845:
confirmation to all the problematic allegations mentioned, and in addition, revealed that many of the nominally-separate instances of off-wikipedia contact were extremely likely to be 'sockpuppet' editing. On wikipedia, there is special jargon for agenda-driven and financially-compensated editors that masquerade as more than one person, using a series of pseudonyms to mask their activity from all but the 'checkuser' wikipedia administrators, who can examine the privacy-sensitive information contained in the raw webserver logfiles: when a wikipedia editor uses multiple pseudonyms to hide there activities from wikipedia administrators, their primary username is called a 'sockmaster' and their secondary faux-usernames are called 'sockpuppets'. This wikipedia jargon is from the analogy of a single person putting on a puppet show, and playing different personas, by repeatedly wearing a series of different puppets -- made of socks with yarn and googly eyes traditionally -- on their hands. In the real-life puppet show, the lefthand sockpuppet and the righthand sockpuppet often have conversations. In the wikipedia analogy, the pseudonyms SuperSockLady5293 and SadSockMan2990 will make coordinated edits, and in some cases have faux 'conversations' with each other on wikipedia article-discussion pages, but in reality the same human is controlling both. In cases where a small number of humans are controlling and coordinating a large number of faux pseudonyms, the wikipedia jargon for the situation is to call that a 'sockfarm' because unlike a physical puppet show, with online-pseudonym-sockpuppets, there is effectively no limit to how many faux personas can be active simultaneously.
841:
the wikipedia terms of use when such financial connections are not prominently disclosed), and even in some cases asserting that the created-articles would be deleted (or technically speaking hidden from easy view into wikipedia's edit-history where only wikipedia administrators can view the material) unless regular payments changed hands. Almost all of these are violations of the wikipedia rules; some, such as infringing on the wikipedia content license, and non-compliance with the wikipedia terms of use, might also have legal ramifications. Even the contact-mechanism is considered to be against the rules on wikipedia; there are specific wikipedia rules (designed to thwart off-wikipedia coordination of agenda-driven or financially-motivated or otherwise illicit collusion), that wikipedians should discuss article-content inside wikipedia itself, where their comments and interactions are visible to others. This rule against abusing off-wikipedia contact is also important for practical reasons; because the website is open to all ("the encyclopedia anyone can edit" is the catchphrase), wikipedia permits contributors to remain anonymous if they wish, or to use pseudonyms for their usernames; in such cases, even to 99% of wikipedia administrators, there is no way to know which human is editing under a particular online persona.
1153:. I'm pretty indifferent to what feelings alleged scammers and alleged blackmailers and alleged shakedown artists, might be having... but as a practical matter, it is more important for us to concentrate on hitting them where it hurts, which is their wallets, not their tender words-can-hurt-me-feelings. Our interests as wikipedians are best served by preventing alleged-spammers from spamming wikipedia, not by calling them names, but by making it economically prohibitive for them to operate here. Similarly, our interests are best served by preventing alleged-extortionists from operating here, again not by calling them names, but by making it economically infeasible for them to profit here. Alleged-spammers may never go away, since a victim of spam merely needs to *see* their spammy-product to profit them... but alleged-extortionists are much more vulnerable, since they have to forge a relatively-long-term relationship with their target-victims. I suggest we ditch the name-calling, and focus on the practical vulnerabilities of the alleged-extortionists, by shoring up our security perimeter and such. Words will never hurt them, but lost profits
102:
250 user profiles. this shows that there seems to be more than a mere suspicion that the reference is increasingly perceived as a PR tool and used. The enormous importance wakestion of
Knowledge (XXG) as an information, guidance and interpretation of source Greed in companies , celebrities and other public actors reindeer, exert on the electronic " world knowledge" influence. It is surprising in this context that concealed PR in Knowledge (XXG) so far both in science and in journalism , with little attention ness has been investigated . Most individual cases were discussed , too rarely been de to the topic comprehensively and systematically approached . The present study attempts to fill this gap and to make clear which actors with what means try in their favor on Knowledge (XXG) content influence to NEH-men
1937:, for a potential addition of a subsection, since, because of the Constitution, Article I, section 8, the Commerce Clause, and a provision on the delegation of some power to the States, U.S. Federal law generally does not apply to intrastate commerce and therefore the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) usually has no jurisdiction over businesses operating only within a single state. There is, however, relevant case law regarding commercial use of a likeness in a magazine article that was really an advertisement disguised as an article, the likeness being that of a famous person portrayed as wearing a brand of clothing, that person winning the case against the magazine. I don't have the citation but I think it was in the case law annotations appearing a few years ago (and almost certainly still appearing) in
1008:
the article subjects', describing them as the 'victims in this situation'." Then, the article goes on to give actual investigative journalism... ahhh, the dying breed!... and actually did the legwork by contacting ten article-subjects, one who confirmed they paid actual money. But the key problem here, is that the wikipedia-mainspace-paragraph, is using WIKIPEDIA'S voice (as an encyclopedia-publisher) to mouth terms, and that said terms were QUOTATIONS from a churnalistic source, who was merely repeating the ANONYMOUS COMMENTARY OF WIKIPEDIA 'INSIDER' SOURCES the newspaper interviewed for the story ... and thus plenty of this mainspace paragraph fails
849:
conversations (including faux 'conversations' between sockpuppet-usernames). The exact number of actual humans operating this large pseudonym-sockfarm is unknown; it is easy to tell from computerized logfiles how many *computers* were involved, and their type and physical location, but not necessarily how many biological humans were behind those computer systems. After concluding their efforts to uncover wikipedia rules violations, a large number of the accounts were blocked, and a large number of articles deleted, as being in violation of wikipedia rules about behavior, and wikipedia rules about acceptable content, respectively.
