This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia. The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia does not aim to contain all knowledge...
Click to read more »FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Unambiguous violation of the Wikipedia POLICY WP:NOTFREESPEECH.[April Fools!] Mr. Guye (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Banana Seel...
Click to read more »their respective bad image lists. Wikipedia:Enforcement policies WP:NOTFREESPEECH: Wikipedia is not a forum for unrestricted free speech Wikipedia:User...
Click to read more »in previous MfD chose to allow this on invalid arguments, such as WP:NOTFREESPEECH. The previous discussion was closed with no consensus nearly 15 years...
Click to read more »allow this on invalid arguments, such as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Given recent concerns about transphobia on Wikipedia, I would consider...
Click to read more »before rushing to judgment. BZPN (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC) WP:NOTFREESPEECH silviaASH (inquire within) 18:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC) That's right, so...
Click to read more »10 December 2008 (UTC) I think the most relevant policy here is WP:NOTFREESPEECH: "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness...
Click to read more »undergone Diet. Freedom of speech was nominated for deletion per WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Gatwick Express was nominated for deletion for being a hoax as is it...
Click to read more »argument/Arguments (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Runs afoul of WP:NOTFREESPEECH. This page was being used as a forum, and Wikipedia's not a forum at...
Click to read more »(UTC) If you scroll down a bit from WP:NOTCENSORED, you'll also find WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Wikipedia "restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere...
Click to read more »less direct way. Cardamon (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Sigh. WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Criticism...
Click to read more »linking the WP:NOTBLOG, which says that Wikipedia ≠ blog? Why not WP:NOTFREESPEECH for the piping text "your opinion"? Furthermore, I haven't intended...
Click to read more »out of a concern for freedom of speech and even-handedness...well, WP:NOTFREESPEECH and WP:UBCR seem to indicate that neither of those things are primary...
Click to read more »volunteer, not that you are free to write whatever you please. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH and WP:FREE. Same as K12 teachers, Wikipedians don't have academic freedom...
Click to read more »expression" does not necessarily exist on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:NOTFREESPEECH). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 01:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC) His comments are pretty...
Click to read more »policy page, four sections down, addresses this point explicitly: WP:NOTFREESPEECH. While I don't know if it's written down somewhere, we ought to be applying...
Click to read more »19:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC) You have no right to free speech here. WP:NOTFREESPEECH. However, see below. Black Kite 19:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC) The 1st Amendment...
Click to read more »whatsoever. These editors steadfastly refuse to internalize any piece of WP:NOTFREESPEECH and decry any effort to reign in editors with a similar perspective...
Click to read more »as user essay. This "party" goes against core Wikipedia policies WP:NOTFREESPEECH, WP:NOTSTATUTE, etc. All related pages should also be deleted. 67.119...
Click to read more »s/he likes about pedophilia or any other topic, but per NOTFORUM and NOTFREESPEECH, Wikipedia is not a venue in which to debate those opinions. Re the...
Click to read more »Wikipedia:Free speech. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC) WP:NOTFREESPEECH - you are free to complain about admins elsewhere but not on newbie...
Click to read more »(UTC) No further input from me as OP is not behaving sensibly. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH for why WWGB did nothing much wrong here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:53...
Click to read more »Editor has obviously some political COI in his edits, see WP:NPOV and WP:NOTFREESPEECH, please have a look at his Contribs with his current and especially...
Click to read more »credibility. We have a ton of policies that support this: WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTFREESPEECH, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. No one in their right mind would take a serious...
Click to read more »community has already put its opinion about free speech into policy: WP:NOTFREESPEECH. The talk page of WP:NOT would be the place to challenge that consensus...
Click to read more »(UTC) You are only making it worse for yourself by saying that, WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC) I do not make my edits...
Click to read more »article. When I pointed out that Wikipedia has a policy on this (WP:NOTFREESPEECH), User:Kharon arrogantly responded that because he joined English Wikipedia...
Click to read more »SCOTUS: see here GoldenRing (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC) You guys. WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Obviously Wikipedia is a private entity that can regulate and suppress...
Click to read more »but would ask him to bear in mind policies such as WP:FRINGE and WP:NOTFREESPEECH. It's pretty obvious that The Daily Stormer is not a suitable source...
Click to read more »incredibly poor forward thought and understanding of WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTFREESPEECH, at a minimum. As for Barbara, yes, this certainly falls squarely within...
Click to read more »(talk • contribs) 13:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC) User:256Drg, please see WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Please also see WP:SIGNATURE. ——Serial 13:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC) (Note:...
Click to read more »website. Finally you have no freedom of speech on Wikipedia, see WP:NOTFREESPEECH. If you want freedom of speech, please go somewhere else. You already...
Click to read more »Piotrus is being silly, comparing that reversion to censorship. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Most of the time stuff like that inserted into articles is just reverted...
Click to read more »watching these videos.--Ykraps (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC) WP:NOTFREESPEECH, however, if someone wants beheading videos they are welcome to host...
Click to read more »this post-Arb effort is a mixture of WP:SOAP, WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTFREESPEECH all rolled into one. Reviewers working AfC/NPP handle a fair share of...
