Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/GHI

gaudiriudoms2002.org
Example: http://www.gaudiriudoms2002.org/index.php?option=com_awiki&view=mediawiki&Itemid=2&article=Talk:Manx_(cat)
 * Site: http://www.gaudiriudoms2002.org/

geeks.dnip.net
See Mirrors_and_forks/Abc

getgourmetrecipes.com

 * Site: http://www.getgourmetrecipes.com/wiki_recipes/index.php?title=Main_Page
 * No link to the original article.
 * As of 13:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Glasglidius

 * Now, the Wikipedia content is gone and the site is overrun by spambots. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Global Encyclopedia of Islamic Mystics and Mysticism (book)
-- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

goddessflight

 * Page: www.goddessflight.com/biorhythm/biorhythms_explained.php shortened copy of Biorhythm
 * States: "Excerpt above is from The Global Oneness Commitment at www.experiencefestival.com/a/Biorhythm/" though www.experiencefestival.com/a/Biorhythm_-_The_basic_theory/id/617210 would be a better link (see Mirrors and forks/Def)
 * No mention of GFDL

Gogeeky.net
No compliance. Same site format (and violations) and apparently same webmaster as Wikix.ipupdater.com

Example violation: http://www.gogeeky.net/title/A-Dream-Play from A Dream Play

go-portal.org

 * Site: http://www.go-portal.org/
 * Example: http://www.go-portal.org/index.php/component/awiki/?view=mediawiki&article=Talk%3ACigarette

greatsite.com

 * Site: greatsite.com
 * No mention of wikipedia
 * No mention of GFDL
 * Claims to own copyright


 * Doesn't seem clear to me. If there's copying from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, they probably both borrowed from the CCEL.org version; I caught this (and credited the source) in the Philipp Melanchthon article. Joelwest 01:54, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * It seems clear to everyone else but you. The only theory that you have offered is that both numerous (probably in the double digits) _different_ wikipedia editors and the creators of greatsite.com misappropriated material from a mysterious third source. I'd like to know what this third source is. Take the example that I named above. The edit adds a paraph starting "Besides translating the Bible, Tyndale also held and published views which were considered heretical, ...". Now do you honestly claim that a wikipedia user and the creators of greatsite.com both found the same paragraph somewhere and copied it? Do a google search for this first sentence: - you'll see that the only websites that contain this material have taken it from wikipedia. (Funny enough the wikipedia page is not listed there.) I don't see how it could be more clear that they took the material for the Tyndale article as well as others from us. Please give some valid arguments besides saying that it is not clear to you. --snoyes 19:10, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Greatsite discussion

 * Similarities with Wikipedia's Martin Luther passage:


