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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

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)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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.[[Special:Contributions/71.224.251.239|71.224.251.239]] ([[User talk:71.224.251.239#top|talk]]) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=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.[[Special:Contributions/71.224.251.239|71.224.251.239]] ([[User talk:71.224.251.239#top|talk]]) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=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.[[Special:Contributions/71.224.251.239|71.224.251.239]] ([[User talk:71.224.251.239#top|talk]]) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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?

---