User talk:97.112.200.145

Attention:

This IP address, 97.112.200.145, is registered to CenturyLink. In the event of persistent vandalism from this address, efforts may be made to contact them to report abuse. Contact information may be available in the WHOIS report.

If you are editing from this IP address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. Sometimes, in response to vandalism, you may be temporarily unable to create an account.

If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that it may be possible for the owner of the IP to determine who was making contributions from this address at any given time.

If you are the owner of this address responding to reports of inappropriate conduct from this address, you may find the contributions history and block log for this address helpful. Please feel free to contact any administrator who has blocked this address with questions (blocking admins will be listed in the block log).

This IP address has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to abuse of editing privileges.
Further abuse from this IP address may result in an extended block.

Notify an administrator • contribs • block • block log

DC comics a redundant acronym or not?

This is a great example as to why wikipedia is not considered a valid academic source. Being in line with a secondary source is more important than being factually accurate. 97.112.200.145 (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paul_Erik 97.112.200.145 (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This would be User:Kompress0 again. One might think that after the recent, and lengthy, discussion they took part in at User talk:97.112.208.74 they would try something new, (like leaving this poor dead horse carcass alone... imho) - wolf 04:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just understand the idea that facts > 'secondary sources' and the edit will be left alone. 97.112.200.145 (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... no. Your "facts" = WP:OR, and WP:RS always trumps WP:OR. You clearly do not understand Wikipedia, (or maybe you do, but just like to stir the pot). Anyway, the fact is you are blocked and not supposed to be editing, not even here on this talk page. So, I think we're done here. - wolf 07:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, my facts are based on logic and reason. Appealing to a third party source is confirmation bias. 97.112.200.145 (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

My edit was factually correct, as it always has been. Blindly reverting it because of a 'third party source' is a great example as to why wikipedia is not considered a valid academic source 97.112.200.145 (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Yamla (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

I addressed exactly why I was blocked. I made a factual edit that was continually reverted because of a 'third party source'. DC Comics is not, nor will it ever be a redundant acronym. 97.112.200.145 (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are confused. You were not blocked because of whether or not DC Comics is a redundant acronym, you were blocked for trying to bludgeon your preferred version instead of establishing a consensus on the talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

97.112.200.145 (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been explained to you several times over. We go on what sources say, not your own personal opinion. Edit warring isn't justified no matter how right you think you are. — Czello ^(music) 16:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't personal opinion. I stated the fact that Detective Comics is the company while comics are a product they sell. Absolutely zero opinion anywhere in that. There's an identical in principle entry under NON examples with 'OPEC countries'. The C in OPEC stands for 'countries' but OPEC is the organization while countries are countries that belong to the organization

Understand now? 97.112.200.145 (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To drive the point home, from the article;

"Similarly, "OPEC countries" are two or more member states of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, whereas "OPEC" by itself denotes the overall organization"

Now...

Similarly, "DC comics" are a product sold by the company 'Detective Comics', whereas "DC" by itself denotes the overall company

Do

You

Get

It

Now? 97.112.200.145 (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We go by what sources say. See WP:TRUTH. Do you get it now? — Czello ^(music) 21:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I can go edit the page on earth to say it's flat because there are flat earth websites?

Fact trumps secondary hearsay, all day.

I will edit it, I will continue to edit it, until that sinks in. 97.112.200.145 (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you don't get it. Ultimately if you keep editing you'll just keep getting blocked. And your unblock requests will always be denied if you're promising to resume your behaviour. There's only one way you can get your way, and it's on the talk page. Brute force never works. — Czello ^(music) 21:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah because blocking me has worked so well so far.

I've made my case, stating absolute indisputable facts, on the talk page. People just whine about sources

If brute force doesn't work you're just not using enough. 97.112.200.145 (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, it has worked. The article still lists DC as it will continue to do so as you remain blocked now and in the future. But I'm sure the admin reviewing your block below will take your words into account. — Czello ^(music) 21:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's still on there temporarily, by that logic then my method has worked because because it is also sporadically and temporarily removed.

Just value facts over 'muh sources' and there's no issue.

I'm being serious here. This is the PERFECT example of why absolutely no academic institute consider wikipedia a valid source. 97.112.200.145 (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Academic institutes should not consider Wikipedia as a valid source, see Wikipedia is not a reliable source. That is exactly correct. Wikipedia is a content aggregator, readers should examine the sources used directly, they should not trust Wikipedia blindly. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently they shouldn't trust wikipedia at all since demonstrable facts are ignored in favor of erroneous sources. 97.112.200.145 (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

But if my edit had been left alone given the facts (Not opinion, facts) that I presented explaining definitively why it is NOT a redundant acronym, there would have been no need for a second edit. 97.112.200.145 (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for the block. 331dot (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

The reason for the block was that my demonstrably factual edit was continually reverted 97.112.200.145 (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wrong. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

97.112.200.145 (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Well let's see, if my entirely factual edit had been left alone then no further edits would've been necessary on my part. So yes, this is because my 100% entirely factually accurate edit was continually reverted. 97.112.200.145 (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No point in leaving this request open with talk page access revoked. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

--jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.