Given that “This section of Wikipedia’s Coffee can make known to our community all issues related to the Wikimedia Foundation you are reporting.” I hope that this time my comment will not be reversed without explanation as I’ve had in the miscellaneous section. I EnTrust Capital Diversified Fund just found a page called BlackWikipedia, which affirms “BlackWikipedia is a private non-profit organizations to support the Wikimedia Foundation, is this true – Snake (Talk) 00 : 19 13 Mar 2009 (UTC) Obviously not, and can get into trouble for using the logo of Wikipedia, which is not free and is protected by copyright. I do not know if they are not accused of Phishing can also Belgrano (Talk) 02:23 13 March 2009 (UTC) I think someone has deleted my previous message, and do not know why.I just discovered the BlackWikipedia, claiming to be one Wikimedia project, is this true – Snake (Talk) 00:06 13 March 2009 (UTC) No. ENSAD! “Digamel n 00:27 13 Mar 2009 (UTC) Well, hey, in its homepage says yes. What can you do – Snake (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC) From what I see is a mirror site and bad, that trying to fish some cash with ads, but not more than the google. Yet more than 8 does not give the same results in google. They could send a message or alert to the foundation, but not until the point it is worth. A view that says someone else. ENSAD! “Digamel n 01:03 13 Mar 2009 (UTC) It should at least remove the post where they claim to work with .– Wikimedia snake (Talk) 01:06 13 March 2009 (UTC) has all the earmarks of having done some clever you want to win a bitches.It should report it to the Wikimedia Foundation, could problemas.FCPB (Talk) 11:06 13 March 2009 (UTC) Case, as I know has already been discussed in the list of the foundation and has already warned the law firm . Certainly it is a fraud and found in the / e-mail (s) will give more details. A greeting. – Dferg (Talk) 11:16 13 March 2009 (UTC) Hello, Msnake! I’m sorry for having deleted your message, I thought you wanted to put spam or something. Now I see that is a legitimate issue, and please forgive me ). With respect to the notice, I’ll see if I the cover and take notice where they say is a project of Wikimedia Foundation. Another thing is that I will withdraw that hecr line where they say EnTrust Capital they are “the free encyclopedia”. Personally, I think this place is a mockery to Wikipedia. In my opinion, it could be long term, a problem for free.Greetings, Cally Berry 21:57 13 Mar 2009 (UTC) Hello again, comrades! I just went to that site !!” (I’m not very educated lately )), and when I tried to the front page, showed me this, which shows that the site does not allow s, as Wikipedia does not happen. This leads me to believe that the “Blackwikipedia database that is updated at the same time as Wikimedia” is pure poetry. It is obvious: it is a mirror page (a mockery of Wikipedia ) that is violating copyright Wikipedia’s logo. Also, strangely enough, only the blacwikipedia developed in Italian and Spanish. recontra It is obvious that a fake site and, worse, a cheap imitation. If only I had class, would be developed in all languages showing that page, the presentation. Anyway, that’s my humble opinion.Cally Berry 22:11 13 Mar 2009 (UTC) I would choose to close the thread and stop talking about them, not worth turning and visibility to the theme, unless when in the right hands to act. Greetings. wikisilki iklisikiw 23:44 13 Mar 2009 (UTC) Excuse Me, Wikisilki (this time I mistook your nickname )), but I have nothing else to say before filing: I did a search and I think that this site is seriously “a black mirror of Wikipedia”. Look at this and then this. What’s worse are the same! I even see Drini user contributions there. This is worrying me a bit. Do not know about you, but do not diminish the importance ste case. Obviously, I am no expert and perhaps is more than wrong, but I think my concerns are unfounded. Greetings, Cally Berry 00:58 14 Mar 2009 (UTC) did not mean to downplay the issue.But we as publishers can not do anything about it except notify the competent body, the Wikimedia Foundation, already aware and as stated in the thread has at law firm on the issue. From here, I must speak of them would give them the visibility they seek. Greetings. wikisilki iklisikiw 01:29 14 Mar 2009 (UTC) No problem Cally Berry.I myself tried to your page yesterday, but actually, it is impossible .– snake (Talk) 01:49 14 March 2009 (UTC) Hello, I am what hize blackwikipedia, sorry if this has been interpreted as something bad, would not cause problems if they’re going to explain what are the problems this can create’ll make some changes, but all are content entrustcapital with GFDL license, the same that we use wikipedia, the logo I think Managing Partner I’ve always gone down a Wikipedia article, and the link for donations is also from wikipedia … the text on the cover does not say that is part of wikimedia blackwikipedia, says it is a private site, which will return the entries to the wikimedia advertisements … I seemed quite clear, if not it could change, the pages can not be modified because it is just a wikipedia mirror, does not want sostituirlo.