User talk:97.112.200.145

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)


 * User:Paul_Erik 97.112.200.145 (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 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) - w o lf  04:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. - w o lf  07:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)

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:. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:54, 2 August 2023 (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.

Unblock Request
97.112.200.145 (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * We go by what sources say. See WP:TRUTH. Do you get it now? — Czello (music) 21:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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</i>) 21:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Unblock request
97.112.200.145 (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request
<div class="user-block blocked-talk-revoked" style="background:#ffe0e0; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height: 40px"> 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&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 02:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)