[CallumPrecious1]

That idiot (SuperMarioMan, an administrator on Wikipedia) removes my article of dwho1995 Studios? It's not a hoax, but it is a real film studio i recently founded. All administrators on Wikipedia MUST BE REMOVED from the site immediately!! It's affecting my freedom of speech but they need to be removed now so the people can control on what they want to do to create new articles on characters, film studios, people, events, and entertainment. And also to edit the existing articles as well. The reason why all administrators should be removed immediately because they illegally removing my articles (as well as other users' articles) and illegally blocked me (and others) for an unfounded hoax but also sockpuppetry and therefore it needs to be stop on Wikipedia right now as I am now declare Wikipedia's policy against the users' freedom of speech unlawful, unfair, discriminatory, and unjustified!!!

Let the users have the right to gain freedom on Wikipedia right at this minute!!! My proposals on banning Wikipedia in Southern England post-independence would be published soon.

[skinster]

Wikipedia is captured by state actors into imperialist wars and narratives that sell experimental mRNA by Big Pharma.

[Skynet]

I rely on Wikipedia. I should have donated some bucks to preserve Wiki's indpendence.

[pugsville]

That idiot (SuperMarioMan, an administrator on Wikipedia) removes my article of dwho1995 Studios? It's not a hoax, but it is a real film studio i recently founded. All administrators on Wikipedia MUST BE REMOVED from the site immediately!! It's affecting my freedom of speech but they need to be removed now so the people can control on what they want to do to create new articles on characters, film studios, people, events, and entertainment. And also to edit the existing articles as well. The reason why all administrators should be removed immediately because they illegally removing my articles (as well as other users' articles) and illegally blocked me (and others) for an unfounded hoax but also sockpuppetry and therefore it needs to be stop on Wikipedia right now as I am now declare Wikipedia's policy against the users' freedom of speech unlawful, unfair, discriminatory, and unjustified!!!

Let the users have the right to gain freedom on Wikipedia right at this minute!!! My proposals on banning Wikipedia in Southern England post-independence would be published soon.

Wikipedia have. their own rules and free to act on them. It's NOT unlawful for them to not publish what you want them to publish, nor do you have free speech rights on THEIR platform. They can pick and choose what they publish.

The Software is freely available, Make your on Wiki.

Seesh. The Idea that other people MUST publish your content or it;s a free speech violation is really widespread, but it;s utter nonsense.

[Rancid]

My understanding is wiki is very accurate for topics that are not politically charged.

[CallumPrecious1]

Wikipedia have. their own rules and free to act on them. It's NOT unlawful for them to not publish what you want them to publish, nor do you have free speech rights on THEIR platform. They can pick and choose what they publish.

The Software is freely available, Make your on Wiki.

Seesh. The Idea that other people MUST publish your content or it;s a free speech violation is really widespread, but it;s utter nonsense.

Oh come on you must agree with me you know? I mean, i have been attacked and illegally blocked by administrators so many times since 2012 because of the unfounded allegations of sockpuppetry and editing hoax.

I would find the way to end this madness is to either requesting Wikipedia to remove its administrators or else shutting down Wikipedia and instead creating a new encyclopedia site called The United Dictionary for free-right people without its administrators nor the block option. And that's all.

[Unthinking Majority]

Did you ever produce the Doctor Who animated series? Sounds cool.

Did you ever get a deal to make the James Bond movie?

[CallumPrecious1]

Did you ever produce the Doctor Who animated series? Sounds cool.

Did you ever get a deal to make the James Bond movie?

Actually, i gave up on the Movies Game-inspired Doctor Who animated series because the YouTube ratings may not go down too well.

I haven't get the deal to make a James Bond movie yet unless my newly-formed studio decides to co-finance them.

So for now, i'm focusing on my cinematic universe film series which comprising new and licensed characters from outside universes (such as Doctor Who and Transformers etc) as well as original; rebooted; and sequel films. To clarify, my trailer is on Youtube with details in a video description about how will the cinematic universe works out

Watch it and see for yourself? It also remind how the cinematic universe films spanning years in cinema.

