Talk:Protests against SOPA and PIPA

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

— 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.

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) -- 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 &#124; 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.  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)