Talk:WinMX

The WinMX Community still thrives?

I was a WinMX user for some ten years, and I met many good friends during that time. Any other wikipedians have similar experiences? --Zhane Masaki (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Citation Removed

I have removed the citation point for the winmxphoenix entry as the citation point linked to an existing citation that had nothing to do with the winmxphoenix website and I believe was placed there in error, the citation linked to is number 4 and is currently correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.219.23 (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The b0nolis Code

This section has by far reached an edit war and the three-revert rule. The issue needs to be discussed before more waring occurs. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 01:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have several issues with the section:

1. Performing an all-language Google search, not including other sites that mirror Wikipedia's content or are themselves wikis, I cannot find any valid sources for this data.
2. The only source that has been provided leads to a forum in Italian. Scanning the four topics in this section, none make any mention of "b0nolis Code" which makes the source invalid.
3. Even if valid sources are provided, the section is unclear to me in general.
4. What I believe is being described is something that is not a third-party program that aids WinMX, but something mostly unrelated similar to if LimeWire was added as a third-party program for WinMX, which it should not be.

In my opinion, there is no validity at all in this section's inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 07:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it again. It's not in any way related to WinMX. 81.71.53.254 (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Replacement Client Notifications

I notice an edit has been made with a sarcastic commentary to an update I made concerning news of the new client, as I myself am working on the new client I of course feel an authority enough to make clear any changes in the projects status, the project was shown publicly here

http://forum.winmxworld.com/index.php/topic,11644.0.html

Although its not at release status so there are no public downloads to be obtained yet the project is ongoing and fully alive with a src forge page here for the actual release

http://sourceforge.net/projects/mxcoders/

Please leave my informational edits alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.18.234 (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

And why not make correct citations for the statements in the article? Because as is it sounds like: "oooh, some big site says wishiwashi and while all other client projects died away, this one continues the struggle". Just like: *rooooar*. So why only link it here, in the talk-section? --Schattenspieler (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems inherently pointless to keep information with no valid citations about a client that failed to meet its 'beta' release date of almost 11 months ago. The sourceforge page provided in this talk does not even seem to relate to this so called replacement client as the project date on sourceforge is from 2008.WinMXExpert (talk) 12:19, 17 December

I dont agree, the information cited relates to a valid current project and there are now multiple possible links to confirm as such if you had taken the time to follow the link posted. The src forge location will be the primary location for the src code once the client has been released in a safe and stable modified form. Releasing an incompleted client that contains enough code to allow for the construction of potentially malicious tools assists no-one. Important changes are required to the core network protocols to prevent the current method of malicious network attack and thus for this reason there are no half-way builds as those could be misused in the mean time to further attack the current networks userbase. I find it rather concerning that both of the wiki members posting above me are rude and making irrelevant points instead of at least asking for clarification of any potentially omitted or unreferenced sources. Can we keep it relevant and and on topic please gentlemen. 2012 (UTC)

All source links given thus far have referred to forum posts that according to staff associated with the given website have admitted they never created in the first place. When an actual properly published article or relevant news post on a public facing website giving evidence that such a client is still under production, we will re-evaluate the claims. I would also hope such a client would not be released on such a dated open source sharing system such as source forge. Github has far outdone sourceforge in terms of usability and community collaboration ability but as those still even putting effort into this client, they still show they are stuck in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.234.145.153 (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The above post proves once again that there is a malicious effort being aimed at this page with nothing of substance put forward aside from some ones personal and plainly wrong opinion, removing factual and relevant information out of spite simply means I will ask the wiki foundation to look into adding this topic to their watch list to prevent such vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.148.227 (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yet again, there has been no concrete evidence of a public blog, news post, etc from the proper authorities relating to this replacement client that so far has missed every single suggested release date given on this wiki. Please refrain from adding irrelevant information that is lacking citations and evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.234.145.153 (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

A web page on the largest WPN community site referencing the client and its progress as well as other issues faced by the WPN network is a valid source of information, please stop vandalising this article. As one of the developers I state again the project will be released when it is ready and completed, your malicious edits have no counter to this self evident fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.148.227 (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The given citations do not detail anything about a so called replacement client. They simply detail the attacks currently that are occuring. Please refrain from adding invalid claims that have no factual backing in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.16.37.212 (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

As your removing the content maliciously I see no further point in humouring you, the link gives an update on the current situation as regards the network and the client at the base of the referenced page, third warning to stop vandalising this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.148.227 (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

And yet again you fail to provide sources that give the current status of the replacement client and only provide information about attacks that are already detailed on this article. Please stop making uncited claims without proof to back them up. Perhaps if a github or another modern project source code page was made for the project and had status updates, this information would be acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.16.37.212 (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I reject your vandalism of this article and attempts to set conditions for a cessation of your vandalism Yet again you have made plainly false claims, the cited src is clear and you have edited the article to hide the information cited - You are a malicious censor of relevant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.38.250 (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Your attempts to provoke false information upon the community is sheer lunacy. Simply because your once active WinMX related website has faltered to nothing but a tumbleweed in a desert does not give you the right to force unverified information on all of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.16.37.212 (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)