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:.

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.

.

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?