Wikipedia

Talk:ShareReactor

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

No mention of Gowenna's death? --- Master of Files was not the major releaser, at that time or at all, Maxaiqa released more than anyone, and many others released more than Master of Files. Master of Files moderated the forum. Simon Moon looked after administration of the site.

Master of Files' administration rights over the mainpage were equal to that of all other "releasers".

The outcome

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This isn't particularly clear on the outcome. Was SimonMoon ever charged with anything and if so was he found guilty? If yes, then what was his sentence? If not, did he try to take a case against the government? Also, some mention needs to be made of the donation controversy (where there was widespread speculation he skipped with the donation money) even if it turned out to be untrue... Nil Einne 00:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Looks like not much came after it since the Site is back, and by the Looks of it with its former Crew.

Someone with more details should mention the "Gowenna" hoax.

-it's already been written about and reverted many times, since there's no proof. The only person who really knows is SimonMoon.

- anything to do with SR and SimonMoon is, and has always been, shrouded in mystery. There's no proof that "Gowenna" died, or that she even existed, yet it could have happened. She was allegedly Canadian, and so is SM's current wife. Coincidence? Perhaps, but again, no proof of anything. Did he take donation and Lik-Sang/Google advertisement money? Maybe, maybe not. Nobody ever saw a bank statement. Fact is he got busted, but how exactly, no-one knows, he never got convicted. A lot of mystery, and a lot of arguments because of that. MoF and some others left because trust was broken, and the same apparently happened when the site reopened. Fact is, nobody but Christian Riesen (I can use his real name, since he never hid it himself) knows what really went down with that site. And since he has never shown proof to positively deny all the allegations, this little internet saga will probably always remain a mystery. If you ask me though, i think Gowenna was an alias of SimonMoon, I think he made more money from the site than he claims, and I think he may have taken some of the donation money. I don't think SimonMoon is a bad person though, he's just very bad at clearing things up, part of his character I guess. Still, he should not be allowed to edit this page at will, since he's clearly not a neutral point of view.

Most of those edits you undid were not done by him. He wouldn't add a bunch of stuff to this article because he'd rather it didn't exist at all. The only thing he's tried to do is keep out the worst speculation and advertising by other sites in the links section. The investigation is still on-going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.98.192 (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

All the edits i undid were done by him, since i merely put back the article as it was before his last major edit, compare the 2 versions and you'll see. He reworded and altered paragraphs, that's not just removing spam. If he wasn't such an international man of mystery, this article could be written properly, instead of having all those "maybes". Besides, whether he likes it or not, this is an internet encyclopedia, so the world's biggest ever edonkey website should be mentioned on it. 62.58.241.225

WrittenExpert is not SimonMoon, although most of the edits by that person are correct. You undid all of that person's edits. SimonMoon mainly edited by deletion. I don't know what maybe's you're talking about. The article will never be written properly because the only people who know the truth are not "neutral" and not interested in adding information to the article. MOST of the speculation is wrong, but people are more interested in that than the truth. Virtually no one will defend SimonMoon and if he didn't edit the article it would be full of speculation and rumour. Just look at the history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.99.206 (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would like to confirm that I am not "WrittenExpert" and found those edits very good, as they were only making the article better not worse in any form or way. Next all I was doing was removing blatant lies and speculations that have no citations or links. The idea of this page is as far as I am concerned to display facts, not fiction. Also this is a page about something I was involved in, not about me personally. Since there is nobody who can give more details than me, this is the most "NPOV" you are going to get on this. And if it was up to me alone, this page would not exist in the first place. --Simon Moon 16:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's up again

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

ShareReactor has been up again for at least half a year now. Someone should update the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.232.8.18 (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC).Reply

-it's not "up," nor has it been up for that long. The current page is nothing but a holding page with very old data. It's not being updated and it's not functional. The article is up to date, unless you want to say there's a non-functional image of an old version of it online..

Main reactors are warming up, seems a bit Swedish to me really.--99.135.108.48 (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can someone update this article. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by H 119a (talk • contribs) 17:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is it up?

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Seemingly it's a TPB mirror, screenshot and link --201.231.3.83 (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on ShareReactor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on ShareReactor. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 00:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ShareReactor. 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) 19:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ShareReactor&oldid=1170300133"