![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
ImageShack article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
From VfD:
Description of a web service less than a year old. Notable? -- Ianb 01:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
"It's a free image hosting service."
How is this service financed?
Nobody can host anything for "free" for a longer period of time! If you click on the link "ImageShack Corporation" you don't find _any_ information about this company!
And now it's even 'advertised' in the Wikipedia?
I think 2.5 years of service, as well as increasing popularity amd use warrants the recreation of this article. As you can see, http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?w=379&h=216&r=6m&u=photobucket.com/&u=imageshack.us almost identical traffic to Photobucket, and if you google "imageshack" result 12 I believe it is, is a link to the old article that used to reside here. The recreation is based mainly on that. I added a bit at the end. I'll see about expanding it the first chance I get. -- Crossmr 06:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Imageshack has stopping providing bandwidth to many sites that abuse their bandwidth, I don't see anything notable about the situation at something awful. -- Crossmr 00:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
As discussed in my recreation message: Website has been around 2 1/2 years, extremely prevalent in many places and has high traffic. I believe that qualifies as notable. This point was already raised, if you take issue with it, why not attempt to discuss instead of just pointlessly prodding things. This was previously deleted because at the time of creation the site was non-notable. There was nothing wrong with the content at the time. -- Crossmr 03:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Prods are are not pointless. Articles flagged with prod can be deleted without a full Articles for deletion debate after five days if no one objects to the proposal. If removed they can then go Afd.-- Dakota ~ 06:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I just changed "persons he gives" to "persons they give" as "he" was biased, it seems a very small edit to me, but is outside the definition of a minor edit. I also wonder if it's really necessary to have a link to "pornography" on this page? Zoltan Pandemonium 11:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess we can just leave it until someone actually cares. I know I don't. Zoltan Pandemonium 04:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
What's this "users may purchase bulk credits?" thing? Maybe this information is outdated? I've been using imageshack, and I can upload images in bulk and I've never needed to buy any kind of credits. Tejastheory 00:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
http://www.mashable.com/ is a blog that has a million subscribers, and is mostly written by one person; it is widely followed by the Venture Capital community as a source of information on emerging Web technologies. According to WP:RS, "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." The author Pete Cashmore is also a journalist for www.guardian.co.uk. - Peregrine Fisher 16:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I know it's sort of encyclopedic to include a screenshot of the main page of imageshack in the article, but there's a big ol' ad in it. Is that alright, or should someone change it somehow? 24.239.185.57 21:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
the file must be smaller than or equal to 1.5 megabytes
Are we talking about decimal or binary megabyte? Wouldn't it be better to express this value in bytes? -- J7n
I'm fairly sure this is binary bytes. Do we really need to get this technical though? Tejastheory 07:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC) ____ On an encyclopedia it's advisable to use Mib which is always in binary form and is the new standard to avoid that vagueness problem.-- Amcgt ( talk) 13:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
(This may be moved to a more appropriate location, as needed.) Does a means exist to state that imageshack.us is also a phishing host? As you may be familiar, SpamCop and abuse.net recommend reporting to abuse@[domain.ext], but I understand much of the volume of spam is with the complicity of some of the largest server hosts.
At random, I noticed that imageshack.us hosts phishing sites, such as these of about five (crude) spam mail messages, each with a different hidden URL:
Date: about 26-28 August '08
Subject: RE: X Official Update 2008!
which contain the hot link
Free Update Windows XP,Vista
with the following hidden, showing on-screen as the above link (note the small typo). Warning: exercise due caution.
http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/7959/57183018mc6.swf
http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/2189/41138736he1.swf
http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/8834/54772405mj2.swf
The body of the message is:
Free Update Windows XP,Vista
About this mailing:
You are receiving this e-mail because you subscribed to MSN Featured Offers. Microsoft respects your privacy. If you do not wish to receive this MSN Featured Offers e-mail, please click the "Unsubscribe" link below. This will not unsubscribe you from e-mail communications from third-party advertisers that may appear in MSN Feature Offers. This shall not constitute an offer by MSN. MSN shall not be responsible or liable for the advertisers' content nor any of the goods or service advertised. Prices and item availability subject to change without notice.
©2008 Microsoft | Unsubscribe | More Newsletters | Privacy
Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052
( The three links at the bottom are all [1] )
-- GoDot ( talk) 03:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
This used to be named "Imageshack BitTorrent Service", and it was uncited and had bad grammar. I've rewritten it and added a citation. :) atomicthumbs‽ ( talk) 17:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
notable enough to be put on the article? -- 201.230.11.195 ( talk) 02:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
we need some acceptable (reputable) sources for the attack in there. Janschejbal ( talk) 13:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
No one verifies that? I personally verified it. It is a "connection has been reseted by peer".
