to be someone (though I shan't publically name yet) within the Ikonboard ownership. The culprit is someone who in my opinion has a general habbit of deleting as well as blatant lieing. I did apply for this article to recieve 'semi-protection' though the request was rejected. When updating the article in the past couple of days I've tried to be un-biased and stick to facts, using references where possible. It would be nice if the reverter would make use of these talk pages if they had issue with parts of the wikipedia entry for Ikonboard. Brollachan 09:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domain ownership reversion

As I've got a feeling the article may get reverted again I've posted the current info below, as well as the existing reference provided in the article...

Registrant:
Jarvis Inc.

[SNIP]
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: IKONBOARD.COM
Created on: 26-Oct-00
Expires on: 26-Oct-07
Last Updated on: 12-Feb-06

Administrative Contact:
Jarvis, John D. john@pitbossent.com
Jarvis Inc.
[SNIP]
United States
[SNIP]

Technical Contact:
Jarvis, John D. john@pitbossent.com
Jarvis Inc.
[SNIP]
United States
[SNIP]

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.LEVEL6STUDIOS.COM
NS2.LEVEL6STUDIOS.COM

Registry Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Registry Status: clientRenewProhibited
Registry Status: clientTransferProhibited
Registry Status: clientUpdateProhibited

...this as far as I'm concerned backs up the alterations recently made, as whilst it had been showing 'Joshua Johnson' last year it has since changed. Thus suggests the ownership of the domain may have been John Jarvis all the time, though he may be letting Level 6 Studios run Ikonboard. Personally I had heard this from a former admin many months ago but hadn't been able to see physical evidence until now. Brollachan 08:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owner tag

 | author = Jarvis Inc.

I've noticed that after adding the 'author' (owner) tag to the template it's been edited to 'Level 6 Studios' and removed a few times mainly by 207.191.103.46 and 74.245.97.222. I shan't reinstate immediately as I think it may be best to allow for some debate, and also as I suspect one of the IPs will attempt to remove it instantly. The reason it was added was in light of the changes to the domain record which as of present list 'Jarvis Inc.' as the domain owner as well as general domain contact. Therefore it is fairly safe (in my view) to assume he owns Ikonboard, hence should be listed as the Owner. The developer however is still 'Level 6 Studios', and as far as I can tell they maintain/run Ikonboard on behalf of Jarvis. I feel that this tag should be present in the article as to my knowledge this is the case, backed up / referenced via the domain record. It would be nice if the 'IP' users (whom I'm fairly certain as to 'their' identity) could contribute to this debate/discussion instead of simply removing without stating a reason. Brollachan 12:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ikonboard was transfered to pitboss entertainment from Westlin. Usentergy holdings bought pitboss entertainment and ikonboard and the other sites were transfered to that and USEH did a press release that they transfered ikonboard to level 6 studios. why jarvis inc. is on the domain records might means he stole the login information from USEH and changed the records up. (Posted by 75.110.231.123)

Do you have a link to the press release to verify this. As far as I can see the Pitboss Entertainment site also contains 'Jarvis Inc.' as the owner, and isn't hosted on the Level 6 Studios server. http://who.godaddy.com/WhoIs.aspx?domain=pitbossent.com&prog_id=godaddy. A similar thing occurs with TopSiteLits.com, though this one is hosted on the jarvisgroup.net dns server.

If Ikonboard was transferred to Level 6 Studios then how would he have got the login, as surely when Level 6 Studios became the new owner they would have changed the password and/or transferred the domain onto their own account. I find it hard to believe this is the case and accusing someone of stealing a login is a fairly serious thing. The login after the 'transfer' did initially change to that of Level 6 Studios, however has reverted to Jarvis Inc. and has been like this for quite a while now. Based on the posting style I'm making the assumption that this was posted by the current developer of Ikonboard. Brollachan 22:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through copies of posts I've kept in the past I've found this by the owner of Level 6 Studios...

 hey yall the copy right needs to be fixed from US Entergy Holdings to MN1.com and Jarivs group and Level 6 studios.
 
 sorry guys claude transfered it back to john i'm so pissed its unreal and john sold part of it to MN1. just update the ib site and i'll be doing a big talk with Claude.
 
