Talk:Urban Freeflow

message: This wiki page cracked me up from the first line; "Urban Freeflow (often abbreviated to UF or U$F"
This incredibly biased article is not suitable for wikipedia, but no one cares.
To the traceur(s) who wrote this : Good Job   ; )   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.80.142 (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: U$F Still in the article as of 2009, shouldn't that be U£F? Will remove it again and direct readers to the talk page. There should be some responses to your comment or a citation to back it up. -- Horkana (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: wow

message: Does anyone know where the following quote is from?
"The only thing I'll add is that when talking to some professional sports people who've been watching Parkour develop, they have stated that for a sport/art that is so young, it has a shockingly bad identity crisis. This was aimed at the originators for not setting the record straight from day one... I don't get overly worried by it because Parkour has now got much bigger than anticipated and it is NOT controlled by the likes of David Belle or Sebastien Foucan. They are now simply players on a big field that continues to grow daily. There are companies being setup, websites springing up, people earning money from adverts, magazines being produced, dvd's being developed, people being sponsored, people teaching, being used in films and basically getting on with it. Neither David or Seb can do a SINGLE thing about it. Nobody has to answer to them. All we end up with are people bitching about it on websites but it makes not the slightest bit of difference. The wheels keep on turning. NOBODY owns Parkour. Whether you like it or not, that is a FACT."
These words are supposed to have been spoken by Paul "EZ" Corkery, by I am having trouble finding the source.Noxteryn 13:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Undermining of David Belle

message: How do you reverse edits, besides copy and paste?--24.19.3.231 05:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about how Wikipedia works

message: Well, It appears to me that this is just a collection of criticism and provides no real substantial information regarding the topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.18.1.196 (talk) 
:Hi, you can help to improve, take a look in Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia. Carlosguitar 16:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one who started the Critisism paragraph. That's how Wikipedia works. We each write what we know. I know what bad things UF have done, so I write these. If you know more than me, then write what you know. Simple.Noxteryn 19:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Noxteryn, I suggest that Critisism topic avoid weasel words if possible. Carlosguitar 22:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. English is not my primary language, so it's hard for me to write too formally and "encyclopaedically". Believe me, I do not wish to bad-mouth Urban Freeflow. I'm just trying to state a few things that I personally KNOW as objectively as possible. Feel free to rephrase me, wherever you see fit. But please do not delete my words, because I am not lying. However, I understand that phrases like "many people do this or that..." sound bad. Noxteryn 13:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A poll has started in Parkour.NET, so that a reference can be used, and the weasel words be deleted. More soon. Noxteryn 01:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Isn't this page basically a collection of Criticism?

message: There are many references online to David Belle saying that sites such as Urban Freeflow (with its public demonstrations and revenues) are prostituting parkour; however, I am having trouble finding the exact quote. Can someone find it and place it under criticisms?
--Heero Kirashami (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The prostitution of the art 

message: Removed a section that seems like advertising to me but perhaps with proper cleanup, citations, there is cause to include it in the article. there is a youtube link associated with TMPK in the article that also may not be properly relevant. -- Horkana (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section