The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> General Discussion? What's that all about?

This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:

Akahele.orgWikipedia-WatchWikitruthWP:ANWikiEN-L/Foundation-L (mailing lists) • Citizendium forums

5 Pages V « < 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> My email to SlimVirgin, my guess is that nothing will happen
Daniel Brandt
post Tue 6th February 2007, 1:00am
Post #61


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined: Fri 24th Mar 2006, 12:23am
Member No.: 77



Anthere says at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...ary/027499.html
QUOTE
I'll tell you three secrets, just do not repeat them. First, we are beginning to oil the wheels to find someone to be the new CTO in the long run. Second, Mark, Brion etc... pretty much manage their own business between themselves well. By large, Tim reports to Brion right now, and all is well. Third, Brion is not a report man... he is Brion. On the tech side, the most urgent things we can be facing in the next three months really, are much more related to hardware, hosting, network, insurance, contracts... in large part Mark realm (along with JeLuF, Domas, Rob etc...). [emphasis added]

From the context it seems that Anthere is more concerned with property insurance for their servers. What's the problem here? Do they expect God to smite their servers with a lightening bolt? I'm sure this won't happen, because God must realize by now that this would merely generate a negative biography on Himself, written by anonymous teenagers.

They don't need property insurance. What they really need is liability insurance for the Foundation and its officers and directors. I always thought one of the main duties of a general counsel was to keep the Foundation and its directors and officers from getting sued. If that's true, Brad hasn't been doing his job. He has never communicated with me in any sort of effort to negotiate my objections to Wikipedia.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Tue 6th February 2007, 7:07am
Post #62


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 5th February 2007, 7:00pm) *
I always thought one of the main duties of a general counsel was to keep the Foundation and its directors and officers from getting sued. If that's true, Brad hasn't been doing his job.

Well, that's probably because he's been the Interim Executive Director for several months - wearing all those hats must've been difficult. Now that he's back to concentrating exclusively on his role as General Counsel, he'll be able to go back to working full-time on failing to keep the Foundation and its directors and officers from getting sued.

laugh.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nobs
post Tue 6th February 2007, 7:53pm
Post #63


#2242 most prolific contributor of out of 1 million+ WP users
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:08pm
From: North America
Member No.: 16

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Well the saga continues. And no conspiracy would be genuine unless Allen Dullas and the Bush family fortune were somehow involved.

Ken Myers, aka User:KSM10 is the author of Wikimmunity: Fitting the Communications Decency Act to Wikipedia, presented at the August 2006 Wikimania conference, and appears to be an influentional take on the various legal issues regarding Wikipedia and Sec 230. Myers bio says he "is a recent graduate of Harvard Law School and will be joining Sullivan & Cromwell New York as an associate in the fall (of 2006)."

Who is Sullivan & Cromwell? Prescott Bush and Union Banking were clients of Allen Dullas and Sullivan & Cromwell. Wikipedia is now the source for the information how the Bush family fortune being derived from Nazi's originated with a group aligned with Holocaust denial. (Wikien-1)

So as the Foundation establishes the position of General Counsel and builds the Legal Department, it's now patently obvious they are looking to advice from an associate of the law firm which, according to John Loftus, participated in money laundering for the Nazi's.

Where will all end?

This post has been edited by nobs: Tue 6th February 2007, 8:15pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Tue 6th February 2007, 9:13pm
Post #64


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(nobs @ Tue 6th February 2007, 1:53pm) *
...it's now patently obvious they are looking to advice from an associate of the law firm which, according to John Loftus, participated in....

There's no evidence for this, Nobs. Just because someone speaks at Wikimania and writes a paper on Section 230 doesn't mean the foundation is somehow forming a relationship with the law firm that just hired that same guy, right out of school, after the fact. If you can find something that suggests this, even vaguely, then by all means let us know - but without something to back this up, it's just the usual conspiracy-theory speculative blah-blah-blah.

I'd say you should know better, but I think we're clearly past that point now...! dry.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nobs
post Tue 6th February 2007, 11:34pm
Post #65


#2242 most prolific contributor of out of 1 million+ WP users
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:08pm
From: North America
Member No.: 16

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 6th February 2007, 2:13pm) *
QUOTE(nobs @ Tue 6th February 2007, 1:53pm) *
...it's now patently obvious they are looking to advice from an associate of the law firm which, according to John Loftus, participated in....
There's no evidence for this, Nobs. Just because someone speaks at Wikimania and writes a paper on Section 230 doesn't mean the foundation is somehow forming a relationship with the law firm that just hired that same guy, right out of school, after the fact. If you can find something that suggests this, even vaguely, then by all means let us know...
Well let's see what John Loftus says about Sullivan & Cromwell (per WP:V):
QUOTE
"Some Americans were just bigots and made their connections to Germany through Allen Dulles's firm of Sullivan and Cromwell because they supported Fascism. The Dulles brothers, who were in it for profit more than ideology, arranged American investments in Nazi Germany in the 1930s to ensure that their clients did well out of the German economic recovery. . . .

"Sullivan & Cromwell was not the only firm engaged in funding Germany....

"...Instead of divesting the Nazi money," continue the authors, "Bush hired a lawyer to hide the assets. The lawyer he hired had considerable expertise in such underhanded schemes. It was Allen Dulles. According to Dulles's client list at Sullivan & Cromwell, his first relationship with Brown Brothers, Harriman...

Source: John Loftus, Former Federal Prosecutor John Loftus confirms the Bush-Nazi scandal, October 31. 2003.
There is more information about Sullivan & Cromwell in John Loftus and Mark Aarons, The Secret War Against the Jews, St. Martin's Press (1994). None of this stuff for NPOV purposes, as best I can discern, is in the wiki entry on Sullivan & Cromwell.

Now, as to Ken Myers relationship to the Foundation Legal Department, that is currently a matter under review....

Wiki Research Bibliography
http://bibliography.wikimedia.de/index.php...id=196&catId=20


This post has been edited by nobs: Wed 7th February 2007, 12:27am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
coriaceous
post Wed 7th February 2007, 1:27am
Post #66


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu 12th Oct 2006, 7:30pm
Member No.: 467

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 29th December 2006, 6:03am) *

The fact that I have continued to identify some Wikipedia editors and administrators will not be held against me by a jury. This is exactly what the Wikimedia Foundation feels that I should be doing, because its position is that all editors are responsible for their own edits. This means I have to identify these people. The Foundation won't help me do this. I'm on record as requesting the IP addresses those who have edited my bio, in order to facilitate their identities. I received no response.


It's a two-edged sword. Asking that everyone who makes an edit be fully identified (name, address etc) is an invitation to massive invasion of privacy. At the same time, Wikipedia's unwillingness to require such information, to be kept in a private database, in order to track down abusers/plagiarists/vandals/libelists/etc is probabluy criminal (or rather, will become so as new law on the topic evolves).

I think admins should publically indentified, however, and all admins would have a bio. This would be an interesting topic in a test-case.

My own feeling is that WP will eventually crash and burn in a morass of litigation, coming back as a propriatary product of Google, Yahoo, etc. Brandt may be the one to bring it down. But he's certainly gotten them running scared.

This post has been edited by coriaceous: Wed 7th February 2007, 1:37am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Wed 7th February 2007, 4:19am
Post #67


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



Welcome to the "non-lurking area" of the forum, Mr. Coriaceous!

QUOTE(coriaceous @ Tue 6th February 2007, 7:27pm) *
I think admins should publically indentified, however, and all admins would have a bio. This would be an interesting topic in a test-case.

I've been thinking very seriously about this lately. Much has changed during the last year - Wikipedia is now so popular, so well-known, and in some ways so ubiquitous, that any one of the thousand or so active admins is probably much more "notable" now than Brandt could ever hope to be. Right now, each of them as an individual (and maybe a few of the prominent non-admins too) is having a much greater impact on society, culture, civilization, yada yada yada than he is, maybe more than a good half of the living people who have biographies in WP... So yes, there should be an article about each and every one of them, giving names, backgrounds, professions, date of birth, the whole thing. And photos - mustn't forget those!

Anything less, and they'd simply be selfishly (and, of course, hypocritically) refusing to apply their own rules and standards to themselves. That's typical of abusive organizations, of course, but the principle still holds true all the same.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gomi
post Wed 7th February 2007, 7:07am
Post #68


Member
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined: Fri 17th Nov 2006, 6:38pm
Member No.: 565



QUOTE(nobs @ Tue 6th February 2007, 11:53am) *

Who is Sullivan & Cromwell?
Of more concern to me is the fact that Sullivan & Cromwell is one of Microsoft's main litigation firms, notably defending them in the (many) anti-trust suits. <stifles grin> Now where did I put that tinfoil hat?