 * appearts to be based on Martin Luther. If you look at the history of our article (for example, the creation of the second paragraph of the "Exile at the Wartburg Castle" section in ), it seems to have been built up piece-by-piece, so I think it's pretty clear that they've copied us rather than the other way round. Camembert
 * Sent the standard letter. --snoyes 02:49, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * As the one who started this whole thread, I believe the evidence is more consistent with either Wikipedia copying this site or both copying a third source (hopefully public domain). The problem was introduced in the 18:18, 01 July 2003 revision; see the new sections "struggle to find peace with God", "Warburg Castle" and "Luther's writings" which are almost verbatim quotes. It is quite possible both were taken from a 3rd source (since it reads like the work of a scholar or theologian) but google did not find it. GreatSite.com lists a specific author with its copyright, and is willing to let the work be reproduced with credit (scroll to bottom). Joelwest 01:54, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * But much of the content we had before that July 1 edit is included in the greatsite version as well. For example, compare the beginning of greatsite's "Martin Luther and Judaism" section with the penultimate paragraph of this Wikipedia version of January 7, 2002. They are nearly the same. So if the Wikipedia version has been copied from another source (either greatsite itself or a shared third-party publication), then it's been copied in bits and pieces by many different people in many edits over the course of two years. That seems unlikely, to put it mildly. More likely, greatsite has copied a Wikipedia version and edited it a bit. Don't underestimate the ability of Wikipedia contributors to write like scholars or theologians - some of them are. --Camembert
 * I have ruled out the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopediaand the Catholic Encyclopedia as the source of both articles; see the Luther stories at CCEL.org. Joelwest 01:58, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Possible GFDL violation by greatsites. The 05:51, 9 Aug 2003 Melanchthon correction is present there. The 00:45, 30 Sep 2003 Pope Leo III to X correction isn't, so the copying seems to have happened between those two dates. The remaining edits between those dates don't help to narrow it down further. Lots of other corrections and edits prior to 9 Aug are at greatsites, so I conclude that it almost had to have been after that 9 Aug edit. In more detail: greatsites.com appears not to have had much coverage of Martin Luther on 2003-02-06 . Regrettably there is no more recent archived copy of that site to compare with. The Luther's German Bible section is present and that was added at 20:26, 25 Jun 2003 so the copying seems to have happened after then. There's an extra sentence in the copy which doesn't seem to have ever been present in a copy of ours and the 1922 date differs from ours as well. Luther's early life was expanded at 17:47, 5 Jul 2003, including a mention of a copper mine starting from this 17:47, 5 Jul 2003 edit so the copying happened after this edit. this 14:17, 6 Jul 2003 edit changes text from "a few days later" to "the next day" and greatsites has that change. The changes in the 21:02, 8 Jul 2003 edit at the start of this examination are present. Until this 15:04, 11 Jul 2003 edit our text contained "From the viewpoint of the Roman Catholic Church". The greatsites version doesn't contain that, suggesting that the copying happened after this edit. Until this 18:34, 11 Jul 2003 edit our text contained "called to testify". The edit changed it to "summoned to either renounce or reaffirm them" and greatsites contains this change. The edits of 19:43, 11 Jul 2003 are present at greatsites. The Eck change of 21:47, 11 Jul 2003 is present at greatsites. The 18:28, 30 Jul 2003 near to nearby change suggests copying after this edit. The first of the 18:39, 30 Jul 2003 edits is present. The 07:31, 31 Jul 2003 changes are present, so it was after this. The 05:51, 9 Aug 2003 Melanchthon correction is present. Jamesday 10:39, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Here is a second example of similar text between Greatsite.com and Wikipedia:


 * Their Tyndale article has wording in it that was made to the old encyclopedia article on wikipedia by an anon user: . Again it should be clear that they copied from us and not the other way arround. --snoyes 06:33, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

great-wall-of-china.com
See Mirrors_and_forks/Def

Guajara.com

 * Site: Guajara.com


 * It mentions our name in the :) -- Fennec 06:52, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Footers on every page indicate: El contenido de Wikipedia se publica bajo la Licencia de Documentación Libre GNU.
 * Does not seem to have page history.
 * Does not seem to link back to articles.
 * Does not link back to Wikipedia, even from the page about Wikipedia.
 * It DOES link to the Wikimedia foundation from one page.
 * I wrote to them in may, but no response so far. --AstroNomer 15:42, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

guideofcasinos.com
-Dose not mention wikipedia at all -Duplicates Spring (device) page and possibly others- have not checked -Has a note at the bottom of the page “2000-2005 guideofcasinos.com”
 * Site: http://www.guideofcasinos.com/Spring_(device).html