1142:. Outcome would be irrelevant; the mere initiation would be enough to get wikipedia 'convicted in the court of public opinion' methinks. Also, though I do believe that there is a possibility of this hypothetical lawsuit related to orangemoody specifically, I'm more worried about future incidents. If we set the precedent that checkuser-tech-evidence, and newspapers who repeat back verbatim what wiki-insiders told them, are WP:RS when it comes to making outbound-NLT-allegations in wikipedia's voice, we are setting ourselves up to get bitten
837:
reviewers, is publicly visible; allegedly, some of the article-creators were being approached outside of wikipedia (through email or telephone for instance), by people claiming to be wikipedians. In more than one case, the article-creators so approached, were later complaining visibly on wikipedia (sometimes to wikipedia administrators that help run the website and enforce the wikipedia rules -- when editors cannot work out problems amongst themselves) about the alleged off-wikipedia contacts.
31:
816:, personally I'm against wikipedians, on-wiki, using real-world lingo, which might have legal ramifications. Here my attempt at a neutral encyclopedic description of the orangemoody fiasco, written with a general readership in mind, that may never have clicked 'edit' at the top of the page, and even if they have done so, may very well all the same never have heard wiki-jargon about SPI and LTA and all that jazz:
917:
particular 'fave' website is threatened: unlike the wikimedia foundation, who was careful to stick just to the facts (plus a modicum of PR-spew), and unlike even the newspapers, who profit from clicks and are thus motivated to use "colorful" language (especially when they can merely report a quotation attributable to
Somebody Else's Legal Neck-On-The-Line),
747:
308:
merits and demerits of allow conflict-of-interest editing on
Knowledge (XXG) rather than leaving the outside reader to judge it for hisself/herself. The proposals by nature are non-neutral, and including them in the article would violate Knowledge (XXG)'s spirit of "No original research" and "Neutral Point of View". Cheers, --
848:
During the months of July and August 2015, wikipedia volunteers and administrators uncovered a sockfarm of nearly 400 pseudonyms, which were connected to the violations of wikipedia policy mentioned, using the computerized audit-data in the webserver logfiles, and by correlating that information with
479:
said Titian did not in fact live that long, and pointed out the event as an example Brown's tendency for inaccuracy. Shortly after
Cameron's comments, Titian's article on Knowledge (XXG) was edited to reduce his age; a search of the IP address that made the edit tracked back to the Conservative Party
1106:
the backsplatter of publicity from such an action is worth it. Which is another way of saying it will never happen. Even if it did, they'd have to make some additional hurdles in court to make it stick, and there would probably be civil liberties/free speech orgs lined up around the block to prevent
1007:
Notice all those weasel words, being used by the journalist? Not an accident. They are covering their asses, and the asses of their publisher, the newspaper conglomerate. Even the use of 'victims' is retroactively attributed to the WMF: "But
Knowledge (XXG) has called on its users to 'be kind to
1003:
is later qualified, and attributed back onto the WMF: "In some cases, the requests for money amounted to blackmail, Knowledge (XXG) told The
Independent." Also, the heart of the analogy to a real-life protection scam, is NOT given in the journalist's voice, but again pushed back onto the WMF: "in
1129:
It was a long analysis, so I do thank you for reading it, though we disagree at the end. My worry is very straightforward: that one of the 381 socks, turns out to be not guilty of any of those strong-legalese-words, and decides to take legal action. I don't think such legal action would succeed,
1004:
some cases the scammers themselves may have been the ones causing the articles to be removed. According to a
Knowledge (XXG) insider, at this stage the scammers would demand a payment of up to several hundred pounds... in some cases demanded an on-going monthly payment to 'protect' the articles."
840:
In particular, there were complaints from the article-creators that the people contacting them outside of wikipedia, had been copying article-material without attribution (a violation of the wikipedia content-license), had been asking for money to work on the articles being created (a violation of
101:
The fact that this openness can also have downsides , shows a current Case : Hundreds of "Paid Editor " - ie paid commercial writer - are in the tight - lish
Knowledge (XXG) behalf of their clients operate more polished image and Article have been distorted . Knowledge (XXG) thereupon blocked over
831:
During the regular course of wikipedia editing, it was gradually noticed that individuals (article creators) who were editing articles about themselves or their companies, were reporting that they received unwelcome demands. Although editing articles about yourself, or your employer, is strongly
363:
linked here. They were the community's reaction to these incidents, and the Talk pages associated with them contain the community's discussion of the breadth of the community's reaction. The fact that they all failed, should be a sign to anybody that the community is not unified in any way with
1413:
Wikiblame suggests the parenthetical statement was added in the same edit as its surrounding content almost four years ago. I was wondering if anyone could clear it up, since I don't think MediaWiki supports "several such cases" of accounts "registered under the name 'Biggleswiki'" or any other
836:
the usual wikipedia rules, by seeking disinterested independent wikipedia volunteer review of their work, and putting their draft-articles through the queue managed by
Articles For Creation volunteers. Like almost everything on wikipedia, this queue for article-creators that need disinterested
307:
on the
Knowledge (XXG)-conflict-of-interest topic; may I ask if you can explain to me your reasoning for doing this? I'm afraid that keeping those links in may serve to bias the article from a Wikipedian point of view, as Wikipedians are wont to do, because the proposals primarily point out the
916:
Now, individual wikipedians, commenting on individual talkpages, and note well dear reader not actually being quoted in wiki-reliable sources, have often used even more inflammatory language, as pseudonym-protected individual fans of specific internet websites often will, when they feel their
998:
That singular source-newspaper *actually* refers to the now-blocked-accounts as 'fraudsters' (as well as 'scammers or scammer' , and also 'suspect accounts'), to the event as a 'scam' (as well as 'demands for hundreds of pounds'), and to the victims as 'target' (as well as ' businesses and
844:
Later, efforts by wikipedia volunteers and wikipedia administrators (including some the 1% of wikipedia administrators with 'checkuser' permissions who can directly examine the wikipedia webserver logs to see what computer systems wikipedia contributors are actually using), gave preliminary
921:
individual wikipedians have gone beyond what even the newspapers were willing to print, calling the incident "shakedown", and even "racketering"(sic) in the presumed privacy... but not ACTUAL privacy since all such pages are visible worldwide ... of the various discussion-pages beneath the
1222:
The top of this article contains a picture of Andrew Leonard. Neither the caption nor the article text explains how Leonard relates to conflict-of-interest editing on Knowledge (XXG). Should that be spelled out in the caption and article, or should his picture be removed? Thanks!
1081:
has to say about WMF's insulation from concerns about user-created content hosted on the site. Which is to say, 99.99% of Knowledge (XXG)'s contents. According to the WMF transparency report (linked), guess how many of the 234 requests for content alteration were acted on last year?
832:
discouraged by wikipedia guidelines (it is referred to as 'WP:COI' in wikipedia jargon as an analogy to real-world conflict-of-interest guidelines), it is not forbidden. There are certain mechanisms in place, these article creators were in the majority of cases, completely
1086:. Newspapers are in a very different position as to responsibility for their contents than WMF. So your grave concerns about hurting the feelings of fraudsters and scammers is misplaced. Yah, some butt-hurt scammer could theoretically go after an individual editor,
999:
celebrities'), and the LTA work as an 'investigation' (as well as 'crackdown'). However, most of the juicy terminology, is utilized by quotations from *others* referring to "rogue editors" , "coordinated group" , "protect" , "sock puppets" , and so on.
1020:. If someone can please help me cut down my too-long-per-WP:UNDUE-prose, and integrate the *other* sources (some more inflammatory and some less inflammatory than the singular source we currently use in mainspace), that would be appreciated.
82:
apparently offers a systematic analysis of conflict of interest editing on Knowledge (XXG) by PR reps, however the machine translation I used was not good enough to make it very readable, so I gave up on trying to understand what it says.
393:
241:
You seem to be requesting our opinions on the legality of certain actions. An RfC is not the place to make legal judgements. Maybe ask this on some stack exchange site or something? I suggest closing the RfC.
396:
because I have gone looking for that several times and have hard time finding it, and for some reason always come here first expecting to find it, as it very germane to the topic of this article. I checked
1039:
767:
577:. Just yesterday, Torossian opened an account in his own name, which was immediately identified as a sock from the same farm, and was closed down. He thus confirmed that he was the puppeteer in this case.
1115:. Words like "shakedown" and "blackmail" are completely appropriate and actually near-verbatim reporting of what the secondary sources have said in this case, and I have no qualms about using them. —
1563:
776:
463:
So, I found this in the 2008 presidential election section left as a comment. Looks like it's fairly old, no idea who it's by, if anyone wants to discuss it/fix it/add it/whatever, here it is:
901:
59:
1045:
857:
A fifth paragraph is needed, as well. The story was picked up by the media (very much including the WMF communications-director as a member thereof), and variously characterized, per
993:
896:
762:
405:, and your edit note says "rm ink to non-article-space page". Would you please point me to the policy or guideline on which that is based? I may well have missed something. Thanks!
475:
who was known for his late-in-life achievements and longevity. Brown said that Titian lived until 90, which was also stated in Titian's Knowledge (XXG) article. Conservative leader
424:
Lately there's been a spate of cases where people with money are hiring their own paid editors to buff up their Knowledge (XXG) articles. Recent examples that have come up at
865:"engaged in undisclosed paid advocacy... accepting or charging money to promote external interests on Knowledge (XXG) without revealing their affiliation, in violation of "
1043:
768:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3219380/Blackmail-scandal-hits-Knowledge (XXG)-rogue-editors-charge-hundreds-pounds-protect-people-s-pages-defamatory-content.html
1875:
1871:
1857:
1705:
1701:
1687:
1595:
1591:
1577:
1485:
1481:
1467:
1453:
1345:
1341:
1327:
47:
17:
444:. This may be a new status symbol. Something to watch for. (I miss the days when the big COI problem was band and DJ self promotion. Those were easier to deal with.)
1941:(West Publishing or successor), likely available through the WestLaw electronic research service. I don't remember which statute was accompanied by this annotation.
1564:
https://web.archive.org/web/20131209110758/http://www.business.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/bus41-dot-com-disclosures-information-about-online-advertising.pdf
1149:
As to your other point, I'm mostly concerned about hurting the feelings of hypothetical innocent-or-quasi-innocent editors, that get caught up in future stings,
886:
401:
before I added it, and found no bar to adding links to Knowledge (XXG) space there. I also found no discussion of adding that or not, here on Talk. You just
1934:
1767:
1657:
1547:
1437:
1402:
1281:
1027:
881:
588:. It turned out that both these people were former clients of Torossian's and had parted from the PR firm on unfriendly terms. The incident was reported in
1567:
1037:
596:
by the left-wing Jewish organization FailedMessiah. I believe it was also picked up by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, though I can't find the reference.
