The cat is okay.
Incidentally, to bring focus to Wikipedia, there is a discussion on Jimbo's page about Assange and Jimbo has commented.
Renée Bagslint wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 6:13 amThat doesn't make sense. It's someone posting nonsense on the internet who is best described as "just a person with an opinion". Here in the UK, judges are appointed, not elected, and while it is impossible to remove political considerations completely, in general we make a pretty good job of keeping politics out of judicial decision-making.Proabivouac wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 12:55 amIn which universe is this? A "judge" who is independent from politics is just a person with an opinion. Were judges truly independent from politics, this indictment would not exist.
The man needs rest. He is in Belmarsh, a prison in England. And believe me, the staff will do anything to comfort him and he will get perfect medical care. I hope they will keep him there a longer time, far away from internet, with some nice books, a television, much sleep, and no worry about the cat. Because that is what he needs and not a bunch of "social justice" shitty wikipedians or the extreem shitty WMF.
More on this, please.Renée Bagslint wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 6:30 amNow this is more entertaining. Jimmy Wales has a complex relationship with Assange. At one time Jimmy Wales owned some of the wikileaks domain names through Wikia. Assange has owned them since 2011.Proabivouac wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 12:55 amIn the big picture the irony is that Manning's own sentence was commuted by Obama solely as a reward for claiming to be transgendered, and now they are going after some third far less culpable party to re-punish in his stead. Wikipedia is unreservedly pro-Chelsea Manning and no doubt approves of this transference of blame:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... d_decision
Unquestionably that is their reason and Democrats' reason for having turned on Assange. Were it not for the DNC leaks, he would still be fêted as a liberator of information that wants to be free. Manning's leaks while a gross betrayal of trust do not bother them as they are seen as critical of Bush's policies. The indictment against Assange says nothing about the DNC emails but they may well be the motivation for the indictment. We now host two superposed realities, one in which Manning is a hero and one in which Assange is a villain for having cooperated with Manning. Not entirely dissimilar from the superposition which defines Manning's Wikipedia biography.Renée Bagslint wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 6:30 amMore recently, we see Katherine Maher tweeting against Assange ("righteous scumbags"). The WMF position must surely be that since they are heavily pro-Clinton, they are therefore anti-Assange, and they don't like the confusion in the donors' minds about whether Wikileaks is connected with Wikipedia.
Wikipedia:WikiLeaks is not part of Wikipedia
A bunch of anonymous people wrote:The domain names wikileaks.com, wikileaks.net, wikileaks.us, wikileaks.biz, and wikileaks.mobi previously had a "Registrant" or "Registrant Organization" listed as Jimmy Wales' company Wikia, and some had Michael Davis (who is Chief Operating Officer of Wikia), listed for "Registrant Name". These sites showed content from wikileaks.org. This is perhaps the basis for some of the confusion regarding Wikipedia and WikiLeaks; however, Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation are for the most part separate organizations.
In response to a question on his talk page on 8 December 2010, Wales stated:
To answer your question, when Wikileaks first launched they put out a press release calling themselves something like "the Wikipedia of secrets". We had no idea who they were, whether it was a scam or spam or who knows what, so some domain names were registered defensively. We contacted them immediately to see what was going on and they apologized for being careless with the Wikipedia name and everything was sorted right away with no problems... except for them actually concluding the technical aspects of the transfer.
Further, according to a previous statement by Wales on 1 October 2010:
Wikia does not serve any of the sites. The CNAME records in DNS direct the traffic to www.wikileaks.org.
The domain names were legally transferred to Wikileaks a long time ago, but for unknown reasons, Wikileaks never completed the technical aspects of the transfer. Wikia has made multiple requests to them to do so, with no result yet. Mr. Assange has indicated that he is very busy right now, which seems likely to be true, given recent news events.
On 27 January 2011, the domain name registrations were finally assigned to Julian Assange.
Must be. look here:The WMF position must surely be that since they are heavily pro-Clinton, they are therefore anti-Assange, and they don't like the confusion in the donors' minds about whether Wikileaks is connected with Wikipedia.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests