Knowledge (XXG) talk:Mirrors and forks/Archive 2

370:

although the website has some linking problems, the actual product I have created (compiled from the hard work of the people at Knowledge (XXG)), is an honest offering. Hopefully someone here will include Nexuscience in the Knowledge (XXG) Mirrors list, and possibly mention the creation of the CD-ROM in some other way. I had actually expected a positive reaction to Nexuscience from Knowledge (XXG), and at worst constructive critisism. To my knowledge Nexuscience is the first company to offer an encyclopedia based on Knowledge (XXG). I have a CD-ROM I can put in any windows computer, the autorun.ini runs the installation and pops up the GNU-FDL, you are guided through a simple installation process, and then you have a great encyclopedia available offline. My hope is that it was how I introduced myself to your community that has caused any problems, and that people will see that it is not some 'scam' trying to sell a product 'so broken and useless that selling it for $ 29.95 would be criminal'. I think a mirror of the Knowledge (XXG) on CD-ROM is a useful and good thing, and has at least some value. I will wait and see what y'all have to say before I proceed. On a personal note I actually did put almost 2 months of my spare time into creating the CD, and tried different methods, such as using eBook creation software. Any method I tried other than an HTML tree and .rar installation either was too large to fit on CD, was very (very!) slow loading, or else could not handle the 220,000+ files. Regardless of what happens, I still think that the Knowledge (XXG) is a really cool idea."

209:"This is the webmaster and creator of Nexuscience.com. It was created in response to my admiration of the Knowledge (XXG) itself, and was not mirrored, but directly downloaded and then re-formatted from a wikipedia dump found on Knowledge (XXG). I had seen a reference to the idea of somebody offering the Knowledge (XXG) on CD-ROM, and so endeavored to do so. I found that Knowledge (XXG) requested that webspiders not crawl the site, and so downloaded the most recent dump I could find on Knowledge (XXG). I admit that selling the CD may have motivated me to play with the data, but it is the playing with of the data I find intriguing. I hope to cross-reference the articles in new ways with public domain information, possibly the guttenberg project. Any suggestions on compliance with Knowledge (XXG) copyright or the GNU/FDL will be considered heavily and adhering to such rules will be a priority of the project. I'm basically doing this for fun, and would be happy to lower the price of the CD-ROM, pledge a donation of the proceeds to Knowledge (XXG), and accept Knowledge (XXG)'s comments and input on the mirror. I may be a bit more commercial in mindset than the Knowledge (XXG) concept as a whole, however I do wish to create a compliant, up to date resource of the Knowledge (XXG), along with other GNU/FDL and public domain resources. Contact information is available on the webpage, I am not sure if I am supposed to post such information here. Any assistance or suggestions on operating Nexuscience.com to the satisfaction of Knowledge (XXG) is greatly appreciated. 342:"I would like to add that I personally think that the actual Encyclopedia on CD-ROM that I am offering is a good product. It is fully functional, and has appropriate licensing and installation included. Any article can be accessed within 2 clicks of opening the main page. Quick links to various catagories are located at the top of each page. A link to a local copy of the GNU-FDL is included on every page, as is a link to the original Knowledge (XXG) article, and a link to the main Knowledge (XXG) page. Each content page states 'Source - Knowledge (XXG) - Scroll down for more information' at the top, as well as '' at the bottom of each content page. The index states 'All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, copyright Knowledge (XXG) contributors'. As far as I know I am in complete compliance with the GNU-FDL, as well as with Knowledge (XXG)'s requirements. The CD-ROM installation of the Encyclopedia is not in anyway branded by Nexuscience. In fact anyone who downloads it just to verify my claims could begin distributing it themselves. I claim no copyright on the compilation, and the license agreement for the software installation IS the GNU-FDL." 312:"This is the webmaster of Nexuscience. I've removed the sales link from the webpage, pending some sort of approval from you guys. I'm certainly not trying to sell a product that doesn't exist. I am aware that there are some linking problems on the website. I had uploaded the index as .htm instead of .html, and have also realized that the capitalization of some of the article links is causing broken links. I was working on correcting that. The local copy of the encyclopedia has no linking problems so far as I know, and neither does the installation file. I got it down to a 488 MB self extracting rar installation file. I'm uploading it to the server and will post a link to it shortly. I didn't really mean to present myself as 'well-meaning', obviously I wasn't giving it away. (although if somebody had bought it they'd be free to). Anyways I hope someone will download it and let me know if I'm in any sort of violation of the GNU license, or if you think in some other way I'd be causing a problem for Knowledge (XXG). I'll quit playing with editing the pages, obviously I'm not making people here happy." 333:, I did have an intent of promoting a product for sale. I had not read over enough of the information on posting guidelines, and was not aware that this constituted an offense in and of itself. I knew that the spirit of Knowledge (XXG) certainly was not for advertising, but I've seen external links to commercial sites, as well as articles about commercial sites. I am an internet marketer and am used to writing ad copy. I actually DID expect that somebody else would come along and edit the article to say something about the site, as someone did. What I didn't realize is that creating it in the way that I did in the first place was 'Wikispam'. In retrospect I think that an article on Nexuscience without any particular salesmanship would have been more appropriate, if an article about it would have been appropriate at all. I wanted to let the Knowledge (XXG) community know about it, and that seemed to me like the way to go about it. I realize now that it would have been more appropriate to say something about it here, or the village pump, or in the listings for 1338:(or whatever), and the other being the present list of mirrors and forks. Seems that each has its own use. "Partners" would emphasize those sites that meet the higher standards, such as above. The "mirrors and forks" would serve as an exhaustive list, with an assessment of their compliance with GFDL. Both lists must be handled carefully with respect to licenses. "Partners" must not seem to be adding terms to the license, while "mirrors and forks" must not seem to be giving legal advice or approval (something I've just come to realize may be an issue -- when I say that a site has a high degree of compliance, I am only offering my unprofessional opinion, and am not in any way guarenteeing full compliance.) 916:

forks to list them all(including discussion) on one page, but I think an alphabetical system would be much easier to deal with. We spend considerable time deciding(based on unclear criteria) and then moving items from low to medium, or from unknown to high, or whatever, all of which loses history information and makes it harder to find things as they keep moving around. This is a mistake. If we listed things on, say 5 pages that divided the alphabet in fifths(leaving room for further expansion, that way), then pages would not need to be moved(except to alphetize them, and even that wouldn't normally require moving items

31: 2030:

but do comments and sidebars added outside a Knowledge (XXG) article on the same webpage count as additions under the GNU License? In other words, if a Knowledge (XXG) article appears on a web page and Gore Vidal writes an essay about the Knowledge (XXG) article just below it, can the essay be copyrighted?) On the BaghdadMuseum/Iraq Museum International site, where the copyright notice used to be is now the statement:

861:(that is the version of a Knowledge (XXG) page as of September 20th 2004) of which I am a co-author, as can be checked on this page history ; as can also be easily checked, both pages are not identical -indeed on wordiq at least the sentence "Furthermore, several countries do not recognize the French claim to "Adelie Land (...)" has been added (as it has been added on ulterior versions of the Knowledge (XXG)). 329:"I would also like to say a few things about the current relationship between Knowledge (XXG) and Nexuscience. I have to admit that the response I've gotten from the Knowledge (XXG) community is not at all what I expected. I think this is in large part my fault, for having introduced myself by way of what I've now realized is 'Wikispam'. I apologize for this. When creating the article 984:. Then I sort the lines, so they will be more or less in alphabetical order; then I paste [[Knowledge (XXG):Mirrors_and_forks/Abc in front of the ones that start with A, B, or C, and repeat for the other sections. Then I copy the result onto the GFDL compliance section. I hope this makes any sense. If I doesn't, please let me know and I'll try to fix it or explain better. Thanks! 1676:

one of the fastest sites (top 15%) whereas WP is one of the slowest. I put it up so I could browse and I will put a more recent copy up when I've got a bit of time. The French copy was put up in response to a request on the Bistro. All this traffic keeps "read only" visitors away from the en. site which is already barely coping. I am sure many other mirrors are the same--

1587:), as well as hotlinking to all images on Knowledge (XXG) off the upload.wikimedia.org server. Does Wikimedia mind them hotlinking to the images? Shouldn't the server configuration be modified to deny hotlinking images except from Wikimedia servers? And is there any way we could get them to stop replicating User:, User_talk:, Talk: and Knowledge (XXG): pages? 1323:

be based on the full guidelines, rather than the somewhat unclear, and (importantly) lacking criterion of GFDL compliance. We would also have to update the various other documents, changing references to the GFDL violation letter to the "suggested improvements letter", etc. What do you all think of this idea? Is it feasible, is it a good idea?

317:"This is the webmaster of Nexuscience. Please do not download the following file until after 12pm CT on 5/13/04. I am personally downloading it myself at another location to absolutely verify it is fully functional. This installation is meant to be used under Windows 98/XP/NT, and I do not know if it will function on a Linux of Unix machine. 792:

tidy up this section rather then change content, (which should be IMHO less esoteric....) I don't intend to make any more significent changes to these pages at the moment -- If you have any suggestions about my editing can you leave them on my talk page... If you disagree with what i've done in general then leave a comment here.

1473:...but legalities aside. I'm sure you understand that although the Knowledge (XXG) community is grateful to anyone who makes our free content more available, any copies made around the internet should contain proper links giving credit to the original wikipedia.org sources. It is only fair on the people who wrote these articles. 1319:

for filtering out wikipedia content, more publicity, etc. From the mirror makers perspective, anything that makes Knowledge (XXG) able to produce more, better, content for them is a win for them. (I'm simplying slightly here, but it is somewhat intentional. This is how I want our mirrors to think about the situation.)

529:. That some of the mirrors aren't clever enough to weed out the User: namespace (and, indeed, all non-encyclopedia namespaces) is annoying, but the content is nonetheless all licensed under the GFDL, so there's not a lot we can do about it (I have seen some people put notices like "This content is only meaningful on 1262:

everything else. Undetermined would be new sites we don't have enough information on, and disputed(I would seperate them) would be for sites where there is dispute about whether or not they satisfy some condition listed above. (Hopefully the conditions would be clear enough that this would not be too common.)

2029:

A site-wide copyright notice -- which may have been misinterpreted by Wikipedians as a claim on the Knowledge (XXG) article appearing on a particular page -- has now been dropped altogether on all the Knowledge (XXG) pages. (Knowledge (XXG) articles can link to pages protected under US Copyright law,

1898:

Please differentiate "you must give access to" from "you may not stop copying". If they have a copy they are free to copy it. If they don't have a copy, then wikimedia haven't given them a copy and don't have to. Since Wikimedia gives out HTML which is a "transparent" medium, any obligation to the

1322:

A first step in doing this would be do de-emphsize the GFDL Compliance list, and instead, set up a list called "well behaved mirrors" or "Mirror Guidelines Implementation"(I'm just trying to come up with as many names as possible, since I don't much like any of the ones I've heard yet ;-)). It would

1174:

With reference to open-encyclopedia.com's usage, change the point "must have a link to the article at Knowledge (XXG)" to "must have a link to the article at Knowledge (XXG) that is labelled as such" - they have a link, but it's not labelled as a link to Knowledge (XXG). How about add compulsory edit

929:

That sounds very sensible -- maybe sites that are fully in compliance onto a different page as it will make it easier for website maintainers to see they are not following the rules? The current setup works well in the way that its obvious which sites disregard the rules totaly. just my 2p we could

2017:

You may freely contribute to this article using the authoring tools provided at the article's source, Knowledge (XXG).org, sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation. In addition, this article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, which means that you may copy and modify it as long as the

1314:

if as many of the mirrors of wikipedia content as possible followed the guidelines above. I assume this is not a matter of major disagreement. (If so, please speak up!) I realize we cannot use complying with the GFDL as a means of requiring sites to do this. I think this is a good thing, actually,

1261:

should be satisfing all of the above conditions(including the specified texts), and medium should be satisfying 75%(i.e. 6 out of the current 8, or satisfying all our requirements, but only using one of our texts or ) or more of them (counting each bulleted point above as 1 point), and low should be

995:

Ok. It's moved over. The old pages are now just messages telling people to go to the main page for instructions. their information is on the alphebetical pages, and the categorizing is on the page GFDL Compliance. There are a lot of other useful lists we could make, partial copies, forks, hidden

430:

would not be happy if someone (anyone) were to distribute a copy of Knowledge (XXG) that does not reflect the Knowledge (XXG) quality. This is, of course, a risk that the GFDL leaves us open to, but it doesn't mean I'd be happy about it. Rightly or wrongly, I think many people developed this sort of

148:

Deleting that poxy little article should not be a priority. Instead I would like to see some contact between WP and nexuscience guaranteeing WP a proportion of the income (nexu have a moral but not legal duty to do this) generated. We currently have some leverage over them; they are way in breach of

2167:

I was submitting articles on an idealistic basis, and now I find that Knowledge (XXG) is mirrored and baked into commercial sites! I am not sure of how to react to this. But immediatelly it doesn't feel good! Can anyone convince me why I shouldn't consider it scam – so I won't lose my inspiration –

2012:

The site only features articles related to Mesopotamia and Iraq, but these articles, like any sampling of Knowledge (XXG) articles, are within 3 internal links of many off-topic articles. The site's standard copyright notice has now been dropped for these pages, and the explanation at the bottom of

1958:

This would make it easier for users who were so inclined to use Knowledge (XXG) for editing and for up-to-date reading, but mirrors for other reading. Links to the page could be put on relevant pages, like pages mentioning WP's tremendous growth, or Yahoo/Google hosting, or fundraising drives, etc.

1914:

I'm working with a foundation related to the Unification Church of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, to help them create and publish an encyclopedia. We're exploring right now whether (and how) they can do this in a way which is of mutual benefit to both parties (Wikimedia Foundation and the Knowledge (XXG)

1675:

carries no adverts (except a top page to a charity) and makes no income. It delivers half a million pages of Knowledge (XXG) to 13000 independent IPs every day almost all of whom I'll wager (as it says so everywhere) know exactly where the content comes from. Why? Because (on Alexa's numbers) it is

1265:

We should also probably change the name of this list from "GFDL compliance" to something like "well behaved mirror status", since the specified texts, at least, cannot be required by our specific use of the GFDL(i.e. no unchangeable sections). Thoughts? Changes to the conditions? Legal problems?

864:

As required by section Modifications B) of the GFDL licence, you should have "list on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its

713:

original article, deserves to be clarified more prominently. It's not just about Wikiverse; any mirror seeking to enhance its search ranking over ours will be tempted to leave out the individual article links, unless we spell this out more clearly and aggressively. I had to read several sections of

440:

Personally, I don't think there is a need for you to abstain entirely from participating on Knowledge (XXG) until any issues surrounding your website are resolved. In fact, making some solid, non-controversial contributions to Knowledge (XXG) would help to show your good faith. But please do try to

1708:

what I thought was appropriate guidance. Someone else moved most of my addition to the talk page because he wasn't sure I was right. Well, I'm not sure I was right either -- but I'm dubious about his suggestion on the talk page that the requirement of author credit is satisfied merely by stating

1527:

Logicjungle implemented my suggestions quickly. I guess this means we can class them as a 'well-behaved' mirror, athough a mirror without such humungous money-making banner adds would be more well behaved. I agree that we should compile a list of 'well-bahaved' mirrors, to provide an incentive for

1318:

My idea is that we could gently attempt to refocus attention (both among Wikipedians and those who mirror our content) from "complying with the GFDL", to "collectively supporting this useful resource". On our end, this would allow us to encourage mirrors to provide edit links, search engine clues

915:

The mirrors and forks page needs a reorganization. It's quite difficult to use; we spend a lot of time carefully moving items from one place to another, all of which is unnecssary, and it's genearlly confusing. I understand the need to divide up the pages somehow, as we have too many mirrors and

557:

carries wikipedia's articles and credits wikipedia with a gif file, so the text "" shows up, but search engines don't know that the text is from wikipedia. The additional effect is that if you copy and paste just the text of the article, there is no trace of the article being from Knowledge (XXG).