This post has been edited by gomi: Wed 7th February 2007, 7:07am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nobs
post Wed 7th February 2007, 9:36pm
Post #69


#2242 most prolific contributor of out of 1 million+ WP users
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:08pm
From: North America
Member No.: 16

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Outline of malicious intent

( a ) SlimVirgin said on 00:19, 7 January 2005,
QUOTE
I kept Daniel Brandt [in the Chip Berlet#Criticism subsection], not because I feel he's a credible source, but because there's so little published criticism of Berlet, that I felt I had to retain something.
( b ) SlimVirgin made references to "malice" and protecting Wikipedia in two instances prior; once in the Rangerdude case, and again in the Nobs01 case, Statement by SlimVirgin
QUOTE
Now Nobs01, who often edits with Rangerdude, is inserting that Chip was closely associated with "defender[s] of terrorism," and has made comments that look like threats, implying that if we don't retain the material, he'll insert even worse, which again raises the issue of malice.
Nobs01 served notice and requested SlimVirgin to withdraw the language (Discussion retreived from User talk:SlimVirgin/archive21) and Proposed wording to amend her Statement.

( c ) SlimVirgin created the Daniel Brandt article prior to publicly stating, “not because I feel he's a credible source”.

( d ) SlimVirgin altered the text of Wikipedia Official Policy, Reliable sources, to read,
QUOTE
...widely acknowledged extremist views....may be used... only...as sources about themselves...
prior to SlimVirgin’s action on 28 September 2005 when she created the Daniel Brandt article.

( e ) SlimVirgin created the Daniel Brandt article on 28 September with the intent that Brandt, and the organization he works for, could not be considered a “credible source” for criticism of Chip Berlet.

( f ) The sourcing for criticism of Brandt (then and now) violates Wikipedia Official Policy.

This post has been edited by nobs: Wed 21st November 2007, 10:01pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
coriaceous
post Wed 7th February 2007, 10:09pm
Post #70


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu 12th Oct 2006, 7:30pm
Member No.: 467

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 6th February 2007, 10:19pm) *

Welcome to the "non-lurking area" of the forum, Mr. Coriaceous!

QUOTE(coriaceous @ Tue 6th February 2007, 7:27pm) *
I think admins should be publically indentified, however, and all admins would have a bio. This would be an interesting topic in a test-case.

I've been thinking very seriously about this lately. Much has changed during the last year - Wikipedia is now so popular, so well-known, and in some ways so ubiquitous, that any one of the thousand or so active admins is probably much more "notable" now than Brandt could ever hope to be. Right now, each of them as an individual (and maybe a few of the prominent non-admins too) is having a much greater impact on society, culture, civilization, yada yada yada than he is, maybe more than a good half of the living people who have biographies in WP... So yes, there should be an article about each and every one of them, giving names, backgrounds, professions, date of birth, the whole thing. And photos - mustn't forget those!

Anything less, and they'd simply be selfishly (and, of course, hypocritically) refusing to apply their own rules and standards to themselves. That's typical of abusive organizations, of course, but the principle still holds true all the same.


Compelling admins to be publically identified would have a HUGE impact on the quality of articles, and would lead to a destruction of the various cabals. It would also send a certain number of currrent admins into hiding.

Publishing IP addresses in all edits would also have a salutary effect on edits.

But of course, none of this will happen until the Wikipedia foundation is sued into oblivion.

And incidentally, its fascinating how closely Wikipedia people monitor this board. This suggestion probably scares them into terminal constipation.

In the upcoming litigation, it would also be insteresting if Brandt was given full access to W's servers (with Jimbo Wales authority) to snoop out ALL IP addresses of ALL admins, as well as editors for the article in question, so that these people can be sued too.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Poetlister
post Wed 7th February 2007, 11:10pm
Post #71


Poetlister from Venus
******

Group: Inactive
Posts: 1,018
Joined: Fri 3rd Mar 2006, 12:17pm
Member No.: 50

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(coriaceous @ Wed 7th February 2007, 10:09pm) *

Compelling admins to be publically identified would have a HUGE impact on the quality of articles, and would lead to a destruction of the various cabals. It would also send a certain number of currrent admins into hiding.