1783:
1409:
One of the most noted accounts was registered under the name "Biggleswiki" (an internal Knowledge (XXG) investigation resulted in several such cases).
1803:
911:
1793:
763:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/wikipedia-rocked-by-rogue-editors-blackmail-scam-targeting-small-businesses-and-celebrities-10481993.html
1023:
p.s. I bleepity bleep the orangemoody-socks too. :-) But we have to stick to NPOV, and avoid circular-self-quotations in wikipedia's voice.
1051:
876:
1029:
589:
573:
was a sockfarm from about 2010 to the present whose purpose was originally to spruce up the biographies of the clients of PR firm 5WPR, run by
350:
317:
147:
871:
712:
1058:
I've not checked all of these are non-dupe and pure-WP:RS, but I think ~~63.8% of this hit-list will end up being legit additional sources,
593:
2013:
1158:
1063:
543:
123:
Maybe we could ask one of those "celebrities and other public actors reindeer" to do the translation? :-) 23:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
398:
1973:
780:
1454:
https://web.archive.org/web/20131026082010/https://wikimediafoundation.org/Press_releases/Sue_Gardner_statement_paid_advocacy_editing
1853:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
1683:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
1573:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
1463:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
1180:
1112:
925:
Nowadays, there is even a mainspace-paragraph about the overall incident, in a special wikipedia-the-encyclopedia article, found at
1056:
679:
535:
210:
If in a future, Terms of Use include ban paid edition/advocacy explicitly, then its illegal, and WMF can sue the paid editors?
272:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
163:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1823:
1033:
906:
2037:
1981:
1950:
1923:
1918:
1833:
1753:
1748:
1643:
1638:
1533:
1528:
1423:
1391:
1264:
1250:
1232:
1211:
1192:
1166:
1124:
1071:
798:
784:
732:
691:
672:
650:
627:
514:
493:
453:
414:
373:
354:
336:
321:
295:
255:
229:
117:
92:
1843:
1568:
http://www.business.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/bus41-dot-com-disclosures-information-about-online-advertising.pdf
1049:
638:
1964:
930:
891:
327:
I do not agree and would be happy to discuss! May I copy your content to the article Talk page, and respond there?
1784:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120301150522/http://www.corpcommsmagazine.co.uk/news/2047-cipr-to-work-with-wikipedia
1179:
I noticed that Orangemoody redirects here and there are no links for further information. Started an article draft
346:
313:
143:
38:
1804:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120126112926/http://communicatemagazine.co.uk/news/3329-cipr-partners-with-wikipedia
1031:
98:
Google Translate provides this rather poor translation of the abstract, but it does give an idea of the contents:
1794:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120302043904/http://www.corpcommsmagazine.co.uk/features/2212-time-for-wiki-editing
660:
1874:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1704:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1594:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1484:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1344:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
858:
538:, the Tory and Knowledge (XXG): a modern morality tale|work=The Guardian|date=2009-02-12|accessdate=2012-02-13}
1813:
249:
467:
can't see how the following is an example of COI editing: "TitianGate" was a 2009 incident in which UK leader
1977:
1946:
1909:
1775:
1739:
1665:
1629:
1555:
1519:
1445:
1289:
1162:
1067:
216:
Are a future COI policy, or the actual guideline irrelevant because paid editing/advocacy editors can argue
79:
1969:
1787:
1673:
772:
713:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/business/media/a-pr-firm-alters-the-wiki-reality-of-its-star-clients.html
359:
Answering now! So the reason I reverted that change, is that I think it is really important to have those
1807:
1771:
1419:
304:
113:
1797:
213:
All paid edition are covert advertising, and therefore, is illegal in Europe, among Directive 2005/29/EC?
1893:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1881:
1723:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1711:
1613:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1601:
1503:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1491:
1383:
1363:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1351:
1241:
But that's no reason he should be the poster boy for COI editing. Probably best to delete the picture.
1199:
1035:
646:
585:
342:
309:
283:
139:
1774:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1664:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1554:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1444:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1288:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1013:
2030:
1318:
1260:
1228:
687:
88:
934:
926:
2018:
WP:RSN § HuffPost for paid editing at Axios (website), NBC News, Caryn Marooney, and other articles
1041:
866:
1942:
668:
618:) was involved in containing the sock farm, and I would especially be interested in her input. --
489:
389:
221:
1878:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1708:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1598:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1488:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1348:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1239:
1102:
they decided this individual has the wherewithal to make them whole in a civil matter (moolah),
1009:
937:, citing exactly one single source for the entire paragraph, which looks like this at present:
805:
286:
left the following message on my Talk page, and with that user's permission, it is copied here.
1894:
1724:
1614:
1504:
1364:
536:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/12/gordon-brown-david-cameron-titian%7Ctitle=Titian
1415:
1207:
1188:
1120:
623:
570:
510:
109:
1017:
813:
425:
1379:
642:
606:
If others think this episode is worthy of inclusion, I would be glad to try to write it up.
410:
369:
332:
291:
225:
2017:
1901:
1731:
1621:
1511:
1371:
217:
2023:
2003:
1256:
1246:
1224:
581:
449:
84:
1999:
683:
1238:
That's a very good question. Mr. Leonard once wrote an article in Salon on the subject.
