User talk:24.228.190.254
Comet Ping Pong
[edit]Log in and use your account. You appear to be trying to evade scrutiny via IP. Your question was asked and answered, and you are approaching a block for disruptive and tendentious editing to promote a conspiracy theory. The edit filter worked as intended, to stop attempts to re-open a closed discussion. Acroterion (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- I don't have an account currently. If I had an account, I'd be eligible to edit the article directly -- I lost my password for User:Doug Cousins. Is it possible to recover it? Despite not having an active account, my discussion has improved the article, since before I pointed out that no DC Metro Police quote was linked to in the article, the article did not have a proper citation for this claim. Then, discussion was closed by biased editor NorthBySouthBaranof, who has also nearly been banned for other disruptive editing. Reasonable discussion is not a good rationale for a ban. 24.228.190.254 (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- Your editing is identical to that of AOKuneff, in time, content and persistence in beating the same dead horse. The discussion was properly closed. Wikipedia isn't a congenial home for promotion of defamatory conspiracy theories. Acroterion (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
If you had email enabled, you can request a temporary password and the reset it. Otherwise, you can create a new account and explicitly link to to the previous account. Acroterion (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
You should be glad I hatted that thread, if you have any interest in continuing to edit here; had Acroterion been the first to see your response, they probably would have just blocked you on sight. You're not getting the message, so here it is one last time: The sourcing is acceptable, Pizzagate is entirely bullshit, we're not going to play footsie with conspiracy theorists, and if you disagree, you'll be politely invited to leave. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Your response isn't what's expected from a good-faith contributor. You appear to be trying to do away with the well-sourced mention that the MPD has stated that there is no substance to the hoax, by trying to misrepresent sourcing policy. That's not acceptable. Acroterion (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
October 2019
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)- 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.
24.228.190.254 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have only encouraged discussion on the issue that there is overreliance on a single primary source to claim multiple times metro dc police has debunked pizzagate in the article. I have been called a "conspiracy troll" for pointing out this fact, and I have correctly noted that this article is not up to wikipedia standards. Wikipedia should not censor good faith discussion
Decline reason:
There is a difference between encouraging discussion and continually bringing up rejected conspiracy theories. Wikipedia does not give equal time to all points of view, it reflects what independent sources do. Right now I see no benefit to Wikipedia in unblocking you, and I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 7 October 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.
24.228.190.254 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I did NOT advocate claiming snopes and the NYT did not debunk pizzagate. I DID advocate for removing the false claim that the current DC Metro Police debunked pizzagate, which is mentioned twice in the article. I did not edit a single main wikipedia article. When 3 people have one point of view and 2 people have another (ie no consensus), WP:Closing discussions was improperly administered far less than a week before it was started by a user who was nearly banned for violating George Soros. His first claim that *sources* point to a DC Metro Police statement is also false as it is only 1 statement. And again, no independent source has comments from DC Metro Police. So no, I am not advocating a conspiracy theory, I strongly suggest we have a civil discussion that shows a concern for WP:Weight and the other things that make wikipedia great
Decline reason:
Checkuser verified block evader. Talk page access removed. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:06, 8 October 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.
lol
[edit]lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.66.53 (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 | 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. |