Jump to content

User talk:Eight96Four

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your submission at Articles for creation: HKChronicles (April 28)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Theroadislong (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Anonymouswikiuser7! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Greyjoy. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Internet censorship in Hong Kong. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Greyjoy talk 07:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Anonymouswikiuser7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Greyjoy talk 07:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected your draft Draft:March in Kowloon, 20 October 2019

[edit]

I redirected your draft because it is about a march that is already covered in mainspace. Please do not create dupilcation. If the topic is already in mainspace, work on it there. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Hong Kong Connection.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hong Kong Connection.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of websites blocked in Hong Kong (May 10)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Internet censorship in Hong Kong. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Greenman (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs

[edit]

Thank you for your recent edit to Pir Qoli , but please take care not to add {{stub}} to an article which already has a specific stub tag, and remember that all stub tags go at the foot of the article, not the top - see WP:ORDER. Thanks. PamD 06:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between state and regime

[edit]

You asked what is the difference between the PRC and the CCP, the PRC and the CCP are not the same entity.

The name "People's Republic of China" (PRC) is the official formal longform title of the sovereign state (country) of 🇨🇳. It is the official name of the actual country as described formally in its constitution The PRC is a formal name, such as:

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) = commonly known as the Soviet Union

United Mexican States (UMS) = commonly known as Mexico

Republic of Korea (ROK) = commonly known as South Korea

Republic of China (ROC) = commonly known as Taiwan

The PRC is not the actual institution or regime that runs the administration of the country but rather the formal name of the country itself given by the CCP during the communist period of the CCP regime's rule over China since 1949. A regime is an institution which forms the system of government, The PRC isn't the system, it's just the name which the regime of the CCP gave to the country under which the communist regime of the CCP administers (i.e. is in control of). It is the formal name of the country. When you say "Nazi regime", that refers to the Nazi government administration run by Nazi Party that is in control of Nazi Germany, not the actual country of Germany (titled Nazi Germany at that time) itself.

It is not correct to say that the "Nazi regime" is actually the country of Germany (titled as Nazi Germany during the Nazi Party regime) during the Nazi period where Germany was ruled by the Nazi Party, in the same way it is not correct to say that the CCP regime is the country of China (titled as People's Republic of China during the CCP regime) during the communist period since 1949 when the CCP took over.

The CCP is the founding and sole governing political party of the People's Republic of China (PRC). It is the sole governing political party which exclusively forms the administration of the government of China and the State Council of the People's Republic of China. The CCP is the regime which rules the government of the People's Republic of China, officially the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China or simply the Central Government.

Yes, the PRC and CCP can be colloquially synonymous with each other but technically they are not the same entity. Yeungkahchun (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

You requested others to link the article you created to other wikis on your user page. I've already done the relevant edits on Wikidata. You said on Talk:HKChronicles that you were not able to edit due to IP block. I think you can apply an IP block exemption on Wikidata to link articles. The process of applying the right on Wikidata is less complicated than on English Wikipedia. I can help you apply if you don't mind. Sun8908 Talk 05:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sun8908 Thanks for your suggestion. I can't apply for the exemption as I am blocked on WIkidata. Please help me apply if you don't mind. Thank you. Eight96Four (talk) 07:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Happy editing! Sun8908 Talk 03:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Yeungkahchun (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yeungkahchun please stop threatening me. You are not an administrator. Eight96Four (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't supply a warning, but I asked you to discuss this issue on the article's talk page, so please engage in discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian & HK articles

[edit]

If you are not familiar with Canadian politics and Canadian domestic affairs please refrain from making unconstructive edits in this area as it well known in Canadian society and news that 2021 Canadian Indian residential schools gravesite discoveries racial reckoning has been and is the number #1 major news headline for months now since May 2021, being in the news headlines ​everyday and has consistently been one of the top major sociopolitical issue in Canada today, with even the PM and all top party leaders continuously making statements on the reckoning, extensive news coverage for months, and even having Canada Day celebration cancelled by Canadian governments, major protests & sit-ins in Canada, statue desecrations of Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth, and also numerous church burnings by protesters in response to this event (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_schools_gravesite_discoveries#Reactions). https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/26/world/canada/indigenous-residential-schools-grave.html https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/canada-s-tragic-residential-school-reckoning-could-be-grim-harbinger-for-u-s-1.5487401 https://nationalpost.com/news/canadas-tragic-residential-school-reckoning-could-be-grim-harbinger-for-u-s https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-day-celebrations-indigenous-residential-schools-1.6086924 https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/06/02/world/canada-reckoning-residential-school/ Along with the 2021 wildfires, the Indigenous gravesites reckoning is the top news headline in Canada today, it's always on the news and received significant coverage.