1860:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1827:
1690:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1580:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1470:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1330:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
600:
574:
437:
1900:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1867:
1837:
1824:
https://archive.is/20130411034841/http://www.iabc.com/cwb/archive/2012/0912/Hobson.htm
1730:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1697:
1620:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1587:
1510:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1477:
1370:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1337:
1847:
1834:
https://archive.is/20130411042933/http://www.iabc.com/cwb/archive/2012/0912/Estes.htm
1077:
I read this analysis about "legal ramifications" but I disagree. I'm going with what
733:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/wikipedia-editors-for-pay/393926/
664:
569:
I wonder if the sockpuppet Babasalichai case is worthy of inclusion in this article?
485:
476:
433:
243:
1844:
https://archive.is/20130411024552/http://www.iabc.com/cwb/archive/2012/0912/King.htm
580:
In 2011, Babasalichai socks made a series of defamatory edits to the biographies of
394:
Knowledge (XXG):Statement on Knowledge (XXG) from participating communications firms
1203:
1184:
1116:
1078:
619:
613:
607:
506:
468:
429:
1965:
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/wikipedia-is-an-establishment-psyop-c352c0d2faf
1047:
199:
then why WikiExperts and Wiki-PR changed his services and now outsource the edits?
2016:
on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at
953:
firms... excessive promotional content... users asking for money... provoked the
364:
regard to these events. Thank you for not re-reverting and for Talking instead!
1055:
and probably the most bitter-but-funny 'oh nohz' headline I have seen in awhile.
795:
502:
406:
365:
328:
287:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1053:
929:, which uses a combination of the language of the churnalists, as well as some
1866:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1696:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1586:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1476:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1336:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1242:
927:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#Orangemoody
445:
441:
1817:
108:
It would be nice if a German-speaking human being could take a stab at this.
1814:
https://archive.is/20130426145435/http://www.iabc.com/cwb/archive/2012/0912/
599:
In 2008, Torossian used a similar sockpuppetry tactic to support his client
2014:"Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Knowledge (XXG) Pages"
2008:
1990:
182:
Then it is illegal and WMF can sue the companies and freelancers related?
1788:
http://www.corpcommsmagazine.co.uk/news/2047-cipr-to-work-with-wikipedia
1674:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160314095050/http://virgil.gr/wikiscanner/
1808:
http://communicatemagazine.co.uk/news/3329-cipr-partners-with-wikipedia
1798:
http://www.corpcommsmagazine.co.uk/features/2212-time-for-wiki-editing
1297:
910:"banned... huge fraud... amounts to a protection and extortion racket"
472:
384:
Statement on Knowledge (XXG) from participating communications firms
544:"Titiangate: Conservative party caught vandalising Knowledge (XXG)"
1107:
just this from happening. And one more thing, "I was shaken down"
663:
is a container cat (no articles). Unsure of appropriate subcat. --
1677:
1202:
by another user on 9 September. Just noting here for closure. —
1059:
985:
Knowledge (XXG) spokesman... undisclosed paid advocacy editing
1403:
Conflict-of-interest editing on Knowledge (XXG)#Bell_Pottinger
1131:
505:. The edits lasted about an hour. Water under the bridge now.
25:
420:
Your own paid Knowledge (XXG) editor, the next status symbol?
1303:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
1183:
to discuss the case as a regular Knowledge (XXG) article. —
1994:
article on paid editing at the reliable sources noticeboard
1778:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1668:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1558:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1448:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1292:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1090:
they could figure out who introduced a particular phrase,
128:
RfC: Terms of Use and paid editing/advocacy, legal or not?
341:
Sure! You may copy any part of my message as you wish. --
1953:(Editorial corrections: 01:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC))
1661:
1551:
1441:
1285:
402:
399:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual_of_Style/Layout#See_also_section
1111:
in the title of one of the sources currently cited at
1138:
even if the hypothetical legal action were to merely
965:... deleted 210 articles related to UK businesses...
1828:
http://www.iabc.com/cwb/archive/2012/0912/Hobson.htm
18:
Talk:Conflict-of-interest editing on Knowledge (XXG)
1870:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1838:
http://www.iabc.com/cwb/archive/2012/0912/Estes.htm
1700:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1590:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1480:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1340:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
471:compared himself to the Italian Renaissance artist
1848:http://www.iabc.com/cwb/archive/2012/0912/King.htm
1098:both parties were within the proper jurisdiction,
501:Well covered at the time - Signpost I think, and
1768:Conflict-of-interest editing on Knowledge (XXG)
1658:Conflict-of-interest editing on Knowledge (XXG)
1548:Conflict-of-interest editing on Knowledge (XXG)
1438:Conflict-of-interest editing on Knowledge (XXG)
1282:Conflict-of-interest editing on Knowledge (XXG)
133:
1856:This message was posted before February 2018.
1686:This message was posted before February 2018.
1576:This message was posted before February 2018.
1466:This message was posted before February 2018.
1326:This message was posted before February 2018.
1181:Draft:Orangemoody Knowledge (XXG) editing ring
1113:Draft:Orangemoody Knowledge (XXG) editing ring
939:
680:Category:Education scandals and controversies
8:
1457:
1967:
1818:http://www.iabc.com/cwb/archive/2012/0912/
1656:I have just modified one external link on
1546:I have just modified one external link on
1436:I have just modified one external link on
1280:I have just modified one external link on
900:"faux contributors... fraud and extortion"
819:
770:
1766:I have just modified 7 external links on
1094:could figure out who the individual was,
922:mainspace-surface, here on the 'pedia.