[pugsville]

Oh come on you must agree with me you know? I mean, i have been attacked and illegally blocked by administrators so many times since 2012 because of the unfounded allegations of sockpuppetry and editing hoax.

I would find the way to end this madness is to either requesting Wikipedia to remove its administrators or else shutting down Wikipedia and instead creating a new encyclopedia site called The United Dictionary for free-right people without its administrators nor the block option. And that's all.

Nope just using terms wrong. They have the right to run their website as they see fit. They have not obligation what so ever to host your content. There is noting illegal in what they have done. Noe do you have any rights at all to force others to publish you content. They administrate their site. Their site, their rules, their administrators.

The Madness is you believing you have a leg to stand on. They are not acting illegally.

You want a site to run of other principles the software is freely available and you can start paying for hosting to service to hots it and you can put your content there, no one is stopping you.

[CallumPrecious1]

Nope just using terms wrong. They have the right to run their website as they see fit. They have not obligation what so ever to host your content. There is noting illegal in what they have done. Noe do you have any rights at all to force others to publish you content. They administrate their site. Their site, their rules, their administrators.

The Madness is you believing you have a leg to stand on. They are not acting illegally.

You want a site to run of other principles the software is freely available and you can start paying for hosting to service to hots it and you can put your content there, no one is stopping you.

Well i don't care. Because i will pass on my powers to the government by looking into whenever they must remove Wikipedia from access in Southern England/Britain in order to label Wikipedia as illegal because of the administrators' illegal right to block users like myself since 2012 unless Wikipedia must remove its administrators if the site cooperate carefully to review Wikipedia administrators' conduct. This review aims to identify instances of unfounded hoaxes, sockpuppetry, and discriminatory behavior.

By establishing a committee of digital rights experts and community representatives, this would liaise with Wikipedia's governing bodies to address identified issues. It would request the removal of administrators involved in malicious activities and advocate for a more inclusive and responsible administration. The committee would ensure that any actions taken uphold freedom of speech while curbing abusive behavior. Users would be empowered to express their perspectives without fear of discrimination or suppression.

[Rich]

I thought I'd do a bit of research on this topic. Anyway here's what Wikipedia says about Wikipedia.

Wikipedia[note 3] is a free-content online encyclopedia written and maintained by a community of volunteers, collectively known as Wikipedians, through open collaboration and using a wiki-based editing system called MediaWiki. Wikipedia is the largest and most-read reference work in history,[3][4] and has consistently been one of the 10 most popular websites.[5] Founded by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger on January 15, 2001, it is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, an American nonprofit organization.

Initially only available in English, versions in other languages were quickly developed. Wikipedia's combined editions comprise more than 61 million articles, attracting around 2 billion unique device visits per month and more than 15 million edits per month (about 5.8 edits per second on average) as of July 2023.[6][7]

Wikipedia has been praised for its enablement of the democratization of knowledge, extent of coverage, unique structure, and culture. It has been criticized for exhibiting systemic bias, particularly gender bias against women and geographical bias against the Global South.[8][9] While the reliability of Wikipedia was frequently criticized in the 2000s, it has improved over time, receiving greater praise in the late 2010s and early 2020s,[3][8][10][note 4] having become an important fact-checking site.[11][12] It has been censored by world governments, ranging from specific pages to the entire site.[13][14] Articles on breaking news are often accessed as a source of frequently updated information about those events.[15][16]

[pugsville]

Well i don't care. Because i will pass on my powers to the government by looking into whenever they must remove Wikipedia from access in Southern England/Britain in order to label Wikipedia as illegal because of the administrators' illegal right to block users like myself since 2012 unless Wikipedia must remove its administrators if the site cooperate carefully to review Wikipedia administrators' conduct. This review aims to identify instances of unfounded hoaxes, sockpuppetry, and discriminatory behavior.

By establishing a committee of digital rights experts and community representatives, this would liaise with Wikipedia's governing bodies to address identified issues. It would request the removal of administrators involved in malicious activities and advocate for a more inclusive and responsible administration. The committee would ensure that any actions taken uphold freedom of speech while curbing abusive behavior. Users would be empowered to express their perspectives without fear of discrimination or suppression.