 Front page needs to say © 2006 MN1 & Jarvis Inc.
 
 The Contact Page will need to remove the USEH and add
 
 Jarvis Inc.
 [Address snipped]
 Phone : [snip]
 Email :
 
 MN1 News
 www.MN1.com
 
 Managed and Hosted By
 Level 6 Studios Inc.
 [Address snipped]
 hosting@level6studios.com
 
 its a 3 part owner ship were i still own the software and content and john owns the name and domain with MN1.
 this is kinda num but hey f** it.

I should point out that this was posted in a staff section of the board and that a week or so later the visible details on the site reverted back to Level 6 Studios. This does however seem to prove that after Ikonboard was allegedly transferred to Level 6 Studios the site came visibly under Jarvis Inc's ownership again. Brollachan 08:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no further response for nearly 24hrs I'm reinstating the tag. Please post below if there are any objections or viewable sources which imply otherwise in regards to ownership. Brollachan 07:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite this talk section being present it seems the removal has been continuing. Interestingly the latest wasn't a removal but mentioned "US Entergy". From my recollection Pitboss I'm led to believe became "US Energy" but since then has changed its company name to 'Lonestar Group Holdings Company'. However regardless of this the domain records still states 'Jarvis Inc.'. Brollachan 21:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Ikonboard Site Design' reverting/removals

It would seem that someone (and I suspect I know who) is intent on removing this section. Unless someone can either provide a reason in the 'edit summary' or below this comment I think the section should remain in some form. Brollachan (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments written on article page

This is mainly a request to the IP user who's been leaving comments in the article. Please use this talk page to leave comments or alternatively add information minus the content and include references. The history parts in the article are based on information found mainly via the web archive which could be referenced. If the content isn't referenced then it's more likely to get removed/reverted. Brollachan (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

iB3.1.3

Just to say I am making updates of Wiki in preparation for iB3.1.3's release which is due on Wednesday 25th (today). This is the date given by the developer who has been finalising the release, and it was given to the iB staff. Brollachan 16:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note to say that a 3.1.4 release is likely to be made in the next couple of weeks, to fix a quote bug that's been about since atleast 3.1.1. Brollachan 08:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

3.1.3 most stable board, isn't a fact.

I reworded it to remove that statement, as well as document the current minor bugs being fixed. Also, I thought I would mention (after a quick check of your contribs), that rather than just bringing up the POV statements, be bold and edit them yourselves. --^demon 05:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep that in mind next time. I was eventually going to, but I was busy at the time, I plan to add a substantial amount of information on the history of ikonboard, as I have somewhat of an extensive background in it. sganjam 11:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

myIkonboard

I saw that Brollachan removed the section on myIB. While it is a seperate product, I don't believe it's notable to warrent it's own article (god knows it would never survive an AfD). I think that (for the time being, until/unless it becomes notable) it should be kept within the article, as it is based on the original Ikonboard software --^demon 15:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'll be adding stuff about myib on the ikonboard.com countryboy03

I've taken out the stuff about the myIB comeback again, not because I don't think it [myIB] belongs here, but because it lacks context and makes unsubstantiated claims ("riddled with bugs", for one) that also seem to violate WP:NPOV. I'll work on something to put in there (in a couple of days, perhaps), but if anyone wants to go ahead and add something that explains what myIkonboard is, what happened to its initial inception, and sourced statements about the possibility of it coming back, feel free. —LrdChaos 17:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following above comments I've rewritten the article for myIkonboard, and hopefully clarified the status of the product. Additionally I've added a bit about Ikonboard PHP. Both have relvent subheadings under a header of 'Related products', as this is what they are. Brollachan 07:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that has been stated by former administrators of Ikonboard (spectre and method) was that they wouldn't support myIkonboard because it was an extremely buggy piece of software and because it was a separate product. Nowhere has it been stated that the reason was because it was a "commercial" product. MyIkonboard under Westlin was about as commercial as the regular version of Ikonboard, and it still appears that way in that you can pay for special services. 209.150.223.87 22:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added to the myIkonboard section that it is down. I couldn't find much information on it, but the myIkonboard site is gone and the Geek Layer domain is for sale. I could not find a way to cite it. If anyone could find a way to cite it, that would certainly improve this article.CheatLemur (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ikonforum?