How do you enforce that? It has been alleged recently that even so senior an admin as Essjay has put out misleading information about himself. It has been claimed elsewhere that at least one other admin, not a million miles from the topic of this thread, has a different real name from the one she uses in e-mails and elsewhere. Will all admin candidates have to submit a passport photo endorsed by a minister of religion or other public figure?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Thu 8th February 2007, 1:10am
Post #72


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(Poetlister @ Wed 7th February 2007, 5:10pm) *
How do you enforce that?

Assuming the principle is upheld (and I realize it won't be, ever), nobody has to enforce anything. It's all part of the regular process - someone does some research on who a particular Wikipedia admin is, publishes it in a "reliable" publication (preferably web-accessible), and at that point it's out of their hands, right? You have a valid assertion of notability, backed up by a reliable source, and bingo, another fine BLP article on WP. (Which then gets deleted, of course, because the subject is an admin.)

Mind you, there are a few WP admins who are members here on Wikipedia Review, some of them surreptitiously, and they needn't worry about any of us divulging confidential membership info to journalists. (To be sure, such info only consists of e-mail and IP addressed used to register here, and for anyone who's joined within the last six weeks, there's also the all-important answer to the "are you an East-European spambot?" question. But that's still something, I guess! And considering how little fact-checking is done these days, we could probably tell them just about anything and they'd believe it... laugh.gif )

Nevertheless, journos are welcome to join the forum and use the PM system to try to contact people, just in case efforts to do so on WP are unsuccessful - though there's probably no reason to think anyone would have better luck here.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gomi
post Thu 8th February 2007, 1:17am
Post #73


Member
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined: Fri 17th Nov 2006, 6:38pm
Member No.: 565



Are there any members here who are Wikipedia admins and Eastern European spam-bots? Enquiring minds want to know!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Thu 8th February 2007, 4:03am
Post #74


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 7th February 2007, 7:17pm) *
Are there any members here who are Wikipedia admins and Eastern European spam-bots?

Well now, normally I'd make some sort of wisecrack here, but there actually was an instance of a registrant who used the name of a valid WP contributor, with a proper user page and everything, but who bore the hallmark of an East-European spambot. It wasn't an administrator, but I'll be honest, it was really sort of creepy.

Y'see, the hallmark of an East European spambot is to put a country-of-origin into the "Are you an East-European spambot?" field on the form. They're programmed to assume that Question #2, if there is one, is always going to be "Where are you from?" So, if we see that someone has answered that question with "USA" or "Latvia" or "Bulgaria," it's basically a dead giveaway, and we don't have to bother looking that person's name up on WP (this also assumes that they've registered with an e-mail address from a domain that isn't an obvious "spamhaus"). It saves a lot of time, actually, because if you really want to be thorough you have to check the registration IP too, and the whole process can take a good 2-3 minutes per phony registrant.

In this one case, though, I just happened to remember seeing the WP username before, so I checked. I have an amazing memory for trivial bits of information, but I can never seem to remember to call my Mom on weekends. It's to the point now where I really wish I could just frickin' remember to call my Mom, and I'd be willing to give up the ability to remember trivia almost completely if I could just do that...

The WP user claimed to be from Oregon, and the IP was (as usual) Bulgarian, so I put it off as a coinkydink. Still, I have this fear that spambot operators are going to start mining the WP userspace for registration names, and if so, that will definitely suck big-time! In fact, I shouldn't even be posting this - it'll just give 'em ideas. unsure.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
everyking
post Thu 8th February 2007, 11:49am
Post #75


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 7:24am
Member No.: 81



QUOTE(coriaceous @ Wed 7th February 2007, 11:09pm) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 6th February 2007, 10:19pm) *

Welcome to the "non-lurking area" of the forum, Mr. Coriaceous!

QUOTE(coriaceous @ Tue 6th February 2007, 7:27pm) *
I think admins should be publically indentified, however, and all admins would have a bio. This would be an interesting topic in a test-case.