1347:

One important thing to know and remember is that there are truly sites out there that seem completely unaware or unconcerned with GFDL compliance, and some that seem determined to just steal the content and make money off it. There are others who, while making money off the contents, are eager to

791:

ooh, no thats fine (assuming i don't take what you say the wrong way :) ), erm I've lurked for a bit made a few minor edits etc. - I also used to run a wiki so ive got a reasonable idea of what I think I should be doing (could do with some formatting skills for wikipedia) -- I've mostly tried to

2047:

uses many articles copied and pasted from Knowledge (XXG). All it really says is "This is a coordinated effort among Wikipedians to provide more detailed Star Wars content. While Knowledge (XXG) is for more general, encyclopedic knowledge, the Star Wars Wiki is for the Star Wars fan who wants to

1370:

I wasn't going to get involved in emailing people, but someone from logicjungle.com contacted me about the listing I had added here. I didn't find any example response letter which fitted what needed to be said, and so I spent a while composing a polite email recommending improvements. Here's an

360:, albeit with a mention of some broken links. The contents link has been fixed, and I am using an automated fixlinks program to iron out any other broken links. Due to the size of the data and the memory of my computer, I am having to do this in sections, and it may take a week or 2 to complete." 2222:

and the owners of the site don't have any GFDL or anything suggesting it is taken from Knowledge (XXG). They are just passing off that content as their own and to top it all, they keep readding the site link to the External links section in the very article. The content is copied from August 16

1453:

Knowledge (XXG)'s articles are released under GFDL, which means anyone copying content must (among other things) acknowledge the main authors. In the case of wikipedia the concept of authorship is somewhat nebulous. Some claim compliance can be accomplished with a link back to Knowledge (XXG)'s

369:

by promoting the CD-ROM, I will not personally change any other pages outside of discussion, at least not until such point that some other persons here on Knowledge (XXG) show some support for my position. I am hoping that after checking out the Encyclopedia themselves, people will realize that

712:

to get the attention of anyone who's watching that page, and to highlight the need for further action. Personally, I think it's not all that undetermined - their level of compliance looks pretty bad to me - but I'd like more people to weigh in because the main issue, the lack of links to each

1553:

Some of these (such as requiring a link back) are effectively adding conditions to the GFDL. You cannot add conditions to the GFDL however much you may wish to because most of your articles were contributed on the basis of the GFDL as is; so it breaks your own copyright to add restrictions.

946:

to determine things like which sites totally violate the rules, which ones are complient or even are supportive (like the people who donated, or the static mirror people, or other such). I'll get started on doing this now; you're the main person whose opinion I wanted before I did anything.

659:

I don't think people should be claiming to be acting on behalf of Wikimedia when they are not. When there is an official PR department within the Foundation, it's going to cause confusion if everyone sending out GFDL violation letters is claiming to be acting as part of that department.

2153:) is listed as having high compliance, even though it doesn't link back to the page, doesn't link to a copy of the GFDL and doesn't mention any of the authors of the content. Also, it either has a _very_ up to date database dump or it's pulling the content directly from our servers? -- 489:

Er, what is "the webmaster of Nexuscience"'s account name, exactly? I can't find it. I wanted to offer my sympathy for getting off on the wrong foot with Knowledge (XXG) on the User_talk page, but if I don't know what the account name is, I can't... Rholton, could you post it here?

1759:

I'm not sure it's OK; it's not as carefully spelled out as what I wrote. Incidentally, does Knowledge (XXG) have an "official" position as to whether a link back to our article is sufficient, without a separate link to the page history as a way of identifying the principal authors?

1371:

extract. Other's might find this useful to paste into their emails, but I'm not sure how close I am to the 'official' line on this. Is there a place for sample letters? Should this be moved there? changed at all? Anyway I put the extract here, in the hope that it will be useful.

549:

Lately, any Google search returns wikipedia and its mirrors in the top searches, so when one wants to find information on the web to corroborate claims in wikipedia articles, it's necessary to add "-wikipedia" to your search. But this also finds you some interesting websites:

1995:

appears to be a live mirror of Knowledge (XXG): when you click a link, it fetches the latest version of the page from Knowledge (XXG), formats it, and sticks their header and footer on. At the bottom is boilerplate text that says "You may freely contribute to this article,

1315:

as further restrictions (like required texts) could make trouble in some odd cases, so fewer restrictions is better. Actually, exactly what satisfies the GFDL with respect to Knowledge (XXG) content is not crystal clear(witness our discussions here and on the mirror pages)

2237:

I remove the disclaimer about how the whole "Non-compliance process" section is an "ad-hoc formalization" or whatever. It's been here forever, and is just as much valid advice as most other pages in the Knowledge (XXG) namespace. In fact, I'd like to declare this page a

2013:

each page provides GNU Free Documentation License language suggested by Tonio Green who emailed the Baghdad Museum Project on behalf of Knowledge (XXG). The Baghdad Museum Project team cheerfully made the changes Tonio suggested the same day. The explanation now reads:

386:

I'd say that you made a mistake in posting what amounts to an ad on Knowledge (XXG). You've already said that you realize that was a mistake. Again, in my experience that is the sort of mistake that people will not hold against you for very long if you learn from your

355:

about the CD-ROM will not prevent that from happening. A search on google for 'Knowledge (XXG) CD' yields 55 results, many of which are discussion on releasing a version of the content on CD-ROM. I also believe that Nexuscience.com itself deserves to be included under

189:) What's more every single article has a "contents" link which points at a non-existent page. I can't imagine anyone being foolish enough to pay $ 30, with no information whatsoever ("Questions? Email Us" - yeah, right, cos that's how all websites give out information 680:

I'm happy to see it still exists in some form. I'm uncertain why it was moved, but am happy to see it is still active. Maybe someone could give me a brief update as to what has happened with out efforts to root out unautorized use of wikipedia content? Thanks.

258:

are not good signs for a commercial project), etc - and have a tendency (like I do myself sometimes) to have grand ideas that they don't actually know how to implement - then somebody needs to take them under their wing and point them to some useful resources.

2129: 1288:. The letters are much more limited in their requests, and only specify a link to the text of the GFLD, and a direct link back to the source article on Knowledge (XXG). Aside from this, there is no request for any acknowledgment of Knowledge (XXG) itself. Our 2135:

produces 11 responses from google. I don't recongize any of the 10 in the first page(the 11th is our old friend wikimirror.com). Could somebody go through and add these entries? I just finished adding 4 or 5 other ones from other google tests. Thanks.

182:- works, but weird. It also seems to be very inconsistent - they've indexed pages they haven't grabbed and some of the grabs are very out of date; they even have different forms of their own header and footer depending on the age of the grab (compare 97:, and I'm not sure what the procedure is for dealing with these. At a first glance there seems to be some issues with compliance. For instance, there is no list of main authors, or link back to the Knowledge (XXG) article (just to the main page). 1954:

Given the perrenial problems with bandwidth and traffic, I was wondering if anyone thinks it might be a good idea to have a page that presents a short list of several mirrors that are well done and up to date. might be a good one, for example.

1025:

I think it would be good if we formalized some questions that should be asked about any mirror or fork. Here are some ideas; if you like them, please comment, so I'll know if there's support. If you don't, please comment so they can be fixed.

920:

pages) and we wouldn't (unless we wanted to) have these "levels", and we could get down to the serious process of getting all our mirrors listed, supportive, and helping Knowledge (XXG) to grow and prosper(as they should; we help them a lot).

742: 709: 1810:

compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute a large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section 3. You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, and you may publicly display copies.

1088:

1861:(From a legal sense) I'm sure/hope harmful bandwidth hijacking or any other "resource hogging" actions, would be considered acceptable reasons for blockage, since the accessibility of content would be at risk (the many out weigh the few?) 1139:(From a legal sense) I'm sure/hope harmful bandwidth hijacking or any other "resource hogging" actions, would be considered acceptable reasons for blockage, since the accessibility of content would be at risk (the many out weigh the few?) 1928:

They're proposing to copy our 500,000 articles and contribute several thousand of their own (which they've had on ice for several years). They'll also add their own twist to approximately 8% (but I think they over-estimate that number).

