After posting some useful corrections, Wikipedia crapped all over it, you know, because there are no citations for stuff that happened before the WWW was open for general public use. And a lot of it happened offline in meatspace. Even if there were online elements, all the early stuff was on servers that no longer exist.
Publish an article on the org's website. Then you can cite that article. Done. Finito. Have a nice day.
Paid editing is not prohibited but it is certainly not encouraged. At the moment the best I can do is to post a message on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard alerting the regulars there to the request so that they can check whether those articles have been created and review them closely if and when they are. We do not usually block the creation of articles. However if an article that does not comply with policy and guidelines is repeatedly created, we do prevent further creation. Thanks for contacting us. I hope this helps.
I think your looking for 3lb
I think it's you're you're looking for.
As for Swedish law, there are no provisions preventing prosecutors from interrogating suspects abroad. Doing so is, in fact, a routine matter. An example: In late 2010, at roughly the same time that Ms. Ny decided to issue a European Arrest Warrant for Assange, Swedish police officers went to Serbia to interview a well-known gangster suspected of involvement in an armed robbery.
In a radio interview last Friday, a Swedish professor emeritus of international law, Ove Bring, confirmed that there are no legal obstacles whatsoever preventing Ms. Ny from questioning Assange in London. When asked why the prosecutor would not do so, Professor Bring responded that "it's a matter of prestige not only for prosecutors, but for the Swedish legal system
If he's in the Ecuadorian Embassy, then the Swedes have no entry rights unless granted to them by the Ecuadorian ambassador. Therefore, it's not Swedish law preventing them from interrogating/questioning Assange, but the legal right of the Ecuadorian government to prevent him from being questioned on their sovereign property.
No doubt opting in for porn will get you on the 'special attention at MI5' list.
Of course it will because you're opting to be able to view terrorist materials. Either you're with us or against us.
Having people who know nothing about technology make case law about technology is like having a Capuchin monkey fix the brakes on your car: cute and funny at first, but ultimately a bad idea that is also highly dangerous.
I fail to understand how this is a technology case. Just because technology was involved doesn't make it a technology case. What makes an electrical engineer or software engineer better equipped to understand copyright law?
If you want the situation to change, hire the guy in charge of security at El-Al. Get rid of the entire TSA, and just do whatever the Israelis do. Air travel can be safe.
I would love to have El Al's security here in the states, but I am not sure how well it would scale up. Hell, they only have 42 planes including cargo planes currently flying...