User talk:2600:1700:8680:E900:8C90:9634:1080:DBB8

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But you are the one that is biased in this topic, right? ...and you are editing there because you are morally offended?
 * I acknowledge my feelings so I can set those feelings aside when necessary. I edit for the same reason WP:OUTRAGE suggests one should edit neutrally rather than morally: I edit so the world has access to a diverse pool of information to base their own moral decisions off; I trust people to make their own moral judgements given the widest pool of options. I haven't come here to change societal norms. I've come here to ensure ancient, literary, as well as multicultural views on suicide get proper coverage, as well as to make sure the article doesn't employ grammar presuming a moral opinion's correctness without overwhelming ubiquity (i.e. murder).
 * I would intend for unique notable facts from history/anthropology, art/literature, and game-theory/political-science to replace non-unique trivial facts already in the article (i.e. a studied effect Hamlet's "to be or not to be" speech had on society and culture might suitably replace having over-specifying diagnoses rather than simply writing "mental dysphoria often motivates suicide"). I would also intend for the article to have much less non-neutral language, such as "risk factors" where "motivations" might just as well apply. Of course, I intend to build consensus in those directions, prior to that. First and foremost, I intend to push for the article to welcome anonymous edits (so as to enfranchise actually suicidal people), pushing to remove semi-protection.
 * I already stated all this on Talk:Suicide.
 * 2600:1700:8680:E900:8C90:9634:1080:DBB8 (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But you are the one that is biased in this topic, right? ...and you are editing there because you are morally offended? I'm asking again because your answers above are unclear. Simple yes or no, some version of short clear answers, please.

Special:Contributions/2600:1700:8680:E900:0:0:0:0/64

 * So, from what it sounds like, it is alleged that both your account, and IP made edits to the talkpage in question. Do you dispute this? If not - why edit the same page with both? SQL Query me!  06:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically I did. But, I started discussing in that talkpage as IP more than a month after my account's only post there, because I felt more comfortable with the controversial topic anonymously, to set a precedent, in addition to a moderate fear of online harassment as well as "real world" consequences. As soon as I noticed the old post still there, I retroactively changed the signature line to reflect my IP as of noticing. For a brief moment I debated about whether to edit as IP or not, so I changed the signature on my IP's first post to my account's but then immediately reverted that back.
 * 2600:1700:8680:E900:8C90:9634:1080:DBB8 (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your account appears a minimum of ten times in the history of Talk:Suicide....and you carried on with the same arguments/same POV dispute. You used your account to edit through semi-protection on the article while arguing as IPs (not allowed). The ANI thread that I responded to would have been your second within a short frame of time but the other was with your account (avoiding scrutiny). "As soon as I noticed the old post still there, I retroactively changed the signature line to reflect my IP as of noticing." <== That isn't your prerogative and it is part of the problem. You are not at liberty to do that. You have deliberately falsified attribution when scrutiny is an issue. You messed that talk page up good. Nothing in your style of switching back and forth and altering your sig is permissible anywhere on WP in the way that you are doing it.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  11:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "because I felt more comfortable with the controversial topic anonymously, to set a precedent, <== Too late and No. My version is that you started editing as IPs after not getting your way with your account and you had taken a bit of heat for more than one issue on your talk page. Your comfort is about you trying to avoid scrutiny. ...and your "precedent" is most unwelcome as it lacks consensus and seems to be your excuse for violating policies.