Click to read more »representing broad and long-standing community consensus. Wikipedia is WP:NOTFREESPEECH, and the project doesn't exist to allow people to connect or to express...
Click to read more »(UTC) (edit conflict)Hi PoetVeches. Please see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:NOTFREESPEECH for reference when it comes to Wikipedia, but the Teahouse is not really...
Click to read more »about advancing your cause against WP:PAGs. We're WP:NOTANARCHY and WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC) I don't think this...
Click to read more »issue. Keep mind that Wikipedia is not a place for free speech, see WP:NOTFREESPEECH. And the logical, rational reason for deleting this article is that...
Click to read more »regular TVs." To Inowen, other than what I said above, please read WP:NOTFREESPEECH and the linked Wikipedia:Free speech. Maybe you're going to dismiss...
Click to read more »for the source, instead of general free-speech arguments (despite WP:NOTFREESPEECH) and aggressive attacks on other editors - David Gerard (talk) 20:44...
Click to read more »include. While Wikipedia is not censored WP:NOTCENSORED it is also WP:NOTFREESPEECH and articles need to pass WP:NOTE for notability to be included. Rescendent...
Click to read more »2020 (UTC) Yup, Facebook believes in freedom of speech, we don't: WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Also, “anyone can edit” should be changed to “anyone can edit constructively”...
Click to read more »Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech." (WP:NOTFREESPEECH). Because of English Wikipedia's purpose, form, and method, practically...
Click to read more »times do we stress to people in the administration of this project, NOTFREESPEECH, NOTSOCIALNETWORK, NOTJUSTICE. Because none of those are what the project...
Click to read more »mind. Then you vandalized my post by inserting into the caption “WP:NOTFREESPEECH”. I think I understand your style now and feel soiled. I will no longer...
Click to read more »terms of the subject. Discussions for which one can equally cite WP:NOTFREESPEECH (you don't have the right to advertise your POV here) and WP:NOTCENSORED...
Click to read more »issue. Keep mind that Wikipedia is not a place for free speech, see WP:NOTFREESPEECH. And the logical, rational reason for deleting this article is that...
Click to read more »free expression, in a flagrant display of an inability to accept WP:NOTFREESPEECH. These same users bear the lion's share of the blame for much of the...
Click to read more »and should get deleted from Wikipedia. Freedom of speech went to WP:NOTFREESPEECH via "Wikipedia is not your web host". Wikipedia was not created to be...
Click to read more »for Wikipedia. We simply render scholarship, see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC) "Your personal, subjective...
Click to read more »WP:NOBIGOTS is just a spiteful piece of nonsense. We already have WP:NOTFREESPEECH (as it says there: "The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing...
Click to read more »and should get deleted from Wikipedia. Freedom of speech went to WP:NOTFREESPEECH via "Wikipedia is not your web host". Wikipedia was not created to be...
Click to read more »FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Unambiguous violation of the Wikipedia POLICY WP:NOTFREESPEECH.[April Fools!] Mr. Guye (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Banana Seel...
Click to read more »include. While Wikipedia is not censored WP:NOTCENSORED it is also WP:NOTFREESPEECH and articles need to pass WP:NOTE for notability to be included. Rescendent...
Click to read more »anyway— see WP:NOTFORUM, WP:CIVIL, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:BLP, Wikipedia:NOTFREESPEECH, etc. Dronebogus (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC) The German Wikipedia...
Click to read more »where additional considerations apply, and none more than BLP. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH. @ PackMecEng: I agree that there should not be an exception. Maybe...
Click to read more »(talk) 11:36, 28 June 2026 (UTC) please have a good read of WP:BLP, WP:NOTFREESPEECH, WP:UNDUE and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Can I ask how you know that there...
Click to read more »Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC) Wikipedia is WP:NOTFREESPEECH. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC) Monty Python's Life...
Click to read more »16 June 2023 (UTC) No. You shouldn't advocate per WP:PODIUM and WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC) @Twinkle1990, the invitation...
Click to read more »equally well to allowing AI images. 3) Here’s one more link for you: WP:NOTFREESPEECH. “Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness...
Click to read more »but gratis. Quang, Bùi Huy (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC) WP:NOTFREESPEECH – Muboshgu (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2025 (UTC) (edit conflict) Neither...
Click to read more »freedom of expression absolutist, and no amount of reference to WP:NOTFREESPEECH has ever got him to budge from that opinion, that I've seen. He also...
Click to read more »its place, that would be another issue. However, per WP:POLEMIC, WP:NOTFREESPEECH, and really just empathy and common decency for and towards people with...
Click to read more »his friends may rightfully say WP:NOTCENSORED, I would like to say WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps...
Click to read more »policy: WP:NOTESSAY, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTCV, WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK, and WP:NOTFREESPEECH. So if we did away with these kinds of userboxes en masse, my main sentiment...
Click to read more »the WP:RULES of Wikipedia with impunity? According to WP:FREE and WP:NOTFREESPEECH, Wikipedia is not a forum for "free speech", it is an encyclopedia based...
Click to read more »