303:I received a message today that you have
1939:McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York
1218:Is picture of Andrew Leonard appropriate
603:. The story is covered in our article.
527:
170:Terms of Use ban paid edition/advocacy?
1759:External links modified (January 2018)
777:2601:647:CD01:9801:ED31:B192:BE3B:BCBE
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1961:Where is the entry for Philip Cross?
1315:to let others know (documentation at
949:launched... Operation Orangemoody...
945:of them suspected... sock puppets...
895:"'rogue' editors... 'blackmail' scam"
205:Why Wikimedia Foundation dont ban it?
7:
1136:it would hurt wikipedia's reputation
534:{{cite news|author=Robert Booth|url=
157:The following discussion is closed.
1298:http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_3444567
1079:WMF policy: intermediary liability
24:
1770:. Please take a moment to review
1660:. Please take a moment to review
1550:. Please take a moment to review
1440:. Please take a moment to review
1414:non-unique name for that matter.
1284:. Please take a moment to review
266:The discussion above is closed.
961:asked for hundreds of pounds...
745:
459:Old Conflict of Interest dispute
29:
1935:Laws against covert advertising
1296:Corrected formatting/usage for
975:blackmailing or extorting money
185:Why WMF dont sue the companies?
1212:04:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
1167:21:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
1125:01:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
1001:Even their bit about blackmail
202:Why the another companies not?
1:
1998:There is a discussion of the
1951:01:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
1678:http://virgil.gr/wikiscanner/
1397:Biggleswiki statement unclear
1193:16:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
1072:12:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
785:14:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
454:06:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
415:14:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
230:10:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
150:) 02:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
1924:19:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
1265:00:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
1251:19:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
1233:18:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
1157:cause them to go elsewhere.
991:serious conflict of interest
118:22:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
93:16:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
1933:Regarding the page section
1754:02:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
799:13:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
639:Finsbury (public relations)
542:Lanxon, Nate (2009-02-12).
2053:
1887:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1763:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1717:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1653:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1607:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1543:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1497:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1433:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1392:19:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
1357:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1277:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
628:06:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
515:04:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
494:03:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
256:01:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
2038:18:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
1644:12:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
1424:05:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
808:in orangemoody subsection
692:08:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
673:00:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
661:Category:Scandals by type
374:21:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
355:15:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
337:12:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
322:08:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
296:21:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
279:Links to failed proposals
1982:11:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
905:"sockpuppet...extortion"
880:"black hat paid editors"
651:23:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
392:, I added a link to the
269:Please do not modify it.
160:Please do not modify it.
80:This German-based report
1957:Philip Cross - CIA link
1929:state law on covert ads
1649:External links modified
1539:External links modified
1534:07:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
1429:External links modified
1273:External links modified
885:"sting... paid editing"
641:has just been created.
1198:Mooted by creation of
996:
637:Just noting here that
482:
152:
104:
1200:Operation Orangemoody
1026:p.p.s. Other hits:
824:four wordy paragraphs
698:Things we need to add
586:Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto
565:The Babasalichai case
465:
99:
42:of past discussions.
1868:regular verification
1698:regular verification
1588:regular verification
1478:regular verification
1338:regular verification
590:this NYTimes article
1858:After February 2018
1688:After February 2018
1578:After February 2018
1468:After February 2018
1401:Quoth the article (
1328:After February 2018
1307:parameter below to
1255:Removed - thanks!
957:of the articles...
875:"dishonest editing"
138:as out of process.
1912:InternetArchiveBot
1863:InternetArchiveBot
1742:InternetArchiveBot
1693:InternetArchiveBot
1632:InternetArchiveBot
1583:InternetArchiveBot
1522:InternetArchiveBot
1473:InternetArchiveBot
1333:InternetArchiveBot
963:protect or promote
2035:
1984:
1972:comment added by
1888:
1718:
1608:
1498:
1390:
1358:
1134:, but I do think
969:... account that
931:WP:EDITORIALIZING
870:"suspect editing"
854:
853:
804:weasel words and
787:
775:comment added by
571:User:Babasalichai
75:Detailed analysis
72:
71:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
2044:
2033:
2029:
2026:
1922:
1913:
1886:
1885:
1864:
1752:
1743:
1716:
1715:
1694:
1642:
1633:
1606:
1605:
1584:
1532:
1523:
1496:
1495:
1474:
1386:
1385:Talk to my owner
1381:
1356:
1355:
1334:
1322:
820:
812:As mentioned at
753:
749:
748:
656:Scandals by type
617:
557:
554:
552:
551:
532:
361:failed proposals
343:TeleComNasSprVen
310:TeleComNasSprVen
284:TeleComNasSprVen
271:
246:
162:
140:TeleComNasSprVen
68:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
2052:
2051:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2031:
2024:
2004:Ashley Feinberg
1996:
1985:
1959:
1931:
1916:
1911:
1879:
1872:have permission
1862:
1776:this simple FaQ
1761:
1746:
1741:
1709:
1702:have permission
1692:
1666:this simple FaQ
1651:
1636:
1631:
1599:
1592:have permission
1582:
1556:this simple FaQ
1541:
1526:
1521:
1489:
1482:have permission
1472:
1446:this simple FaQ
1431:
1399:
1389:
1384:
1349:
1342:have permission
1332:
1316:
1290:this simple FaQ
1275:
1220:
1177:
971:were identified
859:WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
855:
825:
810:
746:
744:
700:
686:(or Hrothulf) (
658:
635:
611:
582:Shmuley Boteach
567:
562:
561:
560:
549:
547:
541:
533:
529:
480:central office.