Halfvalue.com

 * Site: www.halfvalue.com
 * Example: www.halfvalue.com/wiki.jsp?topic=Mathematics
 * Mixes different sources, similar to Answers.com
 * States "This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)"
 * States "Donate to Wikipedia" with link to wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
 * States "Wikipedia information about Mathematics. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Mathematics".  More from Wikipedia" with links to GFDL at gnu.org and to original article

halloweenfiles

 * Site: www.halloweenfiles.com/
 * Example: www.halloweenfiles.com/wiki.php?title=Talk:Ailurophobia

helpfox.com

 * Site http://www.helpfox.com/
 * The site claims to be in Beta and adds "Copyright 2005 HelpFox.com" at the bottom of each page. There is no mention of Wikipedia, Wiktionary or GFDL.
 * I ran into this when I googled for "Suoczil" a language that apparently a pure product of our contributor's mind. The only other site to use this language name is Helpfox where they had copied entire lists of translations from Wiktionary.
 * Looking for other things there, their Hurricane Katrina was clearly copied from Wikipedia. Eclecticology 22:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

hide4free.com

 * Site: http://www.hide4free.com/browse.
 * Example: http://www.hide4free.com/browse.php?u=Oi8vZW4ud2lraXBlZGlhLm9yZy93aWtpL1RhbGs6UGVwc2k%3D&b=13

Hierar.ch
See Informat.io

History of Scotland

 * Site: History of Scotland
 * Link to Wikipedia, not article though
 * No link to GFDL, funny because it's on the Scottish Law Online web site.
 * Standard letter sent by: dave 07:29, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * They've fixed it now dave 16:57, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Link to GFDL on gnu.org
 * Link to original Wikipedia article


 * Not a verbatim copy: embedding failure - they've inserted additional content (eg, Wikipedia logo, Wikipedia search box, link to Wikipedia front page) between the title and the start of the article. It is absolutely crazy that this should require them to follow the more complex regulations for derivative works, but this seems to be the case.
 * We could aid Scotiishlaw.org, and others in similar situations, by providing vastly more customisable skins. In this case, Wikipedia would be the publisher, and Scottishlaw could take a verbatim copy from Wikipedia. Hmm.

HistoryMania

 * Site: historymania.com
 * Example: historymania.com/american_history/Thomas_Johnson_(designer)
 * States "The contents of this article are licensed from Wikipedia.org under the GNU Free Documentation License. How to see transparent copy" with links to local copy of GFDL
 * Broken javascript link to gro.aidepikiw.www//:ptth
 * No obvious link to original article
 * Has pop-up ads.

Home Fresh

 * Example: from Polyol
 * Links to Wikipedia, GNU copy of GFDL, and original article. --Henrygb 18:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Homestay Finder
see Mirrors_and_forks/Jkl

Horizonmonthly.com

 * Site:
 * Example: for article Eyewitness News
 * No mention of Wikipedia, let alone link to article or the Main Page. No mention of GFDL, let alone link to the GNU copy or anything else. -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  02:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Only links to external links. No links to other articles.  Only takes article namespace. -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;
 * Seems to break sections into seperate pages for some reason. -- WC  Quidditch  &#9742;   &#9998;  02:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Copyright notice: "horizonmonthly.com &trade; &copy;All rights reserved" -- WC  Quidditch  &#9742;   &#9998;  02:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * To break it down: Practically no compliance. -- WC  Quidditch  &#9742;   &#9998;  02:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Honduras This Week

 * Site: www.hondurasthisweek.com
 * Example: www.hondurasthisweek.com/index.php?option=com_awiki&view=mediawiki&article=Mathematics&Itemid=102
 * Article ends with "© This material from Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL (Inserted by aWiki)" with links to en.wikipedia.org, www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html and joomla.anezi.net
 * Page ends with "Copyright © 2009 Honduras This Week Online. All Rights Reserved."
 * No obvious link to original article or history

