Talk:Huge interest takes Wikileaks offline

Source

The following statement was obtained via private communication between accredited reporter User:NicholasTurnbull and an anonymous representative of Wikinews, on Saturday 29th March 2008 at 03:07 UTC. Readers will, I hope, appreciate that it is impossible for me to give further information, due to obligations of confidentiality to the representative.

Quote

---

It seems that due to a more than less overwhelming interest in the Fitna video and recent other media coverage from the protests in Tibet, as well as a few dozen new documents leaked on the portal in the last few days, parts of the portal have given up service and need a few warm words from a friendly Wikileaks operator. Please standby, the portal will be back soon.

--NicholasTurnbull - (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: The figure of 164GB of data transfer within 24 hours was also obtained from this source. --NicholasTurnbull - (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Fitna video

Maybe I am a dumbass, but what is the "Fitna video"? Could that be explained in the article, please. --SVTCobra 04:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is going to be in the article (hence the sources about the Fitna video). I'm currently writing the article. Please hang on until I've finished; all will be explained! --NicholasTurnbull - (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikileaks isn't offline

This article does not appear to be true and there is no external confirmation. This is an incredibly dubious article. --99.241.52.92 20:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I, Wikinews Administrator Anonymous101, can confirm that Wikinews accredited reporter, Nicholas Turnbull has made entirely accurate claims in this article. (PS-99.241.52.92 - it was OR so it doesn't need external confirmation]]---Anonymous101 (talk · contribs)

Sure it was offline. At the time we did the report it was and came back a few hours after publishing. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Found http://www.mister-info.com/?cmd=displaystory&story_id=10381&format=html that has copied directly from here, and is not complying with CC. AzaToth - (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with that. We are attributed - as per your comment in IRC of the copyright line at the bottom reading "All Rights Reserved" - we do not have a "ShareAlike" license. --Skenmy^(t•c•w) 16:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a problem with that page ? if it is not complying with any of your rule, please advise what change should be made, will do it as soon as i get a reply here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.144.144.164 (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is technically that the license "cc-by-2.5" isn't specified. The text specified in the term-of-uses, though similar, isn't compliant with the license, and the article page only says "All rights reserved". (When I posted the note here, I hadn't seen the term-of-use, so it went from major to minor). Was planning to try to contact, but there isn't any contact information on the page in question. AzaToth - (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright guys, i should fix this very soon (a link to "cc-by-2.5"), and also put online the contact information. thanks for cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.144.144.164 (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Offline again

Wikileaks is inaccessible once again due to "Slashdotting" effect (a Slashdot article about a new US special forces and CIA central american deathsquad training manual hosted on Wikileaks). 82.131.210.162 16:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)