Talk:Operation D-Elite

Need information

What were they charged with? What was the evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edibobb (talk • contribs) 16:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that in the U.S., you don't go to prison for 5 months. Prison sentences have to be over a year, otherwise you go to jail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.45.172 (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

POV and unencyclopedic tone

I believe this article casts a shadow in favor of the raided groups and individuals and further is written an unfittingly informal tone. 06:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some of this has been written in an informal tone. I may clean it up. Bleu`dove 05:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Technical question

"Like previous actions against BitTorrent sites such as LokiTorrent, the authorities obtained server logs of people who had been downloading and uploading through the site's BitTorrent tracker. As of July 12, 2005, there has been no action taken against the vast majority of normal members on LokiTorrent or EliteTorrents"
I think this statement is misleading because it implies that the regular users of BitTorrent can be tracked using the server logs. Can somebody confirm or deny this? I've never used BitTorrent, but from what I read about it I assumed that it gives a good deal of anonymity to users. --144.160.98.31 13:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. If they wanted to know about an average-joe user downloading or uploading material on the website, it wouldn't be difficult to figure it out. What everyone on the website downloads gets put onto the server, because it's displayed on the website for each individual to see.

but how if I get the BitTorrent site from another site?

No Confirmation on this Story/Article Yet

Where are the sources? I don't beleive this. Miserlou 03:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What don't you believe? There is a reference about his sentence. Bleu`dove 05:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I put that in. Belief changed.Miserlou 05:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Takedown

Takedown? Is this the correct word? Sounds very slang-y to me..

There are a number of closely-related definitions of "takedown" which are close to the described usage: a wrestling/martial arts move that accomplishes forcing one's opponent to the floor; something that can be taken down; a mechanism within that something that can be taken down. The correct term is actually "take down," a discrepancy that is completely worthwhile and basis for a lawsuit against Wikipedia. :P Λι ^t_c Θlοг-Шιlε 00:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Basis for a lawsuit? How? Why in the world would somebody sue wikipedia over a word that may be missing a space? Do you actually think a judge will go foward with this? Are you a lawyer? Lets not unneccessarily throw the word "lawsuit" around. It scares people. In any case, [American Heritage http://www.bartleby.com/61/9/T0020900.html] says that a takedown is "The mechanism that allows an article or apparatus to be easily taken down". I think that applies here, but if you feel strongly about it, go ahead and change it. Copysan 09:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Operation D-Elite. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061220075222/http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/vaw/press_releases/stanley_17oct2006.html to http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/vaw/press_releases/stanley_17oct2006.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103074338/http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/mcCauslandSent.htm to http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/mcCauslandSent.htm

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) 00:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)