Removal of CHI from Wikinews linked with Mormon boardmember

Post by **_Mercury** » Thu May 22, 2008 5:44 pm

http://valleywag.com/392510/jimmy-wales-and-the-church-of-latter+day-wikipedians

More and more I am revolted by the actions of the Wikipedia foundations boardmembers.

Jimmy Wales is an alphatool.

Post by **_bcspace** » Thu May 22, 2008 5:55 pm

What are you talking about? I see that the CHI is still there.

Post by **_Mercury** » Thu May 22, 2008 6:39 pm

bcspace wrote:What are you talking about? I see that the CHI is still there.

I'm sorry, I forgot to fill you in on the details you should have been keeping up with.

Just to make sure the slow kids are informed, remember the following:

Wikinews is not Wikileaks

Post by **_bcspace** » Thu May 22, 2008 6:47 pm

Wikinews is not Wikileaks

Already knew that. I was just wondering why all the crying when a link is still readily available somewhere else? And speaking of links, why don't you post one here? lol

Post by **_Canucklehead** » Thu May 22, 2008 7:25 pm

bcspace wrote:
Wikinews is not Wikileaks

Already knew that. I was just wondering why all the crying when a link is still readily available somewhere else? And speaking of links, why don't you post one here? lol

Shady Acres ain't as shady as Wikileaks!

Post by **_skippy the dead** » Thu May 22, 2008 7:33 pm

Canucklehead wrote:Shady Acres ain't as shady as Wikileaks!

Heh - it's not that Wikileaks is shady. It's just that Wikileaks has some protection due to geographic location and ambiguity of ownership. No such problems with Shady Acres - the board's benefactors are easily identified and subject to US jurisdiction. It's wise to abide by copyright rules in such circumstances.

Post by **_Canucklehead** » Thu May 22, 2008 8:10 pm

skippy the dead wrote:
Canucklehead wrote:Shady Acres ain't as shady as Wikileaks!

Heh - it's not that Wikileaks is shady. It's just that Wikileaks has some protection due to geographic location and ambiguity of ownership. No such problems with Shady Acres - the board's benefactors are easily identified and subject to US jurisdiction. It's wise to abide by copyright rules in such circumstances.

Oh, I know. I just meant shady in that it's "shaded" from .... um, the bright lights of the law! (Yeah, that's it!)

Post by **_skippy the dead** » Thu May 22, 2008 8:25 pm

Canucklehead wrote:Oh, I know. I just meant shady in that it's "shaded" from .... um, the bright lights of the law! (Yeah, that's it!)

Darn those bright law lights!

Post by **_Mercury** » Fri May 23, 2008 3:02 am

bcspace wrote:
Wikinews is not Wikileaks

Already knew that. I was just wondering why all the crying when a link is still readily available somewhere else? And speaking of links, why don't you post one here? lol

I have a better idea. Lets play inform the twat...again.

Turn up your belltone for this one. That helmet your handlers make you wear blocks a great deal of your hearing so I will make sure to shout.

ONE OF LORENZO SNOWS PROGENY KILLED THE LINK.

Now gather all of your retard strength and read the following:

But the document itself is intriguing. A set of directions for church leaders, it was written in part by Lorenzo Snow, who is an ancestor of Michael Snow. Snow, a devout Mormon, serves with Wales on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation. On his Wikipedia user page, Snow maintains that he is a devotee of Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" principle. But one wonders how he can stay neutral on this particular issue.

Interesting, Is it not?