I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from List of defunct media due to Hong Kong national security law, which you proposed for deletion. As I noted in my edit summary removing the proposed deletion, the article is decently sourced. You did not provide any proof about the claims you made in the proposal. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! (Additionally, please be careful when making similar requests in the future as one of the words you used was a derogatory term. As generally mentioned in one of our policies, derogatory terms should not be used.) --Super Goku V (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Well, you are literally just proving the oft questioned point of why the central government has banned Wikipedia from access to the audience of the People's Republic of China! The upheaval situation in fucking AMERICA shows to you what is wrong with the allowance for too much information to be disseminated into the brains of the masses, who have received inadequate education. Just look at how horribly American's education levels rank in the global market, especially with account towards equality (see white flight for more detail, also). What I'm trying to say is, some mainstreaming of the narrative is NEEDED for a society to maintain internal coherence and structural stability. Otherwise, the cards crumble and the scheme completely splits apart, as HAS BEEN DONE MULTIPLE TIMES IN THE HISTORY OF EMPIRES. Spring and Autumn Period, Warring States Period, Chu-Han Contention, Northern and Southern Dynasties, Five Dynasties,... for the sake of even today to some extent with the rebellious teenager breakway state in the southeastern island! Flora Wilshire (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, please refrain from doing this and this to random editors. Editors are only supposed to be given that notice when they show interest in Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, such as what you did in this edit. Additionally, editors who have already received the notice generally do not need to be given it a second time. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)05:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
November 2022
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Republican Party (United States). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Opinions of the source -- that is, the source you are citing -- must be labeled as "in the opinion of ...". Do not add your own spin on what you think the source says. – S. Rich (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Reverting a blatant attempt to promote a point of view"? Come on, this whole article would satisfy this category. Just look at the wording of the Back to the Future paragraph for just one of many examples. Since we already have like 3 articles on the subject that are even linked here as "main article", it's probably more worthwhile to just delete it rather than attempt to fix it.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators:Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