Furthermore, you need not obsessively "creep" on my contributions to revert all of my contributions (areas like Canadian news in which you have never edited in your edit history until I made the edits). I suspect you mistakenly view that I oppose your political beliefs (when that is totally not the case) and thus you felt the need to revert all my contributions even though you do not have the background in such areas. Discussing Canada's historical human rights abuses does not downplay the oppressive and repressive Chinese Communist Party regime's current human rights abuses in China and in Hong Kong (which are even worse), so you don't need to obsessively refute my contributions and mass-delete massively newsworthy content in Canadian-related articles in order to do "gotcha" edits on Canada articles to "get back" for my editing on CCP China and Hong Kong related articles. You are engaging in removal of content without consensus on the BC page, but what about the Manitoba, Saskatchewan pages (other provinces which also had unmarked graves in schools)? You only reverted the BC page because of my edit, your contribution record has no focus in articles relating to Canada or Canadian Indigenous related articles but you it is apparent you only came to revert what you saw as me "over-focusing" on a topic that you described as "not important" (you insisted that 1000s of deaths in Canada are not important, when in fact the government of Canada is currently lowering the Canadian flag for 700+ hours or 30+ days for each life lost from the res. schools), when it is in fact a major news headline and issue. A hypothetical plane crash you described is not comparable to the Indigenous reckoning which has been on Canadian breaking news headlines virtually 24/7 since May 26, 2021. (Although I would like to point out that plane crashes such as the Air India airplane Canadian crash are also included on the Canada article).

Please do not downplay this major Canadian sociopolitical issue (which have had extensive news coverage for months, even having Canada Day celebration cancelled by Canadian governments and major protests in Canada and also church burnings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_schools_gravesite_discoveries#Reactions etc), similarly you would not want someone with no familiarity of Hong Kong issues mass deleting content in articles relating to CCP China & Hong Kong related sociopolitical issues to be downplaying the very valid democracy movement in Hong Kong and CCP China infringement on Hong Kong related articles.

Anyways, I have no interest for a petty tit-for-tat edit war, although I would like to point out that I do respect many of the past contributions you have made on Wikipedia, such as the article Internet censorship in Hong Kong and the Hong Kong protests timeline articles, and also thank you for your creation of much needed articles (such as July 1 police stab, 2021 Hong Kong Charter), so with all respect, thank you.

Best, have a good day and thank you for your other Good Faith contributions on the Hong Kong articles related to the Hong Kong protests and democratic development in Hong Kong, which are very good, helpful and constructive. Yeungkahchun (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:Vandalism on what is an unconstructive edit.

So you think I am opposing your political beliefs and it is correct. But it is only because I found many of your contributions problematic so I decided to review some of them.

When does removing content on an article start to need consensus?

And how is removing one to two sentences 'mass deleting'?

Thanks. Eight96Four (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eight96Four: No, I am in line with your political beliefs, I said I support the contributions you made on Hong Kong protest related articles. They are very much needed and are in fact very helpful. It is just the way you go about reducing the details on pages (BC, Miss Hong Kong 2021). Those one or two sentences on the BC page are meant to represent a concise summary of major events, but I have since then further reduced the sentence (as you are right it is not needed to individually list each gravesite discovery as it becomes exhaustive. Yeungkahchun (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TVB fan, I don't think you are on the same side with me.

You don't need to list all discoveries. But you can use a see also template, if you want. Eight96Four (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eight96Four: Actually, I am no fan of TVB, which is notorious for its fake news and pro-CCP bias during the 2014 & 2019 Hong Kong protests. (But it shouldn't matter what a person's personal likings are anyways, liking the subject of an article is completely irrelevant to the editing of the page). Even though I do not support a certain article, I still have to maintain and fix the article pages on articles, even if I don't like the topic (such as China's genocide, China's horrific human rights abuses etc). I don't have to "like" a page to edit it. I am not a fan of TVB, but the Miss Hong Kong Pageant 2021 is still underway regardless of my own personal view of the company. On Wikipedia, an editor's personal views should not cloud the way they make contributions an article. For example, if an editor doesn't like CNN, should they go about removing pertinent information on CNN's programs? No, absolutely not. If an editor doesn't like TVB, should they go about deleting pages and removing all the info from the page due to "lack of notability" ? Of course not. Miss Hong Kong is TVB's most popular annual program, and it has continued this year thus it will have a page like previous years, and the info on it will remain, whether you like the company or not.

For BC, I have removed the individual listing of the discoveries, and combined them into 1 sentence. You are right actually here to reduce the British Columbia page (I self reverted) and not include each, because if there are 100+ discoveries we cannot list each one. I did not include the see also template, instead I just linked. I am on the same side with you, it's just we have to include details on Wikipedia that are necessary for an encyclopedic understanding of topics. We cannot be like CCP and just blindly omit details of events (for example: the CCP never mentions 1989 Tiananmen).Yeungkahchun (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining the article by adding data supported by unreliable sources.
Adding one-sided data and ignore the other side, just like what you did to July 1 police stabbing.