Hot-Google
Note: the site works most probably by remote loading. — Adi Japan   ☎  03:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

iankhama.com

 * Bio at http://www.iankhama.com/about/ appears to be an uncredited copy of Ian Khama. It's possible that the wikipedia article is a copyvio, but since the wikipedia article has extensive referencing, I'm inclined (without further investigation) to believe the opposite is true. 91.106.172.248 (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

icorrection.com

 * Site: icorrection.com
 * DirkvdM let me know that this page is an exact, and not too clever, copy of helix. The page has no link to the article, and no mention of Wikipedia.
 * There is no contact information on the site at all, so haven't sent a letter. --Gareth Hughes 20:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

idrewthis.org

 * Site: www.idrewthis.org/d/20050314.html
 * The first panel of this comic is an obvious direct derivative of Image:Villianc.svg. The comic is from 2005, the Wikipedia image first appeared here in 2003 as an original work by User:J.J. (see Image:Villianc.jpg). The webcomic page gives no indication of the source of this image and has "All content © 2004-2006 D.C. Simpson." at the bottom of the page. I haven't sent any emails to anyone about this. Bryan 04:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Illinois State University College of Arts and Sciences

 * Site: www.cas.ilstu.edu
 * Example: wikipedia.cas.ilstu.edu/index.php/Partial_differential_equation
 * States: "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia."
 * No obvious link to Wikipedia or original article
 * States: "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details)." with link to local copy of GFDL

in2reach.com

 * Site www.in2reach.com
 * Example: http://www.in2reach.com/cgi-bin/readzip.cgi?%22//c/ch/chaleur_bay.html%22

More research requested

InfoHeadquarters.com

 * Site: InfoHeadquarters.com
 * Acknowledges wikipedia authorship, links to wikipedia
 * States that the article is licensed under the GNU FDL.
 * Does not link to the relevant wikipedia page
 * Example: from February 22

infomutt.com

 * Site www.infomutt.com

Research requeted. JesseW 22:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

informationdelight.info

 * Site: www.informationdelight.info
 * Example: www.informationdelight.info/encyclopedia/entry/factorial
 * Contact: info@informationdelight.info
 * Ends with: This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License and its copyright supersedes any copyright notice in Information About's Terms of Service below. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Factorial" with links to GFDL at gnu.org and to original article.

informationdepot.us
Research requested. JesseW 22:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Site www.informationdepot.us
 * Not found. Domain dropped --Rumping (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

informationheadquaters.com

 * Site: informationheadquaters.com
 * Link to GNU FDL.
 * Link to Wikipedia homepage via "Help build the worlds largest free encyclopedia"
 * No link to original article.
 * November 19: Now says the content is from Wikipedia.
 * Jan 8 2004: This is still the case. A lot of the wikipedia pages have dead links (eg the September 11 pages), but what is there is acknowledged as wikipedia material. Perhaps this site should now come out of this list and be placed in one of the other ones? Arno 22:07, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Informationgenius

 * Site: Informationgenius
 * Sample article - http://www.informationgenius.com/encyclopedia/j/ja/japan_1.html
 * At the bottom, it says: This content from encyclopedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It does link to the GFDL but has no mention of Wikipedia (and incorrectly credits www.encyclopedia.com)

InfoSearchPoint

 * Site: InfoSearchPoint
 * Gives credit and links to the wikipedia homepage and the corresponding article page
 * Mentions the license as GFDL, and links to a local copy

Infoslurp

 * Site: Information

Infostar.cz / Eurotran

 * Site: Infostar.cz / Eurotran
 * Machine translation of complete Wikipedia to Czech language
 * Sample article: Serbs - http://wikipedia.infostar.cz/s/se/serbs.html
 * Links to original Wikipedia article
 * Says on the bottom of each article (in Czech) "This is a machine translation of an article from the Wikipedia encyclopedia. The entire text is available under the conditions of the GNU FDL licence."
 * Links to Wikipedia Main Page
 * Links to local copy of GFDL (machine translated to Czech, but with a link to the official text of the licence at gnu.org prominently at the beginning)
 * Removes "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
 * That's quite a neat site, actually! While on the whole it's pretty good, it does show up some of the limitations of machine translation. Looking up "Bitva Jutland" which is the translation of "Battle of Jutland" which I had quite a bit of input to, I notice that many of the names of British ships have been tranlated to their Czech equivalents (Lion --> Lev, for instance), but no German ship names have been translated. Also some of the British commander's names also get translated - Rear Admiral A.L. Duff of HMS Superb becomes zadního admirála. L. Bezcenn&#728; of HMS Nádhern&#728;, while if my reading of Czech grammar is correct Vice Admiral Sir Cecil Burney gets a sex change as zlozvyku-sir admirála Cecil Burneyová! :) -- Arwel 00:04, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * No history section. Medium compliance. Uncle G 11:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

