What is it with people removing that link to that review? Maybe becuase it's negative? I dunno. I guess cause the creator linked the article on his journal, people don't wanna see a negative review. I just find it funny cause a week ago, there was no one except me really looking at the article, then all of a sudden a bunch of people show up! Although I welcome it cause I really wanted to expand the article. Thunderbrand 15:34, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
This was a non-notable band according to the criteria set out in WP:BAND. Perhaps Myspace would be a better location for this information rather than an encylopedia, until the criteria are satisfied. 12:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words. Luckily, at university we've been having some lectures about writing internet articles, so I thought I try it out. Your reply is proof that it works. Thanks again. ISD 07:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Watch over the page, user like mkil wants to destroy everything, including good links and other information. it's appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
Freedom of Speech - Internet
Hi there, regarding Hactivismo, that’s ok, the section needs some serious work. It was the only group I could find that made a direct and specific link between existing human rights, freedom of speech and the internet (in a well argued sort of way). If you know of any other groups you can maybe list them in the discussion page of the freedom of speech article, so we can start having a look at them. Once interesting thing is that freedom of speech as human rights law is interrelated to include any medium (hence internet/electronic communication), I think this is ref at some point of the article, maybe that’s a good opener for the section on freedom of speech and the internet. One thing we have to watch out for is the freedom of information article... which admittedly is pretty bad. I guess the correct way of doing this would be a section on Internet censorship (summarising and linking to main article), and a section on freedom of information (summarising and linking to the main article)... but then we would have to get the freedom of information article up to some sort of acceptable standard. I think the freedom of information article would probably be a good place to describe the arguments of different scholars and groups at length.... I would be quite happy to put some work into the freedom of information article, and once that has developed review the internet section of the freedom of speech article again. --SasiSasi (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
You or someone with your username has voted in m:Global sysops/Vote but you don't have a SUL account. Please merge your accounts or add a link from your Meta user page to your local user page to confirm your identity, or your vote may be struck. Thank you, Nemo 17:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)