Anything more than that would strike me as promo, and hardly verifiable at the moment. The operators, when threatened with litigation, are known to respond by placing a download link to the complainant's copyrighted work on the front page of their site. So we'll all slow down talking about editors, me included. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to publish facts, not hide them or obfuscate them with euphemisms. Should we change status to inactive? The site was ruled commercial by the courts and you still refuse to accept court rulings. If you make the edit you suggest, you are edit-warring and ignoring consensus. It makes the article a more readable length and avoids some of the issues arising from the long blocking section.
It helps to establish context rather than simply linking to the site without a source. So basically, since the primary source and independent sources disagree, we don't put that dispute in the infobox, we spell it all out as neutrally as possible in the article, citing sources. If you wish to claim that this is still in dispute, you would have to point to a reliable source that claims the courts did not make this ruling. Basically, the argument you are suggesting is because the source is pushing a point of view instead of using neutral calm tone when describing the pirate bay, it must be better. It merely claims facts without attribution. Court rulings are not epistemological absolutes, and do not erase controversy.
I invite proposals for any further rounding up to do. Has any new statements been made? Why would an encyclopedia repeat every anonymous press release from an organization whose founders are all convicts, particularly given the history? They only have 4,000,000 torrents. I've left mention of the Alexa ranking out on the assumption it will be placed in the infobox. Anyway, the revert looks okey. We use it carefully, not wantonly, so, flogger, stop flogging. I nominate + and - to be the symbols, to replace arrows and colors entirely. I've boldly edited it to more closely match the meaning of the cited sources.
The term has been used throughout history to refer to raids across land borders by non-state agents. That's something none of the other news outlets bothered to get: comment from independent sources. Alternative, you could follow Wikipedia editor Ianmacm suggestion and add the information in the body of the article. I happy support the edit like lexein's above suggestion, but I wont do it myself. .
I would do this myself, but currently i dont trust that any sources no matter who made it or what they said will be honored by 74. And I'm sure you can find more positive quotes about The Pirate Bay. All we have is a ruling about specific assisted copyright infringements, done some time around 2005 or 2006. Feel free to propose other arrangements in additional columns C, D, etc- we can just scroll right to see them. Where possible, I and others have used the author's real name in inline citations in this article.
If we have 3 international news agencies describe a website in one way, and 1 local news agency in a other way, we should go with the 3 international ones. There is an interview with him. What is the difference between these designations? There has been no such analysis worthy of the name, in any of the above linked sources, not even Ars Technica. Free has nothing to do with commerciality. Its quote is more accurate and to the point. According to your argument, Google is non-commercial.
We should use the descriptions made by the most reliable sources available, not on some quick look on some top 100 charts made by a wikipedia editor. I mean, it's all history, really. But, I agree to the logic of a lag in anything related to this article given the incredible amount of misinformation we have seen over the years. I like it much better without any quote. Please read and the discussion here before newsflashing the ever bouncing domain ball. Wish I'd thought of it! I rounded up all the side projects under , and rounded up all the income sources under some time ago.
It merely occasionally claims facts without attribution. Sorry, thought that was obvious. My only personal opinion about it is in the case that no decision on what is best can be reached. Many like me have no more desire to expend energy trying to debate such logic. The problem is that there is very little up to date sourcing on the commercial status. The term can include acts committed on land, in the air, or in other major bodies of water or on a shore. In many countries around the world, courts has ordered to implement procedures to block access to the website.