Talk:Protests against SOPA and PIPA

Image

Here's a good image of Aaron Swartz that could be used:

Aaron Swartz

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorgrigas (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Protests against SOPA and PIPA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120708131522/http://activepolitic.com:82/News/2011-12-26c/Godaddy_Looses_Domains.._This_time_for_real..html to http://activepolitic.com:82/News/2011-12-26c/Godaddy_Looses_Domains.._This_time_for_real..html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121053113/http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120118/wikipedia-blackout-survival-guide-120118 to http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120118/wikipedia-blackout-survival-guide-120118/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120124042432/http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/20/4202034/eu-internet-czar-comes-out-agaist.html to http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/20/4202034/eu-internet-czar-comes-out-agaist.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Make a less-technical section please.

I'm worried I am dependent on wikipedia and am supporter of free-of-cost knowledge and preservation work. But I don't have the knowledge of server related terms. Also I usually don't understand legal statements because they are complex, big, and uses difficult terminologies. So I Plea to create a section in brief, simple and plain language on:

• 1. How (by which mechanisms) the said controversial laws affect Wikipedia?

• 2. How (by which mechanisms) the said controversial laws affect so many organisations who develop genuine/original but free software/content?

• 3. How (by which mechanisms) the said laws affect free-of-cost knowledge and learning in-general?

Thanks and best wishes.

2405:205:6285:DCD9:8CB2:E7A1:700D:312B (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

GA nomination

@Pichemist I saw that you've nominated this for GA. I'm not up to doing a full review, but let me suggest that a first pass on getting this up to GA quality would be to find all the citations to primary and/or non-reliable sources and replace those with better sources. I see a bunch of citations to reddit and twitter posts. None of those belong in a GA article. For example, in the "December 2011 boycott of GoDaddy" section, we cite a twitter post by Jimmy Wales for moving domains away from GoDaddy. Any of , , or would be better. Of those three, the Network World one is probably the best. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

References

-- RoySmith (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I do not think I will go trough the article as when I nominated it I was not aware that you needed to be a major contributor of the article at hand. This is my mistake and I take full responsibility for it. Thank you for your time. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 08:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh snap, I started looking through this earlier. I was adding notes in a text editor did not check the talk page to read your comment. I've put a review in for the article already.

This is my first GA review, so I am not sure what steps I should take next. Do you need me to "fail" the article or is there a different "withdraw" process? Rjjiii (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Pichemist Thank you for getting involved in GA, even if you bit off more than you could handle the first time. This was a big complicated article, so it wasn't the easiest introduction to the process. Might I suggest looking through the list of pending nominations and seeing if there's an easy one you can review, as a way to get your feet wet? @Rjjiii please see WP:GAN/I#N3. If the nominator informs the reviewer that they're withdrawing the nomination (which I guess we can consider has happened), you should fail the review. It wasn't a waste of time, however; the review is still available for people to look at and may well serve as a starting point for somebody else to dive in and make improvements, so thank you for that. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I've taken care of it. The review no longer seems transcluded onto this page but is still here: Talk:Protests against_SOPA and PIPA/GA1 for future reference Rjjiii (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)