Indeed. I am also living in China and it is one of the many blocked websites. I guess that's OR though. Westknife ( talk) 09:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice to add something about the url "imageshack.us" that plays with Image Shack and Images Hack Us —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.50.242 ( talk) 23:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I removed the following from the article:
A forum isn't a RS. Open to having it readded if there are such who discussed the issue. L Faraone 23:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
This is false, it used to be blocked because some child pornography was posted there, but as for today (March 10, 2011) imageShack can be accessed in Colombia. Source: I live in Bogotá, Colombia, currently using ImageShack.
Why shouldn't imageshack.us be considered a form of spyware, at least in the sense of a tracking/virtual 3rd party cookie mechanism? I'm always suspicious whenever a web site tries to access 3rd party content. Bostoner ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC).
Wikipedia articles need to be up to date, and there is little point in describing the torrent service in detail and then pointing out that it no longer exists. It was never a key part of the site anyway.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The article is going to become very stale and out of date after 1 February 2014, to the point of needing a complete rewrite. On this date, ImageShack will start a move towards a subscription only model, and will no longer free uploads.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
When I am using Internet Explorer version 9 browser and I clicked on the user supplied image to the Imageshack site it complains that this browser is not supported by the said site. When I visited the same image to the site using the Mozilla Firefox browser, I was able to access to the site without any problem. When I visited the same image to the site with Internet Explorer 10 browser, i was able to access to the site without any problem as well. Can anyone verify this issue? Can this information be used for the article for the browser version information supported when anyone visit to the Imageshack site? Rjluna2 ( talk) 03:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm cleaning up some articles on Wikipedia and have come across a number which link to ImageShack. However instead of seeing the picture I get an advertising video. In the corner it says "ImageShack Re-Polished", then it says "Your video will start in X seconds" while it plays the first ad video. However, instead of ever showing the linked image, it just shows more ad videos. Am I doing something wrong? I've been deleting these links. If they require registration to see I'd probably still delete them, but I'm curious. Rezin ( talk) 23:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
ImageShack. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on ImageShack. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on ImageShack. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
ImageShack article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
From VfD:
Description of a web service less than a year old. Notable? -- Ianb 01:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
"It's a free image hosting service."
How is this service financed?
Nobody can host anything for "free" for a longer period of time! If you click on the link "ImageShack Corporation" you don't find _any_ information about this company!
And now it's even 'advertised' in the Wikipedia?
I think 2.5 years of service, as well as increasing popularity amd use warrants the recreation of this article. As you can see, http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?w=379&h=216&r=6m&u=photobucket.com/&u=imageshack.us almost identical traffic to Photobucket, and if you google "imageshack" result 12 I believe it is, is a link to the old article that used to reside here. The recreation is based mainly on that. I added a bit at the end. I'll see about expanding it the first chance I get. -- Crossmr 06:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Imageshack has stopping providing bandwidth to many sites that abuse their bandwidth, I don't see anything notable about the situation at something awful. -- Crossmr 00:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
As discussed in my recreation message: Website has been around 2 1/2 years, extremely prevalent in many places and has high traffic. I believe that qualifies as notable. This point was already raised, if you take issue with it, why not attempt to discuss instead of just pointlessly prodding things. This was previously deleted because at the time of creation the site was non-notable. There was nothing wrong with the content at the time. -- Crossmr 03:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Prods are are not pointless. Articles flagged with prod can be deleted without a full Articles for deletion debate after five days if no one objects to the proposal. If removed they can then go Afd.-- Dakota ~ 06:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I just changed "persons he gives" to "persons they give" as "he" was biased, it seems a very small edit to me, but is outside the definition of a minor edit. I also wonder if it's really necessary to have a link to "pornography" on this page? Zoltan Pandemonium 11:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess we can just leave it until someone actually cares. I know I don't. Zoltan Pandemonium 04:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
What's this "users may purchase bulk credits?" thing? Maybe this information is outdated? I've been using imageshack, and I can upload images in bulk and I've never needed to buy any kind of credits. Tejastheory 00:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
http://www.mashable.com/ is a blog that has a million subscribers, and is mostly written by one person; it is widely followed by the Venture Capital community as a source of information on emerging Web technologies. According to WP:RS, "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." The author Pete Cashmore is also a journalist for www.guardian.co.uk. - Peregrine Fisher 16:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I know it's sort of encyclopedic to include a screenshot of the main page of imageshack in the article, but there's a big ol' ad in it. Is that alright, or should someone change it somehow? 24.239.185.57 21:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
the file must be smaller than or equal to 1.5 megabytes
Are we talking about decimal or binary megabyte? Wouldn't it be better to express this value in bytes? -- J7n
I'm fairly sure this is binary bytes. Do we really need to get this technical though? Tejastheory 07:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC) ____ On an encyclopedia it's advisable to use Mib which is always in binary form and is the new standard to avoid that vagueness problem.-- Amcgt ( talk) 13:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
(This may be moved to a more appropriate location, as needed.) Does a means exist to state that imageshack.us is also a phishing host? As you may be familiar, SpamCop and abuse.net recommend reporting to abuse@[domain.ext], but I understand much of the volume of spam is with the complicity of some of the largest server hosts.
