Active Editors on Wikipedia -*XYZ ARCHIVED*-

[HRA1924]

Active Editors on Wikipedia
A manually reformatted recovered thread from the old forum, which no longer seems to be on the interwebs. Oct 12, 2016 2:10:16 GMT
URL:
http://www.wikipediasucks.xyz/archives/ ... ipedia.htm

[ericbarbour]

Thanks for reposting that. I might also point this out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... nistrators

There are 1,275 (as of now) administrator accounts (active and otherwise), 577 of them active (as of 2017-02-27).

FYI: English Wikipedia has not had so few active administrators since 2005. Things are REALLY bad. Dozens more either quit or are desysopped every year and are not being replaced, because they put new RFA applicants thru HELL.

The magic word is "incompetence" okay?

[Soham321]

.

[HRA1924]

Active Editors on Wikipedia
A manually reformatted recovered thread from the old forum, which no longer seems to be on the interwebs. Oct 12, 2016 2:10:16 GMT
URL:
http://www.wikipediasucks.xyz/archives/ ... ipedia.htm

----
Two points. First, I believe HRA is not telling the truth with respect to their claim that they were able to communicate with Proboards (PB) about posts on the now defunct WS. PB have refused to communicate with anyone other than Mutineer from what i know when it comes to discussing the now defunct WS. Second, HRA claiming copyright over posts made on the now defunct WS is laughable and only reveals his poor understanding of law.

1. We have 4 communications in hand from Proboards,
2. Can you show this forum exactly where we have claimed copyright over the content ?

BTW: "not telling the truth " ==> we are lying

[Soham321]

.

[HRA1924]

1. And my position is that you are not telling the truth with respect to your claim that you were able to get into an extended communication with PB when they have brushed everyone else away and only communicated once (tersely) with Mutineer.

2. Your 'Legal Notice' contains the words "Further reproduction of this archived content is disallowed without permission of the content licencee. All non-abuse requests for redaction of content must be made through, and authenticated by, the content licencee, or accompanied by order of a competent court." Even if you consider PB the content licensee you have no locus standi to issue this kind of legal notice especially since you yourself are freely hosting this content on your own website.

3. I notice with some amusement your claim (in the PB WR forum) to owning the brand name Wikipedia Sucks.

1. We can evidently make our points better than others can. FYI we are not privy to communications of PB with anybody else, except that semi-comic Heywood Floyd turn.

2. (a) We posted that link to this new forum because Eric asked us to. (b) We object, in that notice, to further reproduction of this archived content, which clearly means the archived content on the wikipediasucks.xyz website. Due to your regretable action of publicly archiving the said page to a pirate site like archive.is (which is notorious for tampering with content) we shall no longer be publicly linking to our archive's pages on this forum. Sorry Eric.

3. We (ie, with inputs from HRA India) notice, with equal amusement, ''Soham321''s edits to legal articles, especially those of certain highly corrupt judges, on Wikipedia - starting from that old gutka chewing fart K*tj* and your pathetic attempts to puff him up. You are quite obviously a highly conflicted editor for such articles. BTW, have you seen Jolly LL.B-2 ?

Don't bother to have the last word on this thread, since we don't intend to respond further and feed this forum management's trolls.