1867:

J. Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on. These may be placed

1145:

1301:

I understand the desire to have a list of "well behaved mirror sites", and I sure would like to have more clarity on what exactly does represent "high compliance" with the GFDL. However, perhaps we're talking about two separate issues?

1454:

article. Crediting the authors is the purpose and legal intention of the link you are providing here. As such it is debatable whether the small non-descriptive link you are currently providing is sufficient to legally comply with GFDL.

1348:

comply with GFDL, though they may not know how (heck, I'm not sure I know how). For me, it's important to help those who want it or will accept it, and to crack down on those who flout the GFDL. That is, as I see it, the main point of

263:

for a start (why can I never seem to find that page?), and some relevant introductions to the running of Knowledge (XXG). Then, if this ever gets off the ground, we can come to agreement about co-operation, and donations to the

1650:

It is my site and I can tell you with confidence it does not link directly back, it just cites en.wikipedia as the source and clearly states in the disclaimer that the article came from there. I cannot see any way in which the

2198: 1612:

on it - which seem current. Why does it have Special: pages? Could it be simply retreiving pages from Knowledge (XXG) via HTTP for every request and simply stripping out Knowledge (XXG)'s headers+footers? Or how does it work?

2000:, using the authoring tools provided at the article's source, Knowledge (XXG).org, sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation. This page always displays the most recent revision of the article; all previous versions may be viewed 1253:

We should add Enochlau's suggestion above, by defining specifc texts or link names for the required conditions. Also, we should clarify the search engine condition. (I've taken the liberty of editing your list to do these

131:. I don't see any encyclopedic value, it is just an advertisement on where to buy Knowledge (XXG) on CD. Of course they are free to do so, but they don't need to promote it here. ... ... Seems like it is already listed on 357: 954:

Sigh. After about 3 hours of work, I've got the new form set up. See it on the main page, and if you don't mind, try filling in the other sections of the GFDL Compliance list. Ask me if you have any questions...

889:

First results : a very quick and understanding answer from wordiq, who were quite receptive to my suggestion to establish links towards the Knowledge (XXG) history pages (and promised to do it in the next days).

2068:

Is this a violation? As near as I can tell the bio's of the people (chemists, etc) are copies of the corresponding wikipedia articles from between the June 20, 2004 and July 10th 2004. Compare the following:

740:

Hmm, I'm a little confused about how to use the mirrors & forks page. Is a newly discovered site with questionable compliance supposed to be added under "Preliminary investigations", "First warnings", or

282:

honest to me - then we need to disassociate ourselves from them to the greatest extent possible. Indeed, if we can prove it this way round, we should inform their ISP, PayPal, etc. of abuse of services.

2018:

entire work, including your additions, remains under this license. Iraq Museum International always displays the most recent published revision of the article; all previous versions may be viewed here.

377:

First let me compliment you on keeping your cool and having a rational conversation. In my experience, many sins are forgiven here on Knowledge (XXG) if people are rational, and you've done a good job.

2024:

In addition, the paragraph above includes the article title and a link to the Knowledge (XXG) article itself, the GNU Free Documentation License, and to the history of the article on Knowledge (XXG).

1709:

that material came from "Knowledge (XXG)", without naming authors or linking to page history (and perhaps without even linking to our article). Anyone who wants to chime in will find the discussion

1411:

To give credit to the orginal authors and all the hard work that has gone into producing this text, it would be more appropriate for you to add a link (preferably in full size font) worded like this:

614:

says "Smartpedia (www.smartpedia.com) is a copyleft encyclopedia that is collaboratively developed using wiki software. Smartpedia is managed and operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation." --

586:. Their only acknowledgment of the wikipedia is a link saying just "SOURCE" at the bottom of their pages which mostly leads to appropriate wikipedia pages, but the one on their main page is broken. 1858:

1 Blocking anyone from accessing the content here for the purpose of coping, is against the GFDL, even if they do break license. By doing so, Knowledge (XXG) breaks the license with the editors.

1232:

Include the word "Knowledge (XXG)" in such a way as a Google and Yahoo search including the text "-wikipedia" does not bring up the page and a Google and Yahoo search including "+wikipedia" does.

1136:

1 Blocking anyone from accessing the content here for the purpose of coping, is against the GFDL, even if they do break license. By doing so, Knowledge (XXG) breaks the license with the editors.

842:

Sorry, but I disagree with both mav and Popsracer : at least I _do_ ask for mention of coauthors of the page, and at least I do _not_ think a link to the wikipedia page is enough for compliance.

601:- it looks like both of your examples are OK. But the corroboration problem is still an issue for any article that has been around for a while (and thus is copied by thousands of websites). -- 1939:

I've been a Wikipedian for 3.5 years now, and I'm really excited by this new project, and I don't want to blow it, and I'm really worried about getting off to a bad start. Please advise!!

1875:. You may omit a network location for a work that was published at least four years before the Document itself, or if the original publisher of the version it refers to gives permission. 1153:. You may omit a network location for a work that was published at least four years before the Document itself, or if the original publisher of the version it refers to gives permission. 2103:

I'm at work so I don't have access to the wayback machine (it's blocked) but it sure looks to me like they copied from wikipedia, and not the other way around. Can someone else verify?

962:

It's a much better system; we actually had multiple items for the same website, and there was no easy way to find out. Now that the whole list is alphabetized it is much easier to see.

1051:

Are there other things we would add to this list? Could we put this on the front of the Mirrors and forks page, and also on pages that describe how to use wikipedia content elsewhere?

426:

I know that your site has received some harsh criticism. It's good to hear that you're working to improve things. I don't know about anyone else (though I could guess), but I know that

178:

a link back to the Knowledge (XXG) article - it's just rather unhelpfully disguised as the title of the page. It also uses somewhat bizarre (presumably v. outdated) links of the form

351:

is now offering a functional Encyclopedia on CD-ROM based on Knowledge (XXG) content, belongs somewhere in the Knowledge (XXG) community. I'm hoping that my previous offense of

1836:" Editors release content to WP under GFDL. Making WP bound to the GFDL. After reading that previous statement, I redirect attention to the highlighted text of the GFDL above. 1114:" Editors release content to WP under GFDL. Making WP bound to the GFDL. After reading that previous statement, I redirect attention to the highlighted text of the GFDL above. 677: 1981:

632:

And re Smartpedia: You'd think that, if they're going to claim that they're a freely editable wiki, then they should make sure they're actually a freely editable wiki...

461:

Oops! My mistake, you do have an account. Please try to remember to log in and sign your non-article postings (i.e. on talk pages, etc.). You can do this easily by using

1848:

Accept does not mean require (This may favor WP when confronting other non-conforming sites) Although another section allows for compensation for providing the content.

1126:

Accept does not mean require (This may favor WP when confronting other non-conforming sites) Although another section allows for compensation for providing the content.

509:

IT seems that all the mirrors seem to be taking my user page...In it's form from june of 2003! There should be a thing that makes them update it at least once a month!

1222:

by including the text "Content from Knowledge (XXG) is available under the <a href="http://wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License": -->

1932:

What I need help working out is the details of the relationship. I browsed the ABC and DEF sections, looking for a "model of compliance", but it seems everyone just

1310:

Thanks, it is important to remember that the GFDL does not allow additional requirements. Let me try to explain what I'm trying to do here. I think it would be a

396:

You have also made a second mistake, one which could be held against you for much longer if you are not careful. That is, you removed the VFD listing both from the

1792:, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you 1655:

requires a link back. There are clean links back to wikipedia (i.e. without nofollow) elsewhere in fixedreference.org but I do not believe that there need to be.--

1070:, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you 650:

Also, when contacting a website, it may be preferred to temporarily change your email name to one naming Wikimedia as the body you are writing on behalf of, e.g.

76: 71: 59: 1915:

community on one hand, and the IIFWP/IIFRP on the other). They've used words like "U-Knowledge (XXG)" or "SourceBook" to describe their project internally.