infothis
Note that they use javascript to recognize Wikipedia as source:

 document.write(" Under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License  Thank you wikipedia.org ") Browsers that block javascript or can't handle it would not show this line at all.

atc.ruv.net/infopedia/
Looks like another partial from copy from the ruv.net guy. Sigh. No references to Wikipedia at all as I can see. JesseW 06:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Site: http://atc.ruv.net/infopedia/=

Infopedia.ruv.net

 * Site: Infopedia.ruv.net=
 * Mentions GFDL but clicking on it gives "!! ERROR !! PAGE NOT FOUND"
 * No name or link to original wikipedia article
 * Mention of the word "Wikipedia", but no link available
 * I'm going after this one. Quite a few articles that I have written mostly or exclusively are on that site, and that rather annoys me to say the least. David Newton 17:32, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Standard letter sent. David Newton 17:41, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Received a reply "Thanks for the email, I'll make sure to make the appropriate changes to my site." That was pretty quick, so I am optimistic over this one. David Newton 18:21, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Second standard letter sent. David Newton 00:26, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * This one is still not resolved; the situation is like described above. No direct link back to the original Wikipedia article, clicking on GFDL gives 404 error. The little line "Copyright Wikipedia Contributors", without link, is in fact the only thing about Wikipedia that can be found on the page.
 * Furthermore, something very nasty is going on: for links that do not exist on infopedia, a utility called webgrap is used to try to rip the info directly from Wikipedia, thus loading the Wikipedia servers. See for ex. Oncology and try the link to Adjunctive therapies in the article (it has a question mark behind it to indicate that the article doesn't exist on Infopedia). The operation does not succeed, but the Wikipedia servers are queried nevertheless; so this is a case of straight bandwidth theft. - Mark Dingemanse (talk)  07:10, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Situation unchanged. -Rholton 21:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

InfoVoyager

 * Site: InfoVoyager=
 * Uses geography-related pages from wikipedia.
 * Mentions GFDL but clicking on it gives "!! ERROR !! PAGE NOT FOUND"
 * No name or link to original wikipedia article
 * Mention of the word "Wikipedia", but no link available
 * Same person as infopedia.ruv.net

JapanVoyager

 * Site: JapanVoyager=
 * Uses geography-related pages from wikipedia.
 * Mentions GFDL but clicking on it gives "!! ERROR !! PAGE NOT FOUND". (The main page of the website which is a copy of List of countries does not mention GFDL)
 * No name or link to original wikipedia article
 * Mention of the word "Wikipedia", but no link available
 * Same person as infopedia.ruv.net

Venice Voyager

 * Site: Venice Voyager=
 * Sample article: Albania - http://www.venice-voyager.com/info/al/Albania.html
 * Seems to be the same as InfoVoyager above