Josh claims that the Ikonboard support site was hacked by former admins and created something called Ikonforum. Is this true? 67.190.204.178 03:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IkonForums is an independant project by the former Ikonboard team. For many months the developers have been knowingly working on IkonForums which they named iB 3.2 until they were ready to go live. IkonForums' main website is http://www.ikonforums.com and it's German counterparts website is http://www.ikonforums.de. I personally had no involvement in the mess the forums were left in, and though I'm aware of what happenned I do not believe the site was 'hacked'. Brollachan 15:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added note: Please don't try editing my above reply, I'm fairly certain I know who tried. This is a talk page not a wiki entry. Brollachan 07:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twice now I have removed an external link to the Ikonforums website (as the top link); it was restored after the first removal with an edit summary including "Ikonforums is Ikonboard". From all indications (and please correct me if I'm wrong), Ikonforums is being made by former iB developers (don't we all seem to go on to work on our own forum software?) but it is not an offical Ikonboard project. Because of that, a link to Ikonforums has no place here, especially at the top of the list. If someone creates a new page for Ikonforums, we can link to that in the "See also" section. —LrdChaos (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may need a wiki mediator (or similar) in as this situation of link being added followed by removal followed by reinstating (etc) is getting silly. Brollachan 08:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar note I've reinstated the 'related info' regarding the Ikonboard Team. Since 3.1.3 to 3.1.5 the headers of files within releases has been "Ikonboard 3.1.x by the Ikonboard Team", thus I think proving the existance of the group. The article was also recently updated to explain that the 'Ikonboard team' had departed to work on IkonForums, which is relevant as it explains the departure of many staff and why development was halted. Whilst I'm sure Ikonboards' owners would quite like to remove all traces of them and their new project (which I suspect they've already tried doing) they played a significant part in Ikonboards' progress. Brollachan 08:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In some detail, here are my thoughts on what should and shouldn't be included here. First, I don't think it's necessary or wise to include a link to Ikonforums in the "External links" section, especially in the top spot, as I stated above, for several reasons. First and foremost is that Ikonforums is not Ikonboard. The "External links" section doesn't include links to Matt's successor project (Invision) nor to Camil, et al's project (Infinite Core). Each of these is a similar project undertaken by former Ikonboard developers, they aren't Ikonboard; the same is true for Ikonforums, which took a similar (but still different) name and whose connection to Ikonboard is only that it's being developed by former iB developers. As with Invision and Infinite Core, it's something that should be linked to in the "See also" section (but not as an external link).

For similar reasons, I don't think it's necessary to include too much mention of the departure of the development team. When I removed the "Related info" section, there were two reason for the two parts: first, since the "development team" has parted ways with Ikonboard, it's no longer relevant to Ikonboard. Perhaps the fact that development and support were initially picked up by "The Ikonboard Team" should be mentioned in the "Ikonboard 3.1" section. As far as the information about the team leaving, it was (and is) already mentioned under the "Ikonboard 3.2" section, and doesn't need to be mentioned twice.

On an unrelated note, things really seem to have fallen apart a iB since the great schism (when Matt left), and have gotten a lot worse since I left. Such is the way of things, I suppose. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, whilst Ikonboard and IkonForums share a lot in common they are strictly speaking two seperate products. Therefore should not be listed in the external links (based on other links in this section), or atleast not top of the list. If/when a seperate article for IkonForums is created then an internal wiki link would be justified in the see also section.

