User talk:B-man-online

on the ACMA page you added

It is unknown whether the ACMA intends to censor the entire website where the specific 'prohibited' URL on page 6 is located.

It is known that the ACMA specifically censored that page. There is nothing to suggest that they censored the entire website. The reference I added to that page for the EFA.org.au quotes the email they set confirming that specific page had been prohibited, in response to a single complaint registered by an australian citizen complaining about that specific page. So I think your addition is unreferenced and original research. It's also wrong, according to the reputable article in the reference section. In addition, Page 6 doesn't mean anything. Perhaps you mean reference 6. Also, in addtion, hardcoding a reference number isn't allowed since the reference numbers are automatically generated. If someone were to add a reference higher in the page anywhere it would become reference 7. You can include the same url as a reference and it will be given the right number. Perhaps revert that edit? --121.91.100.82 (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

your recent alteration

It is unknown whether the ACMA intends to censor the entire website where the specific 'prohibited' URL is located, as arguably the entire site contains images which is of a similar nature to the content contained in the 'prohibited' URL.

is speculative, unreferenced, and goes against the linked email provided at the EFA.org.au reference, which clearly states that only 1 page was reported, and that 1 page was prohibited. You can't say "because they haven't said other pages are ok" that they might be blocked. Since the ACMA blacklist is secret, you could just as easily say the entire internet may be prohibited. This is original research and is unreferenced. Please remove those additions, or of course reference them. But you won't find reputable references for that  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.100.82 (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)