Eight96Four (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC) @Eight96Four: I did not delete anything on July 1 police stab, I just changed the page title from stab to stabbing and reworded the sentence. I wrote this sentence on July 1 police stab: "Suspected motives of the perpetrator include dissatisfaction with Hong Kong police sheltering criminals and opposition to the implementation of the Hong Kong national security law and its ramifications on the course of democratic development in Hong Kong." Is this not true? The motive of the suspect is the police brutality and the destruction of Hong Kong freedoms by the Hong Kong SAR regime's implementation of the national security law. I also added the reaction from the Hong Kong government. I never ignored or took any side, I just added more information on the suspect's motive (police brutality and national security law's impact on HK freedoms) and the government response (although the government response section is too long, it should be shortened)Yeungkahchun (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is you were just adding government responses. How about citizens, student organizations, or even netizens? You simply ignored this side. I often find this problem in your edits. Eight96Four (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eight96Four: For reactions of events, I usually provide edits on statements government responses from countries, not individual citizens. I tried to find foreign government response from Western countries but they did not make any statements on the stabbing. On Apple Daily, back a few weeks ago, I wrote United States government's condemnation of Hong Kong SAR regime's closure of Apple Daily. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apple_Daily&diff=1030450338&oldid=1030450135 Yeungkahchun (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Hong Kong 2021 article

[edit]

Do you even watch the actual 2021 Miss Hong Kong pageant? If you actually watched it, you would know that information on the page is completely valid, these are the contestants and their names & age. The information from the offical site is valid and reliable, and reflects the actual outcome of contest (as you can also see the Chinese version of the wikipedia page), however the references just could be improved. Don't remove validated information, however I do agree with you that a better reference (rather than the 38jiejie wordpress) could have been provided - this will be corrected. The information is reflected in many HK entertainment news articles, these sources are preferable to self-published wordpresses. In the end, the information is the same, but originating from different sources with differing degrees of reliability, The information is derived from any sources from the actual pageant. Like how do you know who the Eurovision contestants are? From independent news sources. And all the independent news sources originally derived the contestant information either: a) from the official Eurovision site or b) from basing the information from actually watching the actual Eurovision Contest itself. So everything is derived back to the original primary source.

For the Miss Hong Kong 2021 article, the basic information (date, location, venue) is based from the official website, just as the information (delegate information, contest venue, date & location) just as the 2020 Miss Universe article would be based from the official Miss Universe website. When gathering information on competition events such as beauty pageants and sport events, the official source is preferred as it is the original source who is providing the information on the event they themselves are hosting. It isn't any sort of "bias" because they themselves are releasing information on the event they themselves have created, have all the reserved rights to, and are hosting. Secondary sources would derive their information from the official source to be legitimized & reliable. For example, news about any Miss Universe pageant would be derived from the official Miss Universe company, news about any new video game would be derived from the official video game company's site, for reliability.

Although I do agree with you on the point that the reference needs to be better (i.e. the 38jiejieword press), but the information derived from the official site is valid.

Yeungkahchun (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but even though the information is valid, you cannot add it without reliable/published/independent sources as per WP:OR. I have said several times that the official website is not independent of the subject and cannot be used as per WP:RS. Eight96Four (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Per WP:PRIMARYCARE, Material based on primary sources are valuable and appropriate additions to articles. The official website of an organization/film/TV series is the primary source.

An article about a film: The film itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot and the names of the characters. A Wikipedian cannot use the film as a source for claims about the film's themes, importance to the film genre, or other matters that require critical analysis or interpretation. An article about a business: The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities. It is not likely to be an acceptable source for most claims about how it or its products compare to similar companies and their products (e.g., "OurCo's Foo is better than Brand X"), although it will be acceptable for some simple, objective descriptions of the organization including annual revenue, number of staff, physical location of headquarters, and status as a parent or subsidiary organization to another. It is never an acceptable source for claims that evaluate or analyze the company or its actions, such as an analysis of its marketing strategies (e.g., "OurCo's sponsorship of National Breast Cancer Month is an effective tool in expanding sales to middle-aged, middle-class American women").

In this case, the film is a series of 2-3 hours beauty pageant. In this case, the organization is the Miss Hong Kong Pageant organization owned by TVB.

What is not acceptable is to use the organization's website to make a biased opinionated claim (for example: Miss Hong Kong contestants are better than the Miss Macau pageants because the Miss Hong Kong website says "We are the Best"), but basic facts can be derived from the official website (which organized the contest) such as contest venue, location & time.

Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent Independence isn't solely attributed to secondary sources. In fact, secondary sources doesn't always mean independence. You are correct that the official website is not independent of the subject. However primary sources such as official sites can still be used for basic logistical information (contest location & date), not information at risk of having bias skew (reception of the contestants, the ratings of the show, how well received the show is etc) Yeungkahchun (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eight96Four: Anyhow I will still follow your recommendation to add more secondary sources to the Miss Hong Kong 2021 pageant to strengthen the article references, as per WP:SECONDARY Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Yeungkahchun (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok if you just add back the numbers. However, without reliable sources, you just can't put in some information such as the names, etc. Even though they may be correct, no one knows whether they are actually correct or not. Filling in the data after watching the film is original research, violates WP:OR. Eight96Four (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note

[edit]

@Eight96Four:: Please understand I have no animosity toward you. You are not a vandal, and you have made excellent contributions to the site. I do respect many of the past contributions you have made on Wikipedia, such as the article Internet censorship in Hong Kong and the Hong Kong protests timeline articles, and also thank you for your creation of much needed articles (such as July 1 police stab, 2021 Hong Kong Charter), so with all respect, thank you. Thank you.

Areas of concern are that you should not be unilaterally mass deleting legitimate content without consensus, such as:

  • information at British Columbia with respect to the 2021 Canadian Indian residential schools gravesite discoveries - important being the major sociopolitical issue news headlines of a country (breaking news headlines for months). While I agree tha rather than list each school individually it should be summarized concisely, rather than entirely deleting any mention of it. If there are 20 gravesite discoveries, listing 20 schools would be exhaustive on the page. I agree with you that a concise statement is preferred over listing each, but your first act of deleting all of it is not the way to go.
  • beauty contest information at Miss Hong Kong 2021 - validated by the official pageant site. The pageant information is legitimate, furthermore the pageant can literally be viewed on YouTube and other video streaming sites which verifies that the contestant information is correct Yeungkahchun (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

my edits on British Columbia is not 'mass deletion' for Miss Hong Kong 2021, I explained in another reply Eight96Four (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 1 police stab

[edit]

You claimed that I ignored one side on July 1 police stab, I never ignored or took any one side, I just provided information on the suspect's motive (police brutality and police abuse from the Hong Kong police and national security law's deterioration & destruction on HK freedoms) and the government response calling (although the government response section is too long, it should be shortened). I wrote this sentence on July 1 police stab: "Suspected motives of the perpetrator include dissatisfaction with Hong Kong police sheltering criminals and opposition to the implementation of the Hong Kong national security law and its ramifications on the course of democratic development in Hong Kong." Is this not true? The motive of the suspect is the Hong Kong Police's police brutality and the destruction of Hong Kong freedoms by the Hong Kong SAR regime's implementation of the national security law. I copied and pasted the exact quote reaction from the Hong Kong government leaders (although it was too long, one sentence is good enough). I did not "take the side" of the government in this matter, I just included their response. Yeungkahchun (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is you were just adding government responses. How about citizens, student organizations, or even netizens? You simply ignored this side. I often find this problem in your edits. Eight96Four (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone makes a contribution about A doesn't mean they don't care about B. Why didn't you add it when you originally created the article then? Why did you not write about foreign reactions to the Uyghur Genocide? Tibetans? By your own logic, you are ignoring and taking sides. Please don't insinuate or inference other's moral beliefs due to their edits. If I edited the page about Nazi Germany does that make me a Nazi supporter? No.Yeungkahchun (talk) 02:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eight96Four: @Eight96Four: For reactions of events, I usually provide edits on statements government responses from countries, not individual citizens. I tried to find foreign government response from Western countries but they did not make any statements on the stabbing. On Apple Daily, back a few weeks ago, I wrote United States government's condemnation of Hong Kong SAR regime's closure of Apple Daily. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apple_Daily&diff=1030450338&oldid=1030450135Yeungkahchun (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can find all the information you need on Chinese wikipedia. Eight96Four (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know there are local responses from the population. I meant responses from foreign countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom.Yeungkahchun (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just think you can add responses from different parties, not just governments. Eight96Four (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:2021 Hong Kong Charter.png

[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:2021 Hong Kong Charter.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:2021-22 edited.webp

[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:2021-22 edited.webp. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:List of websites blocked in Hong Kong

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Eight96Four. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of websites blocked in Hong Kong, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 1 July police stabbing

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1 July police stabbing you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shushugah -- Shushugah (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 1 July police stabbing

[edit]

The article 1 July police stabbing you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:1 July police stabbing for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shushugah -- Shushugah (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding User:Eight96Four/List of websites blocked in Hong Kong

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Eight96Four. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:Eight96Four/List of websites blocked in Hong Kong, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Template:User hate CCP

[edit]

Template:User hate CCP, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User hate CCP and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:User hate CCP during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Broc (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eight96Four&oldid=1218365408"