461:
422:
386:
281:
276:
267:
252:
244:
158:
153:
136:Speedily closed
130:
77:
64:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2050:
2048:
1995:
1988:Discussion of
1986:
1963:
1958:
1955:
1930:
1927:
1906:
1905:
1898:
1851:
1850:
1842:Added archive
1840:
1832:Added archive
1830:
1822:Added archive
1820:
1812:Added archive
1810:
1802:Added archive
1800:
1792:Added archive
1790:
1782:Added archive
1760:
1757:
1736:
1735:
1728:
1681:
1680:
1672:Added archive
1650:
1647:
1626:
1625:
1618:
1571:
1570:
1562:Added archive
1540:
1537:
1516:
1515:
1508:
1461:
1460:
1452:Added archive
1430:
1427:
1411:
1410:
1398:
1395:
1382:
1376:
1375:
1368:
1301:
1300:
1274:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1219:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1176:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1147:
1132:WMF insulation
914:
913:
908:
903:
898:
893:
888:
883:
878:
873:
868:
852:
851:
827:
826:
823:
818:
809:
802:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
765:
755:
754:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
725:
724:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
705:
704:
703:Sunshine Sachs
699:
696:
695:
694:
678:I moved it to
657:
654:
634:
631:
601:Agriprocessors
575:Ronn Torossian
566:
563:
559:
558:
556:
555:
526:
525:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
460:
457:
438:Michael Milken
421:
418:
385:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
280:
277:
275:
274:
262:
261:
260:
259:
258:
250:
233:
232:
214:
211:
208:
207:
206:
203:
200:
194:
193:
189:
188:
187:
186:
183:
177:
176:
172:
171:
167:
166:
165:
132:
131:
129:
126:
125:
124:
106:
105:
76:
73:
70:
69:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2049:
2040:
2039:
2036:
2034:
2028:
2027:
2019:
2015:
2011:
2010:
2005:
2001:
1993:
1992:
1987:
1983:
1979:
1975:
1971:
1966:
1962:
1956:
1954:
1952:
1948:
1944:
1943:Nick Levinson
1940:
1936:
1928:
1926:
1925:
1920:
1915:
1914:
1903:
1899:
1896:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1883:
1877:
1873:
1869:
1865:
1859:
1854:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1839:
1835:
1831:
1829:
1825:
1821:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1809:
1805:
1801:
1799:
1795:
1791:
1789:
1785:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1777:
1773:
1769:
1764:
1758:
1756:
1755:
1750:
1745:
1744:
1733:
1729:
1726:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1713:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1689:
1684:
1679:
1675:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1667:
1663:
1659:
1654:
1648:
1646:
1645:
1640:
1635:
1634:
1623:
1619:
1616:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1603:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1579:
1574:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1557:
1553:
1549:
1544:
1538:
1536:
1535:
1530:
1525:
1524:
1513:
1509:
1506:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1493:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1469:
1464:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1434:
1428:
1426:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1404:
1396:
1394:
1393:
1387:
1380:
1373:
1369:
1366:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1353:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1329:
1324:
1320:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1299:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1278:
1272:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1174:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1159:75.108.94.227
1156:
1152:
1148:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1080:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1064:75.108.94.227
1061:
1057:
1054:
1052:
1050:
1048:
1046:
1044:
1042:
1040:
1038:
1036:
1034:
1032:
1030:
1028:
1024:
1021:
1019:
1016:, not merely
1015:
1011:
1005:
1002:
995:
994:
992:
988:
984:
980:
976:
972:
968:
964:
960:
956:
952:
948:
947:investigation
944:
938:
936:
932:
928:
923:
920:
912:
909:
907:
904:
902:
899:
897:
894:
892:
889:
887:
884:
882:
879:
877:
874:
872:
869:
867:
864:
863:
862:
860:
850:
846:
842:
838:
835:
829:
828:
822:
821:
817:
815:
807:
803:
801:
800:
797:
786:
782:
778:
774:
769:
766:
764:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
752:
742:
741:
734:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
722:
721:
714:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
702:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
676:
675:
674:
670:
666:
662:
655:
653:
652:
648:
644:
640:
632:
630:
629:
625:
621:
615:
609:
604:
602:
597:
595:
594:this blogpost
591:
587:
583:
578:
576:
572:
564:
545:
540:
539:
537:
531:
528:
524:
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
491:
487:
481:
478:
477:David Cameron
474:
470:
464:
458:
456:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
434:Lowell Milken
431:
427:
419:
417:
416:
412:
408:
404:
400:
395:
391:
390:Pigsonthewing
383:
375:
371:
367:
362:
358:
357:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
339:
338:
334:
330:
326:
325:
324:
323:
319:
315:
311:
306:
301:
300:Hello there,
298:
297:
293:
289:
285:
278:
273:
270:
264:
263:
257:
253:
247:
240:
237:
236:
235:
234:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
212:
209:
204:
201:
198:
197:
196:
195:
191:
190:
184:
181:
180:
179:
178:
174:
173:
169:
168:
164:
161:
155:
154:
151:
149:
145:
141:
137:
127:
122:
121:
120:
119:
115:
111:
103:
97:
96:
95:
94:
90:
86:
81:
74:
67:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2022:
2021:
2007:
1997:
1989:
1974:197.99.5.185
1968:— Preceding
1960:
1938:
1932:
1910:
1907:
1882:source check
1861:
1855:
1852:
1765:
1762:
1740:
1737:
1712:source check
1691:
1685:
1682:
1655:
1652:
1630:
1627:
1602:source check
1581:
1575:
1572:
1545:
1542:
1520:
1517:
1492:source check
1471:
1465:
1462:
1435:
1432:
1416:Mattman00000
1412:
1400:
1377:
1352:source check
1331:
1325:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1302:
1279:
1276:
1221:
1178:
1154:
1150:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1108:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1025:
1022:
1006:
1000:
997:
990:
989:represent a
986:
982:
978:
974:
970:
966:
962:
958:
954:
950:
946:
942:
941:"blocked...
