Talk:Criticism of the FRA law

Removal of content
While I do agree with this edit, calling it "self-promotional" is a bit harsh - I strongly doubt the guys behind the pirate bay edit Wikipedia. Plrk (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't implying that the content was inserted by TPB people, but that it served to promote TPB. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why the "self-" in "self-promotional"? Plrk (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a statement by a person affiliated with TPB. Ergo, self-promotion. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

POV
While I assume it was created to avoid problems with the FRA law article, having an article devoted entirely to criticism of a piece of legislation strikes me as POV and probably non-compliant with various sections in WP:NOT, in particular Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Tomas e (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to rename it Reception to the FRA law (or Reaction to the FRA law) and writing an article that details the protests (and the support) in a chronological order, rather than the current List of organizations that are against the FRA law. However, I do not have enough time at the moment. Plrk (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oups, it was over a year since I wrote the comment above. The existence of this article must be a clear case of Content forking, which is strongly discouraged. It should reasonably either be merged to the FRA law article, respecting WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, or be deleted. Tomas e (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Black Monday-The Network for the removal of the FRA-Law
It would be nice to get some information to why the information about the network Black Monday's has been removed from this page without any discussion whatsoever.

If there is no explanation presented within a few days, i want it back on this page.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaber nestor (talk • contribs) 20:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)