808: 1285: 1697: 1295: 771:

You've been here a week and you're making significant changes to an esoteric section of Knowledge (XXG)? Are you a returning user or long-time anon? -

417:

Even with this, most people will write it off to lack of understanding of our processes if the behavior is not repeated and the "offender" is rational.

1737: 980:

on the ToC, and copy the resulting text into an Emacs buffer. I then rearange the text until it's in the form of #link anchor|link name]], using

721:

several times before I was convinced I understood this point... which makes arguments like the one we had with the Wikiverse guy pretty tedious.

2048:

learn/provide more about the Star Wars Universe." This doesn't exactly say that a ton of the information as being from Knowledge (XXG). Compare

2223:

version so newer changes might not be reflected but it is a shameless copy by the webmaster who has the nerve to spam the very copy here!!!

1671:

Incidentally, proud though I am of what we have done at wikipedia I think we need to get a little perspective on who is doing who a favour.

665: 1936:

Knowledge (XXG) without the slightest thought of giving credit or providing proper links, or even the courtesy of a letter or phone call.

221:

to say that that's evidence of someone a lot nicer and more well-meaning than I first gave credit for, but then I spotted something odd -

2282:

The contents of this article are licensed from Knowledge (XXG).org under the GNU Free Documentation License. How to see transparent copy

1705: 233: 1184:

What i think i will do is define better what is meant by high, medium and low compliance which might make this easier to answer.... --

938:

I agree with your comments. I realized what the proper answer is. We should have one page(or set of pages) in alphabetical order for

47: 17: 2113:

Looks like it's an unauthorized mirror. Wayback machine doesn't show this stuff before 2005 (stops at 2005). I'll move to reports.

900:

A link to the article history page has been placed after the sentence crediting Knowledge (XXG) and the licencing info. and it works.

852: 2186:

Doesn't it use much less in resources to remote load Knowledge (XXG) than to download the entire database every time it comes out?

2215: 1829:

If content is used commercially (for profit) or not, is irrelevant in ALL cases, and shouldn't even be taken into consideration.

1107:

If content is used commercially (for profit) or not, is irrelevant in ALL cases, and shouldn't even be taken into consideration.

811:

of this talk page, and my opinion seems rather divergent of the consensual one. I think it is not irrelevant to point it there.

1013:(mirror of the English Wiktionary) doesn't follow the GFDL. I sent them a mail. To be check to see if they come back on track. 442: 401: 226: 132: 859:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special_member_state_territories_and_their_relations_with_the_EU&oldid=6040128

297:. But I shouldn't even be doing this (procrastination is a powerful force!), so perhaps someone should take it from here via 1349: 1245:

We also need to define medium and low... maybe medium -- includes some of the above -- low -- includes none of the above? --

734: 334: 260: 94: 756:

I agree and am going to move all the bottom of this page to the relevent sections (mostly to undetermined/disputed) (done)

2140: 1430:

This text was callaboratively authored and edited on <A HREF="Knowledge (XXG).org" TITLE="Knowledge (XXG). The 💕": -->

718: 521:

licence, where anyone can copy it, but must come back and recopy it otherwise it will expire - that would be more like

835:

One easy way of meeting the listing the authors requirement is by linking to Knowledge (XXG) copy of the article. --

745:? Several users have expressed confusion about where to list things and how to know if anyone else is "on the case". 2032:"The Iraq Museum International Open Encyclopedia is offered to the public under the GNU Free Documentation License" 1284:

Whatever we decide to do here, let's keep in mind what other sources on Knowledge (XXG) have to say. For instance,

930:

make sub pages for those sites that have the most discussion? maybe a more clever techinical solution is needed? --

38: 533:"). If you don't want stuff being copyable under those terms, it shouldn't be on this wiki in the first place. - 972:

To move the remaining sections over from the old to the new system there are some tricks that I've used. I am a

2290:

The contents of this article are licensed from <a href="javascript:jumpUrl('gro.aidepikiw.www//:ptth');": -->

2201:. It immediately redirects to another page, so the url is a Google cache using the page's title as a search. -- 1704:

said that Knowledge (XXG) articles could be imported but didn't mention the requirements of GFDL compliance. I

1615: 1589: 1529: 1335: 272: 1918:

I want the process to be transparent and fair. I trust mav to guide me (remember "you have my proxy, mav"?).

1392:...For example on your copy of the 'Economics' article, you have a small non descriptive link at the bottom. 976:

user, so they involve Emacs, but they should be portable to other systems. First, I use a bookmarklet from

2189:

Also, what about proxy servers, is it prohibited to run a proxy server which serves Knowledge (XXG) pages?

1741: 1289: 714: 627:, which doesn't seem to mention Knowledge (XXG) or the GFDL at all. It doesn't seem to be compliant at all. 598: 431:

negative view of your site. You have apparently done a good job of treating this as constructive criticism.

1710: 821:

Mentions Knowledge (XXG) as well as at least five of the Knowledge (XXG) users who created the page. (...)

2239: 2053: 1963: 1045:

must include the word "Knowledge (XXG)" in such a way as a search engine can read it as part of the page.

567: 236:

also shows up that they had some fun experimenting with the article while removing the VfD message, too.

1636: 1633: 278:; and displaying an active PayPal link charging $ 30 for a product that doesn't exist yet doesn't seem 128: 2319: 2268: 2250: 2227: 2205: 2176: 2157: 1683: 1662: 1644: 1561: 633: 484: 473: 305: 201: 165: 139: 116: 265: 2098: 2090: 2077: 1781:

Quoted, without loss of context or alteration (besides emphasis), from GNU Free Documention License:

1059:

Quoted, without loss of context or alteration (besides emphasis), from GNU Free Documention License:

676:

I've been gone from wikipedia from quite a while. Since I created the original version of this page

2247: 891: 883: 876: 2219: 2056:. Is this a violation or what? I'm kind of confused on the whole Knowledge (XXG) copyright deal. 2049: 853:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Special_member_state_territories_and_their_relations_with_the_EU

397: 348: 330: 271:

If, on the other hand, they are in fact attempting to run some kind of scam - as pointed out on

222: 136: 124: 105: 1191:

We need to be clear on what is high compliance in a kind of checklist, and maybe some examples?

977: 250:

If this person is as well-meaning as they say they are, and are just lacking in experience with

1853:(Not that I agree with the next two "Loopholes" but I'm trying to be fair or, if you will NPOV) 1528:

them to behave better (better than what is legally required). The list should be duplicated on

1131:(Not that I agree with the next two "Loopholes" but I'm trying to be fair or, if you will NPOV) 566:

is much more interesting. It carries all the content without mentioning wikipedia once. If you

298: 2086: 1943: 1581: 777: 1879:

2 Here's a catch 22 for you. It does not require notice of any type on the actual page, but

1157:

2 Here's a catch 22 for you. It does not require notice of any type on the actual page, but

2132: 2073: 244: 2310: 1744:

seems to be the discussion referred to above. Hmmm Think I'll stay out of that one :-) --

229:. Turns out, it was the same user who created the article, and who inserted the above note 2094: 1834:

All contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are released under the GNU Free Documentation License

1761: 1722: 1714: 1680: 1659: 1584: 1558: 1112:

All contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are released under the GNU Free Documentation License

901: 875:

Of course, I shall keep wikipedia community informed of their answer when I receive it. --

826: 701: 602: 162: 1962:

Apologies if this has been previously discussed; I couldn't find the idea anywhere else.

1819:) am not in the legal profession (although I read ordinances/statues/laws for a pastime)) 1733: 1281:

First, I am not a lawyer. My comments here are those of a (semi-knowledgeable) amateur.

1097:) am not in the legal profession (although I read ordinances/statues/laws for a pastime)) 2243: 2057: 1900: 836: 743:

Knowledge (XXG):Copies of Knowledge (XXG) content (undetermined or disputed compliance)

710:

Knowledge (XXG):Copies of Knowledge (XXG) content (undetermined or disputed compliance)

1204:

by including the text "Article content based on <a href="http://wikipedia.org": -->

2242:, if no one objects. It would help provide some focus to the whole effort, I think. 2114: 2104: 2005: 1602: 1492:

Once again thanks for emailing me about this and demonstrating your desire to comply.