At random, I noticed that imageshack.us hosts phishing sites, such as these of about five (crude) spam mail messages, each with a different hidden URL:
Date: about 26-28 August '08
Subject: RE: X Official Update 2008!
which contain the hot link
Free Update Windows XP,Vista
with the following hidden, showing on-screen as the above link (note the small typo). Warning: exercise due caution.
http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/7959/57183018mc6.swf
http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/2189/41138736he1.swf
http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/8834/54772405mj2.swf
The body of the message is:
Free Update Windows XP,Vista
About this mailing:
You are receiving this e-mail because you subscribed to MSN Featured Offers. Microsoft respects your privacy. If you do not wish to receive this MSN Featured Offers e-mail, please click the "Unsubscribe" link below. This will not unsubscribe you from e-mail communications from third-party advertisers that may appear in MSN Feature Offers. This shall not constitute an offer by MSN. MSN shall not be responsible or liable for the advertisers' content nor any of the goods or service advertised. Prices and item availability subject to change without notice.
©2008 Microsoft | Unsubscribe | More Newsletters | Privacy
Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052
( The three links at the bottom are all [1] )
-- GoDot ( talk) 03:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
This used to be named "Imageshack BitTorrent Service", and it was uncited and had bad grammar. I've rewritten it and added a citation. :) atomicthumbs‽ ( talk) 17:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
notable enough to be put on the article? -- 201.230.11.195 ( talk) 02:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
we need some acceptable (reputable) sources for the attack in there. Janschejbal ( talk) 13:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
No one verifies that? I personally verified it. It is a "connection has been reseted by peer".
Indeed. I am also living in China and it is one of the many blocked websites. I guess that's OR though. Westknife ( talk) 09:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice to add something about the url "imageshack.us" that plays with Image Shack and Images Hack Us —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.50.242 ( talk) 23:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I removed the following from the article:
A forum isn't a RS. Open to having it readded if there are such who discussed the issue. L Faraone 23:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
This is false, it used to be blocked because some child pornography was posted there, but as for today (March 10, 2011) imageShack can be accessed in Colombia. Source: I live in Bogotá, Colombia, currently using ImageShack.
Why shouldn't imageshack.us be considered a form of spyware, at least in the sense of a tracking/virtual 3rd party cookie mechanism? I'm always suspicious whenever a web site tries to access 3rd party content. Bostoner ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC).
Wikipedia articles need to be up to date, and there is little point in describing the torrent service in detail and then pointing out that it no longer exists. It was never a key part of the site anyway.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The article is going to become very stale and out of date after 1 February 2014, to the point of needing a complete rewrite. On this date, ImageShack will start a move towards a subscription only model, and will no longer free uploads.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
When I am using Internet Explorer version 9 browser and I clicked on the user supplied image to the Imageshack site it complains that this browser is not supported by the said site. When I visited the same image to the site using the Mozilla Firefox browser, I was able to access to the site without any problem. When I visited the same image to the site with Internet Explorer 10 browser, i was able to access to the site without any problem as well. Can anyone verify this issue? Can this information be used for the article for the browser version information supported when anyone visit to the Imageshack site? Rjluna2 ( talk) 03:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm cleaning up some articles on Wikipedia and have come across a number which link to ImageShack. However instead of seeing the picture I get an advertising video. In the corner it says "ImageShack Re-Polished", then it says "Your video will start in X seconds" while it plays the first ad video. However, instead of ever showing the linked image, it just shows more ad videos. Am I doing something wrong? I've been deleting these links. If they require registration to see I'd probably still delete them, but I'm curious. Rezin ( talk) 23:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
ImageShack. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on ImageShack. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on ImageShack. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)