I've been thinking very seriously about this lately. Much has changed during the last year - Wikipedia is now so popular, so well-known, and in some ways so ubiquitous, that any one of the thousand or so active admins is probably much more "notable" now than Brandt could ever hope to be. Right now, each of them as an individual (and maybe a few of the prominent non-admins too) is having a much greater impact on society, culture, civilization, yada yada yada than he is, maybe more than a good half of the living people who have biographies in WP... So yes, there should be an article about each and every one of them, giving names, backgrounds, professions, date of birth, the whole thing. And photos - mustn't forget those!

Anything less, and they'd simply be selfishly (and, of course, hypocritically) refusing to apply their own rules and standards to themselves. That's typical of abusive organizations, of course, but the principle still holds true all the same.


Compelling admins to be publically identified would have a HUGE impact on the quality of articles, and would lead to a destruction of the various cabals. It would also send a certain number of currrent admins into hiding.

Publishing IP addresses in all edits would also have a salutary effect on edits.

But of course, none of this will happen until the Wikipedia foundation is sued into oblivion.

And incidentally, its fascinating how closely Wikipedia people monitor this board. This suggestion probably scares them into terminal constipation.

In the upcoming litigation, it would also be insteresting if Brandt was given full access to W's servers (with Jimbo Wales authority) to snoop out ALL IP addresses of ALL admins, as well as editors for the article in question, so that these people can be sued too.


I don't understand why you think identification would have a beneficial effect. I think it would hurt, even cripple the project, because there'd be mass exodus and new people would be discouraged from editing. The people who stick around are not going to suddenly become amazing super-genius writers and overcompensate for the losses.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Thu 8th February 2007, 12:06pm
Post #76


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 8th February 2007, 6:49am) *

I don't understand why you think identification would have a beneficial effect. I think it would hurt, even cripple the project, because there'd be mass exodus and new people would be discouraged from editing. The people who stick around are not going to suddenly become amazing super-genius writers and overcompensate for the losses.


Real world identification is simply the first step toward social responsibility, the minimal disclosure that is necessary to permit evaluation of Wikipedia's claims and pretensions. People of sound judgment understand this axiomatically.

Jonny cool.gif

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Thu 8th February 2007, 12:08pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
everyking
post Thu 8th February 2007, 12:12pm
Post #77


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 7:24am
Member No.: 81



QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 8th February 2007, 1:06pm) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 8th February 2007, 6:49am) *

I don't understand why you think identification would have a beneficial effect. I think it would hurt, even cripple the project, because there'd be mass exodus and new people would be discouraged from editing. The people who stick around are not going to suddenly become amazing super-genius writers and overcompensate for the losses.


Real world identification is simply the first step toward social responsibility, the minimal disclosure that is necessary to pemit evaluation of Wikipedia's claims and pretensions. People of sound judgment understand this axiomatically.

Jonny cool.gif


Apologies for my unsound judgment. I was just talking about the quality of the articles, not external views of the site, although I note that the site does seem to be fairly popular. Apparently some people have already evaluated it positively--and most of them would likely never have done so if we required identification, because then the site would never have really gotten off the ground in the first place.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Thu 8th February 2007, 1:05pm
Post #78


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 8th February 2007, 7:12am) *

Apologies for my unsound judgment. I was just talking about the quality of the articles, not external views of the site, although I note that the site does seem to be fairly popular. Apparently some people have already evaluated it positively -- and most of them would likely never have done so if we required identification, because then the site would never have really gotten off the ground in the first place.


Oh, popularity. For a minute there I thought we were talking about what it takes to make a good encyclopedia, y'know, principles of sound journalism and responsible scholarship.

Nevermind ...

Back to the Uboob already in progress ...

Jonny cool.gif

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Thu 8th February 2007, 1:08pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Thu 8th February 2007, 3:49pm
Post #79


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



Hey now, you guys are going off on a tangent here...!

All I was saying was that these people are now "notable" enough for their own articles. If they don't want articles written about them, then that should be their right - but they should extend that right to others as well, in the interest of fairness. They should extend that right to everyone.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Thu 8th February 2007, 4:10pm
Post #80


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 8th February 2007, 10:49am) *

Hey now, you guys are going off on a tangent here ... !


Tangent ??? I thought the topology of this topic was a non-differentiable fractal farey tail !!!

My bad -- I haven't been following this whole gangly thread, and was only responding to the last couple of posts ...

Jonny cool.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V « < 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th 7 14, 1:03am