View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:45 am




Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Ming 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4422
Reply with quote
Quote:
Ming doesn't believe for one second that you have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
Who cares? Literally who gives a tiny rat's ass?
Quote:
WMF is, as everyone knows, founded in and still incorporated in the USA
It's incorporated in the State of California.

Dumbass.


Tue Aug 28, 2018 3:31 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:56 pm
Posts: 266
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
Quote:
WMF is, as everyone knows, founded in and still incorporated in the USA
It's incorporated in the State of California.

Dumbass.

Wikimedia Foundation Inc. is incorporated in the state of Florida, file N03000005323 at search.sunbiz.org, an official website of the State of Florida Division of Corporations. Its principal address is indeed in California.

I wonder what word goes here?


Wed Aug 29, 2018 1:19 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 3705
Reply with quote
Anyway, for us European users doesn't make much of a different. Facebook is a American based side too. (California?) Many, many people in Holland have ended up in court and are are convicted because of what they wrote on there facebook. It does't matter. This is a American bases forum, and if I write here I will do something violent to someone, what I never, never will do because I hate that kind of treats, I can expect the police here in Holland at my door. It does't matter, even if it is a Chines based site, it change nothing.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Wed Aug 29, 2018 3:03 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4422
Reply with quote
AndrewForson wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:
Quote:
WMF is, as everyone knows, founded in and still incorporated in the USA
It's incorporated in the State of California.

Dumbass.

Wikimedia Foundation Inc. is incorporated in the state of Florida, file N03000005323 at search.sunbiz.org, an official website of the State of Florida Division of Corporations. Its principal address is indeed in California.

I wonder what word goes here?
Why would they choose the jurisdiction of their principle address, not their incorporation?

Also:

2003:
Quote:
I'm pleased to announce the existence of the Wikimedia Foundation,
Inc., a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of Florida,
United States.


2018:
Quote:
If you seek to file a legal claim against us, you agree to file and resolve it exclusively in a state or federal court located in San Francisco County, California. You also agree that the laws of the State of California and, to the extent applicable, the laws of the United States of America will govern these Terms of Use, as well as any legal claim that might arise between you and us (without reference to conflict of laws principles). You agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of, and agree that venue is proper in, the courts located in San Francisco County, California, in any legal action or proceeding relating to us or these Terms of Use.


Wed Aug 29, 2018 3:47 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 3705
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
2018:If you seek to file a legal claim against us, you agree to file and resolve it exclusively in a state or federal court located in San Francisco County, California. You also agree that the laws of the State of California and, to the extent applicable, the laws of the United States of America will govern these Terms of Use, as well as any legal claim that might arise between you and us (without reference to conflict of laws principles). You agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of, and agree that venue is proper in, the courts located in San Francisco County, California, in any legal action or proceeding relating to us or these Terms of Use.


Yeh, but they are also writing something else.

Quote:
You are responsible for your own actions: You are legally responsible for your edits and contributions on Wikimedia Projects, so for your own protection you should exercise caution and avoid contributing any content that may result in criminal or civil liability under any applicable laws. For clarity, applicable law includes at least the laws of the United States of America. Although we may not agree with such actions, we warn editors and contributors that authorities may seek to apply other country laws to you, including local laws where you live or where you view or edit content. WMF generally cannot offer any protection, guarantee, immunity or indemnification.


"Although we may not agree with such actions, we warn editors and contributors that authorities may seek to apply other country laws to you, including local laws where you live or where you view or edit content. WMF generally cannot offer any protection, guarantee, immunity or indemnification."

And here we go. They don't agree, that is fine, but don't take any responsibility! And what does it means WMF doesn't agree when you are living in a country with a other legal system and have not any protection of the American legal system? Because that protection stops at the border of America.

Nothing, really nothing. In short, what I am claiming all the time and Ming doesn't believe is right. WMF gives you a umbrella in beautiful words when the sun is shinning, but want that same umbrella back when it start raining! And nobody can ever say it was not written in the Terms of Use!

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Wed Aug 29, 2018 4:12 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:56 pm
Posts: 266
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
Why would they choose the jurisdiction of their principle address, not their incorporation?

I don't know, although I can guess that it's more convenient for some reason -- perhaps you should ask a lawyer. All I do is point out the facts. You can either argue with the facts, a la Rudi "Truth isn't truth" Giuliani, or accept them as one of life's little mysteries and move on.


Wed Aug 29, 2018 4:40 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4422
Reply with quote
AndrewForson wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:
Why would they choose the jurisdiction of their principle address, not their incorporation?

I don't know, although I can guess that it's more convenient for some reason -- perhaps you should ask a lawyer. All I do is point out the facts. You can either argue with the facts, a la Rudi "Truth isn't truth" Giuliani, or accept them as one of life's little mysteries and move on.
I was under the impression this was simply not a choice. If am wrong, I am happy to be proven wrong. Have you the facts which do so? It surely doesn't need a lawyer to clear up a simple thing like that. I wasn't particularly looking for them, but you have piqued my interest now. If there is some reason, nefarious or entirely innocent, as to why they should be incorporated in one state but operate under the law of another, that seems like something we should know about. Indeed, a tiny bell in my memory banks seems like it wants to tell me it has come up before, somewhere.