940:
924:
918:
915:
890:"PR network"
856:
847:
843:
839:
833:
830:
811:
794:
771:— Preceding
750:
743:Orangemoody
659:
636:
608:User:Diannaa
605:
598:
579:
568:
548:. Retrieved
530:
522:
483:
469:Gordon Brown
466:
462:
430:Henry Lin Yu
423:
387:
360:
302:
299:
282:
268:
265:
239:Speedy Close
238:
159:
156:
135:
134:
110:Coretheapple
107:
100:
78:
65:
43:
37:
2000:reliability
1319:Sourcecheck
1175:Orangemoody
1014:WP:CIRCULAR
955:elimination
643:Philafrenzy
503:Talk:Titian
403:reverted it
305:reverted me
36:This is an
2025:Newslinger
1919:Report bug
1749:Report bug
1639:Report bug
1529:Report bug
1257:GoingBatty
1243:John Nagle
1225:GoingBatty
1151:by mistake
1144:eventually
935:WP:PUFFERY
550:2012-02-13
523:References
446:John Nagle
442:Jerry Yang
85:CorporateM
1902:this tool
1895:this tool
1732:this tool
1725:this tool
1622:this tool
1615:this tool
1512:this tool
1505:this tool
1458:https:///
1372:this tool
1365:this tool
951:blackmail
933:and some
834:following
723:Medtronic
546:. CNET UK
66:Archive 2
60:Archive 1
2012:article
2009:HuffPost
1991:HuffPost
1970:unsigned
1908:Cheers.—
1738:Cheers.—
1628:Cheers.—
1518:Cheers.—
1378:Cheers.—
1010:WP:NAVEL
967:targeted
959:scammers
806:WP:NAVEL
773:unsigned
665:Slivicon
633:Finsbury
486:Padenton
428:include
351:contribs
318:contribs
245:0x0077BE
148:contribs
1772:my edit
1662:my edit
1552:my edit
1442:my edit
1388::Online
1305:checked
1286:my edit
1204:Brianhe
1185:Brianhe
1117:Brianhe
1018:WP:NPOV
983:unnamed
979:victims
814:WP:COIN
684:Hroðulf
620:Ravpapa
614:Diannaa
507:Johnbod
426:WP:COIN
251:contrib
192:If not,
175:If yes,
39:archive
1313:failed
861:, as
796:Ocaasi
484:End --
473:Titian
440:, and
407:Jytdog
366:Jytdog
329:Jytdog
288:Jytdog
222:JackT7
218:WP:IAR
1140:occur
977:from
16:<
2032:talk
2020:. —
1978:talk
1947:talk
1420:talk
1309:true
1261:talk
1247:talk
1229:talk
1208:talk
1189:talk
1163:talk
1155:will
1130:per
1121:talk
1084:Zero
1068:talk
1060:YMMV
1012:and
981:...
943:many
919:some
781:talk
751:Done
688:Talk
682:. --
669:talk
647:talk
624:talk
592:and
584:and
511:talk
490:talk
450:talk
411:talk
388:Hey
370:talk
347:talk
333:talk
314:talk
292:talk
226:talk
144:talk
114:talk
89:Talk
2006:'s
2002:of
1876:RfC
1846:to
1836:to
1826:to
1816:to
1806:to
1796:to
1786:to
1706:RfC
1676:to
1596:RfC
1566:to
1486:RfC
1456:to
1405:):
1346:RfC
1323:).
1311:or
1104:and
1100:and
1096:and
1092:and
1062:.
987:may
973:as
1980:)
1949:)
1889:.
1884:}}
1880:{{
1719:.
1714:}}
1710:{{
1609:.
1604:}}
1600:{{
1499:.
1494:}}
1490:{{
1422:)
1359:.
1354:}}
1350:{{
1321:}}
1317:{{
1263:)
1249:)
1231:)
1210:)
1191:)
1165:)
1123:)
1109:is
1088:if
1070:)
783:)
690:)
671:)
649:)
626:)
513:)
492:)
452:)
436:,
432:,
413:)
372:)
353:)
349:•
335:)
320:)
316:•
294:)
254:]
248:]/
228:)
220:?
146:•
116:)
91:)
1976:(
1945:(
1921:)
1917:(
1904:.
1897:.
1751:)
1747:(
1734:.
1727:.
1641:)
1637:(
1624:.
1617:.
1531:)
1527:(
1514:.
1507:.
1418:(
1374:.
1367:.
1259:(
1245:(
1227:(
1206:(
1187:(
1161:(
1146:.
1119:(
1066:(
779:(
667:(
645:(
622:(
616::
612:@
610:(
553:.
509:(
488:(
448:(
409:(
368:(
345:(
331:(
312:(
290:(
224:(
142:(
112:(
87:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.