User talk:71.224.251.239

The main source of those problems is not mysterious. The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage.

The Decline of Wikipedia - MIT Technology Review https://www.technologyreview.com/s/520446/the-decline-of-Wikipedia

Reliable sources

Come on. You know about our policy around reliable sources. It's WP:RS. You are treading on thin ice. --Yamla (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

71.224.251.239 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I made one edit of a factual court decision from a source-The American Thinker- that is cited over 1million times on WP. This court decision is a sky is blue fact. It's not a subjective opinion. The response is bullying/threatening and edit warring from an individual not assuming good faith nor concerned in the slightest about WP as an encyclopedic source.71.224.251.239 (talk)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information....and please pay close attention to WP:NOTTHEM.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

71.224.251.239 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have not persistently posted unsourced or poorly sourced material. That is a blatant lie. This is the very first time that such an accusation has been made towards my editing. This block is in place under false, fabricated hyper partisan pretense. 71.224.251.239 (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See WP:BLPPRIMARY. And the below seems to argue that yes, your sources are poor, but so are others. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on why that's not an excuse. Huon (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I edited in a court decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia. It is a sky is blue encyclopedic fact which will end up on that page at some point. It is not an opinion piece from the Berkely blog or hyperbolic promotion from Climate Central.

It only seems that way if one is not assuming good faith nor even bothers to check to see if this editor persistently uses unsourced or poorly sourced material as the original false allegation maintains.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

71.224.251.239 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

the last declination cites zero cause for continuing the block and furthers the charade that I persistently use unsourced or poorly sourced material. The below says nothing of my edits although yet another administrator seems to think it says that I persistently use unsourced or poorly sourced material There is no reason for this block to exist beyond hyper partisan administration

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. SQL^{Query me!} 20:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

Some other sources on the page: Climate Central-about as far fr NPOV as possible. Berkely Bloq-an opinion from a blog-that sounds RS. The Climate Mobilization-nuff said? The Patriot News The Daily Progress

and tons and tons and tons more of largely opinion from anything but NPOV RS.

Where are the bannings? Why two sets of standards? Why is a court decision disallowed while baseless opinions from blogs are allowed?

---