1246: 1185: 1176: 931: 796: 760: 347:"It is for these reasons that I do believe that a mention of the fact that a company 290: 2301: 2004:." At the very bottom is a copyright statement "©2005 Iraq Museum International" -- 2316: 2300:

I particularly like backward "gro.aidepikiw.www". Examples include arthistoryclub

2224: 2173: 2001: 1940: 1701: 1356: 1303: 782: 772: 682: 615: 611: 571: 570:

for wikipedia, all you get are 3 error messages containing wikipedia's url. If you

526: 510: 481: 470: 113: 1785:"VERBATIM COPYING You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either 1610: 1063:"VERBATIM COPYING You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either 575: 2313: 825:

Get rid of "Total compliance"; We don't ask for that and nobody does it. (...) --

708:

I think maybe not enough people noticed the Wikiverse debate. I've moved it onto

183: 2202: 2137: 1997: 1745: 1533: 1324: 1267: 1052: 997: 988: 963: 956: 948: 922: 661: 491: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2304: 590:

These are more or less link farms really. I wonder what our policy is on this?

149:

the GFDL - no link to original article, no history of authors, the usual stuff.

2265: 2154: 1922: 1888: 1816: 1677: 1656: 1555: 1311: 1274: 1238: 1166: 1094: 698: 591: 534: 318: 302: 198: 159: 1832:

When a user (a person) edits any page, just beneath the edit box, it states "

1110:

When a user (a person) edits any page, just beneath the edit box, it states "

358:

Knowledge (XXG):Copies of Knowledge (XXG) content (high degree of compliance)

1580:

intelipedia.com is replicating all pages on Knowledge (XXG) (including even

1014: 522: 441:

become familiar with our standards and procedures. A good place to start is

2044: 1777:

Are we just using parts of GFDL that benefit WP and over looking the rest?

1599:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge (XXG):Mirrors_and_forks/Ghi

135:, yet only the deletion warning boilerplate wasn't added into the article. 987:

Also, regarding adding messages to the old pages, I'll do that right now.

185: 1982: 749: 746: 725: 722: 366: 352: 2307: 865:

principal authors, if it has fewer than five)". This has not been done.

187: 1978: 1921:

I'm not sure whether it will be a mirror, a fork, or a transcluded neo-

1641: 693:

Has anyone done any followup with Wikiverse to get them to comply with

276: 1273:"Additional Conditions" - are clearly not allowed by GFDL (See above) 1237:"Additional Conditions" - are clearly not allowed by GFDL (See above) 1033:

must state that the Knowledge (XXG) content comes from Knowledge (XXG)

1634:

http://july.fixedreference.org/en/20040724/wikipedia/Hubie_and_Bertie

1197:

Each page with Knowledge (XXG) content must undertake the following;

2150:

I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned this before, but wikimirror.com (

1992: 1640:

Please see if you can find a link back to en.wikipedia. I did not.

882:

Added a few hours later : I sent a similar query to omniknow.com --

981: 973: 1801:

may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading

1079:

may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading

179: 2172:

with advertisements, or links to sites with commercial content.

1824:

I think many have failed to read (or maybe understand) the GFDL.

1652: 1102:

I think many have failed to read (or maybe understand) the GFDL.

694: 289:

To be honest, I'm not sure which route we should follow, and as

251: 2169: 1974: 1883:(which in the case of wiki's ... you see where this is going??) 1161:(which in the case of wiki's ... you see where this is going??) 193:), for a CD copy of a hideously broken website; but then, this 1010: 858: 255: 237: 230: 25: 1432:. See the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/Economics": --> 1039:

must state that the Knowledge (XXG) content is under the GFDL

210: 90: 2151: 2034:

with yet another link to the GNU Free Documentation License.

1672: 868:

I am sure you will correct this flaw in a reasonable delay.

563: 158:

P.S. If anyone wants WP on CD, I think I can undercut $ 30!

2295:. How to view <a href="/copyright.html#transparent": --> 2261: 814:

I shall begin by quoting the debate on the Archive1 page :

275:, the site's parent company sells "envelope stuffing kits" 678:

Knowledge (XXG):Sites that use Knowledge (XXG) as a source

2124:

A nice collection of 10 mirrors I don't think we have yet

1219:

State Knowledge (XXG) content is licenced under the GFDL

554: 2043:

This is more of a question, but I noticed this new Wiki

1738:

Contributing#Can_I_add_Wikipedia_articles_to_SourceWatch

1334:

Perhaps we actually need two separate lists. One called

845:

I have today sent the following http form to wordiq.com

624: 325:

Any comments on quality or compliance are appreciated."

2278:

There is a group of mirrors with a distinctive ending:

2080: 1806:

of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may

1598: 1084:

of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may

1194:

I think to be 100% we need to say (edited from above)

1794:

add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this

1214:

by a link called "Editable copy at Knowledge (XXG)"

1072:

add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this

942:and gathering information about mirrors, and other 100:The existance of this site came to my attention on 1532:, as a useful resource when wikipedia is down. -- 1036:must have a link to the article at Knowledge (XXG) 1206:" (change the link for other language wikipedias) 1433:original editable 'Economics' article</A: --> 1298:. We must not add any additional requirements. 857:This page is clearly a modification of the page 2260:Found a useful utility for finding plagiarism: 2218:is an exact copy of Knowledge (XXG) article on 1899:end user appears to end with their download. 1201:Acknowledge content comes from Knowledge (XXG) 807:I have noticed this point was discussed on the 455:Finally, I'd suggest creating a user account... 254:, website design (broken links and not even an 247:and all that; so there are two positions here: 1721:You are correct, the other editor is wrong. -- 1286:Knowledge (XXG):Standard GFDL violation letter 530: 1609:It seems to even have Special: pages such as 8: 365:"Due to the fact that I have been guilty of 299:the contact e-mail address given on the site 180:http://www.wikipedia.org/?title=article_name 104:when an article about the site was created: 558:Weird and cheeky, but probably acceptable. 2294:GNU Free Documentation License</a: --> 1223:GNU Free Documentation License</a: --> 517:Why? The content is not provided under a 1950:Saving Wikimedia's bandwith via mirrors? 1732:Seems Disinfopedia have changed name to 1511:Harry Wood - wikipedia.org user (Nojer2) 1030:Each page with Knowledge (XXG) content: 767:I hope you don't mind me for asking but 89:There is a mirror of Knowledge (XXG) at 1839:Remember that when attempring to place 1736:. So the relavent page/section is now [ 1117:Remember that when attempring to place 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Mirrors and forks 2293:<a href="/copyright.html#gnu": --> 1949: 1925:smorgasbord, but it sounds exciting! 1042:must have a link the text of the GFDL 7: 1628:Upon a google search with the terms 2211:The nerve of this site to spam here 1692:SourceWatch (formerly Disinfopedia) 234:Special:Contributions/68.203.192.35 2163:== http://www.nationmaster.com/ == 1597:Filled in there feedback form see 803:GFDL compliance and author listing 574:into their url, you get a copy of 443:Knowledge (XXG):Welcome, newcomers 402:Knowledge (XXG):Votes for Deletion 227:Knowledge (XXG):Votes for Deletion 24: 2123: 1350:Knowledge (XXG):Mirrors and forks 871:Sincerely yours, Pierre Lavaurs" 335:Knowledge (XXG):Mirrors and forks 261:Knowledge (XXG):Database download 95:Knowledge (XXG):Mirrors and forks 2083:version seems to be the closest) 1211:Link to Knowledge (XXG) article 996:by googling "-wikipedia", etc. 719:Knowledge (XXG):Verbatim copying 29: 1740:. Looks OK now doesn't it? and 465:for username and date/time, or 301:and try and clear this up... - 2291:Knowledge (XXG).org</a: --> 2177:19:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC) 1431:Knowledge (XXG).org</A: --> 911:Reorganizing Mirrors and Forks 1: 2269:09:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC) 1645:15:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC) 851:I stumbled today on the page 197:the Internet, I suppose... - 2320:02:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 2315:, and there are many more -- 2251:23:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC) 2228:12:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 2206:23:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 2170:http://www.nationmaster.com/ 1684:08:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC) 1663:13:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC) 1562:13:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC) 1229:Link to the text of the GFDL 668:) 14:07, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC) 295:"we" is an ambiguous concept 2296:transparent copy</a: --> 2158:00:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC) 2141:07:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC) 1175:button?? Otherwise I agree 1011:http://open-dictionary.com/ 2335: 2168:please? A mirror example: 1946:21:48, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC) 1205:Knowledge (XXG)</a: --> 839:11:02, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC) " 715:Knowledge (XXG):Copyrights 704:21:44, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC) 599:Knowledge (XXG):Copyrights 2193:Mirror of AfD discussions 2107:15:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) 2060:22:16, May 9, 2005 (UTC) 2008:19:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1993:Iraq Museum International 1988:Iraq Museum International 1891:23:44, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC) 1717:01:39, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1673:http://FixedReference.org 1277:23:40, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC) 1241:23:40, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC) 1188:11:04, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1169:23:40, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC) 1055:17:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1017:21:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) 991:09:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) 951:16:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) 934:12:57, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) 925:10:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) 894:17:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) 829:19:05, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC) 763:19:28, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) 685:21:44, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC) 578:, with every instance of 513:14:55, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC) 2131:the intro sentance from 2117:23:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) 1966:02:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1764:20:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1748:14:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1725:00:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1618:00:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1605:14:04, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1536:14:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1359:22:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC). 1336:Knowledge (XXG) Partners 1306:01:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1249:13:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1179:10:27, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1000:15:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) 966:18:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) 959:18:53, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) 904:20:13, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) 886:16:07, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) 879:12:18, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) 799:14:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) 787:21:37, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) 752:23:56, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC) 594:23:33, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC) 572:enter wikipedia manually 537:15:35, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC) 494:04:21, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) 485:13:21, 17 May 2004 (UTC) 474:13:43, 17 May 2004 (UTC) 306:21:40, 11 May 2004 (UTC) 273:Template:VfD-Nexuscience 268:out of the profits, etc. 1903:22:05, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC) 1592:10:53, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1327:04:16, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1270:22:34, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) 848:"Dear sir, dear madam, 728:23:35, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC) 636:23:17, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC) 618:18:43, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC) 605:05:04, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) 531:http://en.wikipedia.org 225:had been unlisted from 202:13:11, 9 May 2004 (UTC) 166:11:06, 9 May 2004 (UTC) 140:10:38, 9 May 2004 (UTC) 117:01:07, 9 May 2004 (UTC) 93:. It doesn't appear on 2292:under the <br/: --> 1881:in the history section 1698:guide for contributors 1530:this berlios wiki page 1159:in the history section 319:Encyclopedia on CD-ROM 1843:on coping WP content. 1841:additional conditions 1773:Selective enforcement 1632:, The top result was 1121:on coping WP content. 1119:additional conditions 978:Knowledge (XXG):Tools 671: 625:http://www.chat11.com 127:a classic example of 42:of past discussions. 2286:The HTML code says: 2197:I found a mirror of 612:smartpedia/Wikipedia 545:Non-credited mirrors 469:for just username. 266:Wikimedia Foundation 2274:Families of mirrors 1616:Somebody in the WWW 1590:Somebody in the WWW 1005:open-dictionary.com 817:"Total compliance: 645:I've removed this: 211:www.nexuscience.com 91:www.nexuscience.com 2220:Pakistan Air Force 2054:The Phantom Menace 2050:The Phantom Menace 1910:Unification Church 1804:or further copying 1624:fixedreference.org 1082:or further copying 1021:Standard questions 293:once said on IRC, 123:Isn't the article 2309:, gardeningdaily 2233:Ad-hoc Disclaimer 1873:"History" section 1820: 1619: 1593: 1151:"History" section 1098: 735:Mirrors and forks 623:And then there's 568:search their site 82: 81: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2326: 2312:, singaporemoms 2133:Process theology 2074:Dmitri Mendeleev 2064:mrscienceguy.com 1975:Physicsdaily.com 1815:(disclaimer: I ( 1814: 1630:labido wikipedia 1614: 1588: 1093:(disclaimer: I ( 1092: 785: 780: 775: 769:who is Davelane? 