Talk:Superior Art Creations

This article was nominated for deletion on July 28, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on May 08, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArtsWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsTemplate:WikiProject ArtsWikiProject Arts

Software: Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Removal of Underground Computer Group Category

I removed it since this group falls into the "Artscene group" group within the Underground Computer Group category, so it's redundant. And the underground computer group cat is more for 'types' of groups as opposed to specific groups themselves (did this make any sense? ;) ) --Sodium N4 10:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also removed artscene category as "Artscene groups" category is sufficient. --Sodium N4 23:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you are right and you are wrong. SAC was very unique when it was founded back in 1994. Europe did not have an "Underground Text Art Scene" like America with the ACiD and iCE as the leading groups. The Art Scene that existed was completely legit and was into PD Boards, Fido Net etc. , The Demoscene which was strong in Europe on the other hand (and weak in the US) had a few ties to the "Warez" Scene. The Demo Scene guys didn't care much for ANSI and ASCII Art. That was an "American thing". SAC was born out of the "Warez Scene". Every one of us (Except "Dream Design" who was active on the Amiga) was very active in the Warez Scene as Cracker, Warez Group Organizer, Sysop, Trader etc. It just happened to be the case that we had some "art skills" as well. The more we did art, the more did we wanted to connect with the art scene in Europe which never worked out. We had some loose contacts to American art groups. Due to those activities did we add the Tag Line "A SMALL BRIDGE BETWEEN WAREZ AND ART SCENE!" to our NFO file at one point. I guess you know the Scene(s) in the USA pretty well, but it was a different story in Germany and other parts of Europe. Have a look at my Group Affiliations at my homepage [1] and you will understand. I will add the "Underground Computer Group" Category again, that SAC shows up together with Groups like TRSI or Razor 1911 when you look at the Category. I hope this makes sense to you. I have to check regarding the "artscene category". Categories were picked because of relationship and connection to other articles at Wikipedia. SAC was "sitting between chairs" thus should be assigned to the relevant categories. Now I hope that I am making sense--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 04:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not reattached SAC to the categories "Underground computer groups" and "Artscene" , you are right. I added it to "Warez groups" though. SAC is also part of "Artscene group" and "Demo group" which fit, If you boil it down. We had hacker contacts (for BB frequencies and Calling Cards) , but were never part of that scene. You know, stuff like CCC etc. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 04:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization

As was mentioned above, this article has too many categories, much like Chemical Reaction (artscene group). You should never put an article in both a subcategory and its parent category - it should only go in the subcategory. Likewise, it's not recommended to put an article under two subcategories sharing the same parent category, unless the subject is equally noteworthy in each. --Vossanova ^o< 15:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Debate - WP:COI and WP:BIO Accuasations

The AfD debate finished when I made my comment, but I think that this information is important and should be known to other editors. Please note that WP:COI applies to me, because I am the Co-Founder of the group. The article existed in Wikipedia before I even knew about Wikipedia. I wrote last month a post on my personal blog where I made public how I started at Wikipedia [2]. I tried to look at it from 100 miles from above to analyze why I started and more importantly continued to contribute to Wikipedia in additional subjects where COI can't be applied. I also made clear on my userpage my relationship to the group and I even do it in my signature for everybody to see. I will not comment on the notability of the group. Other editors already did that. I only wanted to comment on the accusations of COI and BIO. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 03:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Superior Art Creations. 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/20040904031413/http://www.darkdomain.org/ to http://www.darkdomain.org/

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) 16:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]