But the intent of the original post was not to show my own expertise in US corporate governance, but merely to show clearly Ming has none, while constantly claiming it is everyone else who talks shite. I will happily admit fault for my own error in doing so, but it hardly cancels out Ming's original error. Or are we in the business of defending them now? Defence of the facts, I am cool with. Always happy to agree a fact is a fact. You may not find the same grace in His Mingness. Indeed, I can guarantee it. Because knowing these people, what they do and how they do it, is my area of expertise.


Wed Aug 29, 2018 5:59 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:56 pm
Posts: 266
Reply with quote
I pointed you to the Florida state website and gave you the reference number to look up the current registration of the Wikimedia Foundation Inc., whose latest filing can be found on that site, made on 11 January 2018, making it clear that this is indeed the WMF we know. I don't know what more you want, but I don't see that I'm under an obligation to do anything further to establish my point.

As you pointed out originally, the underlying issue is the ready assumption of the total invulnerability of a US-based entity to legal action outside the jurisdiction. This is, I believe, not correct, and the enthusiastic way in which this myth is endorsed by self-styled critics is a sign that they have already drunk much -- perhaps too much -- of the kool-ade. A true critic would be looking for ways to attack a US-based entity, not perpetuating this myth. England is a friendly jurisdiction for libel cases, for example. A judgement against the WMF in an English court while unenforceable and therefore perhaps financially unattractive to the claimant would be a major propaganda disaster for them.

As Graaf points out, the WMF has servers in the Netherlands. Perhaps a successful case against the WMF in a Dutch court could result in a garnishee order against the payments between the WMF and their data centre operators, EvoSwitch. Presumably EvoSwitch would be highly unamused by such an outcome, maybe they would withdraw their cooperation. I don't know, I'm not a lawyer in England or the Netherlands. But such questions are questions of law outside the US, so simply chanting "Section 230" won't make them go away.

True critics would be discussing this.


Wed Aug 29, 2018 6:58 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4422
Reply with quote
AndrewForson wrote:
I pointed you to the Florida state website and gave you the reference number to look up the current registration of the Wikimedia Foundation Inc., whose latest filing can be found on that site, made on 11 January 2018, making it clear that this is indeed the WMF we know. I don't know what more you want, but I don't see that I'm under an obligation to do anything further to establish my point.
As usual, I don't know why you can't see the point being made. If they are incorporated in Flordia, which I did not dispute after you corrected me, why are they seeking the jurisdiction of California? I put you under the obligation of finding these facts out, as it seemed like fact hunting was your interest of the day. I may have even had a crazy idea that you might have remembered where this issue might have been discussed before.
AndrewForson wrote:
As you pointed out originally, the underlying issue is the ready assumption of the total invulnerability of a US-based entity to legal action outside the jurisdiction. This is, I believe, not correct, and the enthusiastic way in which this myth is endorsed by self-styled critics is a sign that they have already drunk much -- perhaps too much -- of the kool-ade. A true critic would be looking for ways to attack a US-based entity, not perpetuating this myth. England is a friendly jurisdiction for libel cases, for example. A judgement against the WMF in an English court while unenforceable and therefore perhaps financially unattractive to the claimant would be a major propaganda disaster for them.

As Graaf points out, the WMF has servers in the Netherlands. Perhaps a successful case against the WMF in a Dutch court could result in a garnishee order against the payments between the WMF and their data centre operators, EvoSwitch. Presumably EvoSwitch would be highly unamused by such an outcome, maybe they would withdraw their cooperation. I don't know, I'm not a lawyer in England or the Netherlands. But such questions are questions of law outside the US, so simply chanting "Section 230" won't make them go away.

True critics would be discussing this.
I've been doing nothing more than making a point about Ming, in the thread about Ming. There are other threads the other issues can be mulled over, and you'll find I've always been an active participant in that, with the same opinions you attribute to a true critic. So I must be doing something right in your eyes.

If there is wider point to made here about what critics should and should not do, it is that Graaf, Bedson and Dykslyver need to stop wasting their time fighting with an ass like Ming on site like that, and instead use this board for sensible discussion of strategies and realities and the like. There are people here with practical experience with legal action against Wikipedia/ns.

There is nobody on that board who can help them, and nobody worth debating legal issues with. They are more likely to ban the sort of people who attempt legal action against the WMF, than give them a platform. At the insistence of asshats like Ming.


Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:09 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:56 pm
Posts: 266
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
If they are incorporated in Flordia, which I did not dispute after you corrected me, why are they seeking the jurisdiction of California? I put you under the obligation of finding these facts out, as it seemed like fact hunting was your interest of the day. I may have even had a crazy idea that you might have remembered where this issue might have been discussed before.

And I told you I have no idea. Perhaps you need to realise that your asking a question does not put me, or anyone else in the entire world, under an "obligation" to provide you with an answer. Getting grumpy with someone who can not, will not or does not drop everything to answer your every question does not encourage them to do so: if anything it makes it less likely that next time you will get anything constructive. I do not currently recall whether or where the FL/CA issue has been discussed before, if indeed it has, and it doesn't seem fruitful: perhaps you're able to get some mileage out of it.

Why do you feel the need to win everything? You happened to be wrong on a trivial matter of fact, and I happened to be able to correct you. Was the response, "Oh, thanks, I didn't know that" completely beyond you? Are you really interested in criticising WP and WO or just in winning every fight you pick?


Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:32 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.