733:organization of 464: 192: 174:Actually, there 102:new pages patrol 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2334: 2333: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2276: 2258: 2235: 2213: 2199:AfD discussions 2195: 2184: 2165: 2148: 2126: 2095:Amedeo_Avogadro 2066: 2041: 1990: 1972: 1952: 1912: 1876: 1812: 1790:noncommercially 1787:commercially or 1775: 1694: 1626: 1578: 1576:intelipedia.com 1154: 1090: 1068:noncommercially 1065:commercially or 1023: 1007: 913: 805: 783: 778: 773: 738: 691: 674: 643: 641:On behalf of... 576:Knowledge (XXG) 547: 507: 462: 245:AssumeGoodFaith 190: 87: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2332: 2330: 2298: 2297: 2284: 2283: 2275: 2272: 2257: 2254: 2234: 2231: 2212: 2209: 2194: 2191: 2183: 2182:Remote loading 2180: 2164: 2161: 2147: 2146:Wikimirror.com 2144: 2125: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2101: 2100: 2092: 2087:François Jacob 2084: 2065: 2062: 2045:Star Wars wiki 2040: 2039:Star Wars wiki 2037: 2036: 2035: 2026: 2025: 2021: 2020: 2014: 1989: 1986: 1971: 1968: 1951: 1948: 1911: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1893: 1892: 1885: 1884: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1855: 1854: 1850: 1849: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1830: 1826: 1825: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1774: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1727: 1726: 1693: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1666: 1665: 1631: 1625: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1596: 1577: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1389: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1353: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1329: 1328: 1320: 1316: 1279: 1278: 1271: 1263: 1255: 1243: 1242: 1234: 1233: 1230: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1183: 1181: 1180: 1171: 1170: 1163: 1162: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1133: 1132: 1128: 1127: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1108: 1104: 1103: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1043: 1040: 1037: 1034: 1022: 1019: 1006: 1003: 1002: 1001: 970: 969: 968: 967: 960: 928: 912: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 892:French Tourist 884:French Tourist 877:French Tourist 874: 823: 822: 804: 801: 789: 788: 755: 737: 731: 730: 729: 690: 687: 673: 670: 657: 656: 642: 639: 638: 637: 629: 628: 620: 619: 607: 606: 588: 587: 564:smartpedia.com 560: 559: 546: 543: 541: 539: 538: 506: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 496: 495: 478: 477: 476: 468: 449: 448: 447: 446: 435: 434: 433: 432: 421: 420: 419: 418: 412: 411: 410: 409: 400:page and from 391: 390: 389: 388: 381: 380: 379: 378: 372: 371: 362: 361: 344: 343: 339: 338: 323: 322: 314: 313: 309: 308: 286: 285: 284: 283: 269: 240: 239: 207: 206: 171: 170: 169: 168: 153: 152: 151: 150: 143: 142: 120: 119: 86: 83: 80: 79: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2331: 2322: 2321: 2318: 2314: 2311: 2308: 2305: 2302: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2273: 2271: 2270: 2267: 2263: 2255: 2253: 2252: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2232: 2230: 2229: 2226: 2221: 2217: 2210: 2208: 2207: 2204: 2200: 2192: 2190: 2187: 2181: 2179: 2178: 2175: 2171: 2162: 2160: 2159: 2156: 2152: 2145: 2143: 2142: 2139: 2134: 2130: 2116: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2106: 2099: 2096: 2093: 2091: 2088: 2085: 2082: 2078: 2075: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2063: 2061: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2046: 2038: 2033: 2028: 2027: 2023: 2022: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1994: 1987: 1985: 1984: 1980: 1977:seems to use 1976: 1969: 1967: 1965: 1960: 1956: 1947: 1945: 1942: 1937: 1935: 1930: 1926: 1924: 1923:Ted Nelsonian 1919: 1916: 1909: 1902: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1890: 1887: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1877: 1874: 1871: 1860: 1859: 1857: 1856: 1852: 1851: 1847: 1842: 1838: 1837: 1835: 1831: 1828: 1827: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1818: 1809: 1805: 1802: 1798: 1795: 1791: 1788: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1772: 1763: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1716: 1712: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1691: 1685: 1682: 1679: 1674: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1664: 1661: 1658: 1654: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1643: 1638: 1637: 1635: 1629: 1623: 1617: 1611: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1604: 1600: 1594: 1591: 1586: 1582: 1575: 1563: 1560: 1557: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1535: 1531: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1512: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1493: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1474: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1455: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1435: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1412: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1393: 1390: 1388: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1358: 1354: 1351: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1337: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1326: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1305: 1299: 1297: 1294: 1291: 1287: 1282: 1276: 1272: 1269: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1248: 1240: 1236: 1235: 1231: 1228: 1221: 1220: 1218: 1213: 1212: 1210: 1203: 1202: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1195: 1192: 1189: 1187: 1178: 1173: 1172: 1168: 1165: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1155: 1152: 1149: 1138: 1137: 1135: 1134: 1130: 1129: 1125: 1120: 1116: 1115: 1113: 1109: 1106: 1105: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1096: 1087: 1083: 1080: 1076: 1073: 1069: 1066: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1054: 1044: 1041: 1038: 1035: 1032: 1031: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1020: 1018: 1016: 1012: 1004: 999: 994: 993: 992: 990: 985: 983: 979: 975: 965: 961: 958: 953: 952: 950: 945: 941: 937: 936: 935: 933: 926: 924: 919: 910: 903: 899: 898: 897: 896: 895: 893: 887: 885: 880: 878: 872: 869: 866: 862: 860: 855: 854: 849: 846: 843: 840: 838: 833: 830: 828: 820: 819: 818: 815: 812: 810: 809:Archive1 page 802: 800: 798: 793: 786: 781: 776: 770: 766: 765: 764: 762: 757: 753: 751: 747: 744: 736: 732: 727: 723: 720: 716: 711: 707: 706: 705: 703: 700: 696: 688: 686: 684: 683:{ MB | マイカル } 679: 669: 667: 663: 655: 651: 648: 647: 646: 640: 635: 631: 630: 626: 622: 621: 617: 613: 609: 608: 604: 600: 597: 596: 595: 593: 585: 581: 577: 573: 569: 565: 562: 561: 556: 553: 552: 551: 544: 542: 536: 532: 528: 524: 520: 516: 515: 514: 512: 504: 493: 488: 487: 486: 483: 479: 475: 472: 466: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 453: 452: 451: 450: 444: 439: 438: 437: 436: 429: 425: 424: 423: 422: 416: 415: 414: 413: 407: 403: 399: 395: 394: 393: 392: 385: 384: 383: 382: 376: 375: 374: 373: 368: 364: 363: 359: 354: 350: 346: 345: 341: 340: 336: 332: 328: 327: 326: 320: 316: 315: 311: 310: 307: 304: 300: 296: 292: 288: 287: 281: 277: 274: 270: 267: 262: 257: 253: 249: 248: 246: 243:Now, I know, 242: 241: 238: 235: 231: 228: 224: 220: 216: 215: 214: 212: 205: 203: 200: 196: 188: 186: 184: 181: 177: 173: 172: 167: 164: 161: 157: 156: 155: 154: 147: 146: 145: 144: 141: 138: 134: 130: 126: 122: 121: 118: 115: 111: 110: 109: 107: 103: 98: 96: 92: 84: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2306:, carluvers 2299: 2285: 2277: 2259: 2236: 2214: 2196: 2188: 2185: 2166: 2149: 2127: 2102: 2067: 2042: 2031: 2016: 1991: 1973: 1970:Physicsdaily 1961: 1957: 1953: 1938: 1933: 1931: 1927: 1920: 1917: 1913: 1880: 1872: 1869: 1840: 1833: 1813: 1807: 1803: 1800: 1796: 1793: 1789: 1786: 1776: 1702:Disinfopedia 1695: 1639: 1627: 1595: 1585:my user page 1579: 1510: 1491: 1472: 1452: 1429: 1410: 1391: 1386: 1300: 1292: 1283: 1280: 1258: 1244: 1196: 1193: 1190: 1182: 1158: 1150: 1147: 1118: 1111: 1091: 1085: 1081: 1078: 1074: 1071: 1067: 1064: 1050: 1024: 1008: 986: 971: 943: 939: 927: 917: 914: 888: 881: 873: 870: 867: 863: 856: 850: 847: 844: 841: 834: 831: 824: 816: 813: 806: 794: 790: 768: 758: 754: 739: 692: 675: 658: 653: 649: 644: 634:Lucky Wizard 610:I like it. 589: 583: 579: 548: 540: 527:free content 518: 508: 454: 427: 408:around here. 405: 404:. That is a 324: 294: 279: 218: 217:Well, I was 208: 204: 194: 175: 101: 99: 88: 65: 43: 37: 2303:, bigpedia 1998:Mesopotamia 1941:-- Uncle Ed 1734:SourceWatch 582:changed to 555:breakpt.org 398:Nexuscience 349:nexuscience 331:nexuscience 223:Nexuscience 125:Nexuscience 106:Nexuscience 85:Nexuscience 36:This is an 1762:JamesMLane 1715:JamesMLane 1312:Good Thing 940:discussing 902:Apwoolrich 666:disclaimer 584:smartpedia 160:Pete/Pcb21 2262:Copyscape 2256:Copyscape 2244:Superm401 2240:guideline 2216:This site 2058:K1Bond007 1901:Mozzerati 1009:The site 837:Popsracer 795:Cheers -- 689:Wikiverse 672:I'm back! 580:wikipedia 523:shareware 519:temporary 406:major bad 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 2115:Wikibofh 2105:Wikibofh 2006:Carnildo 1797:License. 1603:Davelane 1257:I think 1254:things.) 1247:Davelane 1186:Davelane 1177:Enochlau 1075:License. 932:Davelane 797:Davelane 761:Davelane 387:mistake. 367:wikispam 353:wikispam 291:Jamesday 280:entirely 129:WikiSpam 2317:Henrygb 2225:Idleguy 2174:Profero 1979:physics 1357:Rholton 1304:Rholton 1290:license 918:between 616:Henrygb 511:Ilyanep 482:Rholton 471:Rholton 114:Rholton 39:archive 2203:Kjkolb 2138:JesseW 2128:Sigh: 1944:(talk) 1870:in the 1808:accept 1746:Nojer2 1534:Nojer2 1325:JesseW 1268:JesseW 1148:in the 1086:accept 1053:JesseW 998:JesseW 989:JesseW 982:regexs 964:JesseW 957:JesseW 949:JesseW 923:JesseW 832:(...) 662:Angela 492:JesseW 163:(talk) 2266:jonon 2264:. -- 2155:Joolz 1889:Guy M 1817:Guy M 1706:added 1681:|talk 1678:BozMo 1660:|talk 1657:BozMo 1559:|talk 1556:BozMo 1275:Guy M 1239:Guy M 1167:Guy M 1095:Guy M 974:Emacs 944:lists 592:Zocky 535:IMSoP 525:than 303:IMSoP 252:wikis 219:going 199:IMSoP 16:< 2248:Talk 2097:and 2089:and 2081:this 2076:and 2052:and 2002:here 1964:Zach 1934:uses 1799:You 1742:this 1711:here 1696:The 1653:GFDL 1583:and 1296:GFDL 1259:high 1077:You 1015:Yann 717:and 699:Rick 695:GFDL 652:"PR" 505:hmmm 463:~~~~ 137:andy 1983:CYD 1723:mav 1700:on 1387:... 827:mav 784:urε 774:Tεx 750:Hob 726:Hob 697:? 603:mav 467:~~~ 256:FAQ 191::-/ 133:VfD 2246:| 1713:. 1642:CQ 1601:-- 1554:-- 1293:is 890:-- 759:-- 337:." 232:. 213:" 195:is 176:is 108:. 2079:( 1434:. 1355:- 1352:. 1302:- 1224:" 779:τ 748:← 724:← 702:K 664:( 654:. 480:- 445:. 428:I 321:. 112:- 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Mirrors and forks/Archive 2 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index