Get over yourself, Nothing illegal has happened. Your claims are ridiculous. unfounded and wrong,

[Godstud]

Wikipedia is still a thing?

[CallumPrecious1]

Get over yourself, Nothing illegal has happened. Your claims are ridiculous. unfounded and wrong,

Look my claims are foundable and right. I have already declare it as that. But why do you refuse to accept my claim?

[CallumPrecious1]

And if Wikipedia remains uncooperative and continues to hinder the freedom of speech and responsible editing, the UK government would implement Operation Caesar.

The government must take the unprecedented step of shutting down Wikipedia in southern England. This action underscores the commitment to protect the integrity of information dissemination and the freedom of speech.

To fill the void left by Wikipedia, the government needs to launch a new platform called "The United Dictionary." This platform will allow users to contribute and edit articles without the traditional administrator role.

The United Dictionary would encourage user creativity by permitting the exploration of nuanced terms and context-based descriptions. The platform will embrace a new era of human imagination while promoting responsible editing.

The platform would also discourage the use of the term "fictional" and encourage context-sensitive explanations. This approach will enable users to describe certain elements, characters, and universes more creatively and comprehensively. For example, a prologue of the re-created article would read instead as this: Commander James Bond (codename 007) is a southern English spy created by Ian Fleming.

Individuals, including myself and others, would have the opportunity to create articles about themselves, their projects, and newly-established companies as well as re-creating existing ones. This supports a diverse range of content contributors.

[CallumPrecious1]

Wikipedia is still a thing?

Why?

[CallumPrecious1]

Wikipedia is still a thing?

Why?

[B0ycey]

Funny you write this. I used to donate to Wikipedia, but then I found out that the account of Graham Hancock could ONLY be edited by his opponents and have refused to do so since. Nonetheless I am not against Wikipedia. In fact there are a lot of useful information on it. But it is biased... and what is worse certain accounts are blocked off which annoys me greatly. So I can sympathise with you and tell you that Wikipedia should be a source of information but a source of information that you MUST Verify with another source.

[Puffer Fish]

That idiot (SuperMarioMan, an administrator on Wikipedia) removes my article of dwho1995 Studios? It's not a hoax, but it is a real film studio i recently founded. All administrators on Wikipedia MUST BE REMOVED from the site immediately!!

There is Conservapedia, the main alternative to Wikipedia. But I doubt they would let you post your article either.
The reason they removed your article probably had to do with perceived lack of value or low quality, rather than any political or social bias.

Anything of a political nature on Wikipedia is going to be held to a higher standard, and information needs to come from sources that are a little bit bigger and more mainstream.

Your article probably seemed too commercial, trying to hawk a very small business venture. The name used does not sound real and sounds fictional. And then worse, the link to your site shows a famous picture from a film that your start-up company obviously has nothing to deal with. So it has a trashy feeling.

I am not trying to disparage you but all in all, it all comes across as very immature. Sorry to say, but if I were the moderator I would have done the same thing.

[CallumPrecious1]

There is Conservapedia, the main alternative to Wikipedia. But I doubt they would let you post your article either.
The reason they removed your article probably had to do with perceived lack of value or low quality, rather than any political or social bias.

Anything of a political nature on Wikipedia is going to be held to a higher standard, and information needs to come from sources that are a little bit bigger and more mainstream.

Your article probably seemed too commercial, trying to hawk a very small business venture. And then worse, the link to your site shows a famous picture from a film that your start-up company obviously has nothing to deal with. So it has a ***** feeling.

I am not trying to disparage you but all in all, it all comes across as very immature. Sorry to say, but if I were the moderator I would have done the same thing.

My studio have already started-up because the name of dwho1995 Studios sounds very much real, although the company itself hasn't been registered yet (i will do that soon) but it's on my LinkedIn account (see https://www.linkedin.com/in/callum-precious-760bb3261/) as an example that it is unrelated to politics (but my sub-region of southern England would go unrelated to politics as soon as my campaign for its independence starts).