InfoWrangler

 * Site: InfoWrangler
 * Appears to be complete mirror of English Wikipedia (except images), including same layout
 * "We have integrated InfoWrangler? with Wikipedia"
 * Link to GNU FDL does not work -404 error.
 * Retains "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia".
 * Claims Copyright © Object Positive Pty Ltd "All site content"
 * No link to Wikipedia or to article.
 * Sample article (Albania): Albania
 * Wow. This one is really obnoxious.  They copy the site layout, even the edit buttons, so it looks like you're really on Wikipedia.  Looks like it's a fairly old snapshot. Isomorphic 02:44, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Comment only: It demonstrates the run of a tool called infowrangler, as run against the Wikipedia database. Okay well, that seems like an interesting and innovative use of a wikipedia database. If they can tidy up their act a bit, this could become a good demonstration of what FSF licensing is all about. Now if only those folks could release infowrangler under the GPL ;-). Kim Bruning 12:18, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * This site does not clarify that its material is a copy of the original source. Perhaps the owners thought that by including all Wikipedia namespace articles etc. with information about the project, that would suffice to clear them of legal issues. They were mistaken: the GDFL specifically states in part 4 to: "Preserve... the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on." This seems to be one of a multitude of policy breaches. Perhaps more importantly, usage of the Wikipedia name and logo (even a retired version) in this way is to be seriously discouraged as it leads to problems with retaining trademark rights. Has anyone sent a letter yet? -- Kwekubo 01:05, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Instructional Design

 * Ironically, the article they chose to scrape is WP:Public domain resources. Maybe they think Wikipedia is one of them? -kotra (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

InternationalHerpetologicalSociety

 * Site: http://www.international-herpetological-society.org/
 * Example: http://www.international-herpetological-society.org/site/index.php?option=com_awiki&view=mediawiki&article=User_talk%3AEugene-elgato&Itemid=61

InvestingCompany.com

 * Site: InvestingCompany.com
 * Does not acknowledge wikipedia authorship, links to wikipedia
 * States that the article is licensed under the GNU FDL.
 * Does not link to the relevant wikipedia page (or wikipedia at all)
 * Example: from SARS.

ipedia

 * Site: ipedia
 * Javascript loaded text at bottom of articles
 * Link to GNU FDL.
 * Link to www.wikipedia.org
 * No link to original article.
 * No GNU FDL or wikipedia link with Javascript off
 * No GNU FDL or wikipedia link in source code

iplay3.com

 * Site: http://iplay3.com/archive.php
 * Wikipedia content: the above page contains verbiage taken from Wikipedia articles.
 * Seems similar to siumforcongress.com (see Mirrors and forks/Stu for more info.).
 * No action taken. 06:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

iptables.com
More research requested. JesseW 21:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Example http://www.iptables.com/wiki/House_Ordos

ipedia.com

 * Site: www.ipedia.com
 * Example: www.ipedia.com/thomas_johnson__designer_.html gets redirected to front page but content cached at http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:F6muceQ6hNgJ:www.ipedia.com/thomas_johnson__designer_.html
 * No obvious mention of Wikipedia or GFDL
 * No obvious link to Wikipedia, GFDL or original article
 * States: "© 2004 Mental LLC  Powered by mental.encyclopedia"

iqexpand.com

 * Site: iqexpand.com
 * Note: how you access articles is by replacing www.iqexpand.com with the name of the article you are looking for i.e. for Linux, you would put in http://linux.iqexpand.com, and for Wikipedia, you would type in http://wikipedia.iqexpand.com/ (but in this case they're REAL sneaky, replacing Wikipedia with I.Q. Expand in the entry but forgetting to change the bottom links)
 * No GFDL notice. Claims copyright over the site.
 * Broken images everywhere on every article.
 * Absolutely no reference to Wikipedia, instead refering to the "English Information Megasite" for about information for iqexpand.com, thereby dodging reference to Wikipedia. The English Information Megasite is but of course nothing more than a cheaply done mirror of Wikipedia (check out the front page here: the front page says Wikipedia, and has tons of broken links to news, featured article of the day, etc.)
 * Deserves an e-mail from us; anyone who wants to do it please sign their name below (I can't do it since I have no time). --Bash 04:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

iqnaut.net

 * Site: http://iqnaut.net
 * Note: the links at the top refer to news stories. Go to the bottom and go to the links; you'll see that they are mirrors.
 * Mentions that the info is released under the GFDL, link to local copy of the license.
 * Links back to the original Wikipedia article.
 * Contact admin AT iqnaut.net

ipupdater.com
See area51.ipupdater.com