Fair point. I'm in the process of rewriting the '3.1' section which is in need of updating as I've noticed, so will work much of it into this section and the '3.2'.

Ikonboards' problem/downfall has been mis-management from above, which was the ikonboard team got fed up and moved things to a management free location. Brollachan 17:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{unreferenced}} template

I've added {{unreferenced}} to this article because a number of things it presents don't have any source to back them up. Most obviously is all of the text regarding various departures of developers and support staff along the way; I think that Mecham's departure is covered by one of the interviews, but everything past that is unsourced. There's a large portion of it that I know to be true, and more that I have no reason to doubt, but it all still needs sources nonetheless. —LrdChaos (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately a lot of the references were on the old forums which as such were lost over a year ago with the ownership change, many references on the current forums were recently deleted by the boards' owner. Swarf.net is probably a good place to look for references as I think that's been about since a while after Matt departed. I'll find a reference regarding the Ikonboard teams' departure, that shouldn't be as hard to find. Brollachan 19:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that in the reference section:

*Ikonboard team departure (September 2006)

...has been removed a couple of times by 74.234.87.7 (whom I suspect is Ikonboards' owner). Anyway as far as I'm aware this link is of relevance as a reference, as it provides reference to the Ikonboard teams' departure from Ikonboard. As one of the requests was regarding "various departures" I think this needs to stay. Brollachan 11:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the text contained within "3.2" remains that indicates that most of the team left to start IkonForums, then the link to the "Ikonforums team departure" needs to remain as a source. I don't think this information needs to be present in the "3.2" heading, though. I'm tempted to believe an "Ikonboard History" heading needs to be created to address major events in its history, which would include all three major team splits, etc. This can safely be included due to the information about Invision (and information pertaining to the Jarvis/Mecham divide) previously existing in the entry. --Zaerym 17:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've written up a history section with references where possible. The version history needs to be rewritten/shortenned as a result. Brollachan 21:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging history and ownership

I think the ownership section of the article could be merged into the history heading. Parts of the ownership include items mentioned in the history, and in order to expand the ownership section it would most likely mean repeating some of the history. Therefore I think the sections are best merged, and I'll probably merge them in the near future. Brollachan 19:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have since merged sections. Brollachan 20:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Site/project defunct or not?

Since about the start of the week Ikonboard's main website (ikonboard.com) appears to have ceased working, with the domain pointing to holding page (or variation of this). Whilst it was assumed to be defunct by another editor I noticed a link to ikonboard.net has appeared which redirects to http://74.50.95.129/. Glancing at the major change to the domain record (via WHOIS search) it's possible that the domain name may have been sold by it's owner (John Jarvis), with the DNS servers being changed by the new owners. At present nothing official has been announced via the linked .net website. Brollachan (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ikonboard.com is being updated to the new DNS infortmation it will be back up soon you can use ikonboard.net to get tech support until we can get ikonboard.com responding right on our end. we have been updating information on our end. thanks Jrock

Recent revisions

I've reverted recent alterations to the article, which are rather suspect at best. The infobox appears to keep getting altered to remove the 'Original author'/author field with an 'Owner' field which does not work with this particular template. Also I noticed there have been attempts to alter a couple references to replace the archive.org URLs with their original URLs. The reason the references were altered to the archive.org version due to the forums on ikonboard.com no longer being online. Brollachan (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have temporarily semi-protected the page. Any changes made should be discussed, especially when they are being made without clear sourcing. Any IP editor that needs a change to be made can leave me a message and I will look over it. Trusilver 23:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per a suggestion made whilst the article is/was nominated for deletion I've revised the history section. The change is currently just to the final section as it seemed the most in need of a clean up. Hopefully the changes make the section focus more on Ikonboard. I've also amended the section title as the parent company has changed a few times. I would add to history to cover the change of domains, however ikonboard.net is currently unavailable at this precise moment. Brollachan (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ikonboard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]