Talk:Peacefire

NPOV

This article seems to not have a neutral view. The wording in the following sentence implies a non-neutral view in a way that is hard for me to describe. Here is the quote: "They then compile a report on how biased and repressive the filtering software is." I think that a better way to say this would be to say something like: "They then compile a report stating that the filtering software is wrong and is biased/repressive." I would change this, but I'm not sure it'd be taken as a serious edit. Xonybubba 16:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I just fixed that :-) Nateland 21:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

From VfD

This page was proposed for deletion. You can still find the discussion of its deletion here. — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 12:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not big on editing wiki sites, but the line about peacefire defending "first amendment rights for internet users" could perhaps be changed to "first amendment rights for American internet users" or something equally global that accepts that many of us aren't American. Perhaps there is a mission statement, or are peacefire only concerned with the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.173.84 (talk • contribs)

Global perspective

You are sorley mistaken peacefire and its affiliates have fought relentlessly for the freedom of other nations like china and south korea in their campains to censer the internet. Peacefire is a respected organization as its founder this article must stay and survive for the freedoms of all people to working forward to a better world the same goal as wikipedia.

-- danieljackson (tlk) (cntrbtns) 06:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Yes, but the point is that there are no "First Amendment rights" except under the US constitution, which doesn't affect the 6+ billion human beings who don't live in the US/aren't US citizens. This could be rewritten better if peacefire.org really is active for the rights of all internet users, not just those in the US. -anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.121.7 (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Bennet Haselton

Why does Bennet Haselton redirect here?. I know this is a big project of his but wouldn't a seperate article on this man autobiography be better?. I would do so but I'm not how much of a controversial edit that might be. Nateland 21:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Been done for a while: Here - Illwish (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hostile website

When clicking on the peacefire external link, I get: Template:Quotation As a result, I'm removing the external link. Toddst1 (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Reading that message closely, all see it saying everything not checked is going to be regarded as suspicious - that doesn't mean it's saying the site is known to be problematic. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Peacefire Main Page.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

File:Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:Peacefire Main Page.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 23 August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this website still active?

They have stopped sending out emails and have not updated their "Blocked site of the day" feature for a long while. I have been unable to find any information regarding this anywhere else, and an answer would we be highly appreciated. 38.39.221.2 (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)