User talk:96.255.69.229

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Someone using this IP address, 96.255.69.229, has made edits that do not conform to our policies and therefore have been reverted. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you did not do this, you may wish to consider getting a username to avoid confusion with other editors. If you'd like to experiment with the syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

You don't have to log in to read or edit pages on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free, requires no personal information, and has many benefits. Without a username, your IP address is used to identify you.

Some good links for newcomers are:

• Help contents – the main help page.
• Quick guide – a "cheatsheet" listing the main editing commands.
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask the Help Desk, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Again, welcome! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Jeppiz (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to John Fleck (footballer). An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for WP:NOTHERE. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've revoked talkpage access for continuing to pursue conspiracy theories. Acroterion (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a last note from me considering the now-deleted misleading claims: much of the health personel in various countries are at their third dose. The current mRNA vaccines are also understood to require renewal about every six months, since the antibodies they promote unfortunately do not remain active a long time. This evidence is contradictory to claims like that it would have effects lasting years or more. As for the disease itself, COVID-19, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, when clots and blood vessel damage occurs in very severe forms it is thought to be caused by the body's "cytokine storm", related to important inflammation. The vaccines do not contain live viral doses that disrupt the system as massive quantities of virus-infected-cells do, only the necessary molecules to trigger a modest immune response and promote the development of antibodies that can recognize and bind to some molecules of the virus' shell (that are necessary for it to bind to body cells and reproduce effectively), thus disrupting them. I advise to read more serious literature, instead of making conclusions from raw data or unreliable sources and falling prey to ridiculous conspiracy theories... —PaleoNeonate – 13:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have noticed your block and since I did not see much text on your page I'll post this in case it can help for the future. An issue was that the sources you claimed were "brave" have a poor reputation in relation to fact checking (they do not meet WP:RS). The WP:RSP guide may be useful, but it's also possible to request the community to evaluate sources for specific material at WP:RSN. Heart disease is always a major cause of death (and heat stroke common in athletes), it's easy to erroneously link related deaths to any other recent event. This is why we cannot rely on amateur reports using raw data, it must go through the proper authorities and they must have a long enough history of data to be able to work. Wikipedia expects high quality sources for biomedical claims, WP:MEDRS. If a major health body issues an official statement, it would be much more interesting for Wikipedia than sensationalist tabloids. As Ymblanter said at ANI, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a similar tabloid (WP:NOT); it is not because some material is supported by any source that it deserves inclusion (WP:ONUS). —PaleoNeonate – 21:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that your sources did meet MEDRS (per the above) and that you were right that it deserves a mention, edit warring is still unacceptable and all editors should avoid it (WP:BRD is a good guide to the WP:CONSENSUS policy). —PaleoNeonate – 21:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Wgullyn. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Fabienne Schlumpf—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Wgullyn (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Alphonso Davies, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for continued use of this IP to edit war to add conspiracy-based WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH material to BLPs. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo, do you know who Matt Le Tissier is? Check out what he says here here. 96.255.69.229 (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Administrator Ponyo blocked me for "conspiracy theories" for adding well-sourced, non-synthesized text to articles on athletes who have had adverse cardiac reactions to the COVID-19 injections. A just-released, peer-reviewed study shows that cardiac issues, especially myocarditis, are 133 times more prevalent in people who have received the COVID-19 shot. The "conspiracy theory" rationale for my block is not supported by the science. Here's the study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 Recent animal studies also support these findings: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8436386/pdf/ciab707.pdf 96.255.69.229 (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If this were an account, I would say it should be blocked as WP:NOTHERE. I believe the block is correct. You are drawing your own conclusions based on your personal agenda(confirmation bias). 331dot (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2022 (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.

• User:331dot, you're wikilawyering, my edits were well-sourced, neutrally phrased, and within WP's guildelines and policies. You're assuming bad faith, by conjecturing that I have an agenda and anyway, it appears that since I shot down the rationale User:Ponyo used for the block, you're trying to come up with an alternate. I wasn't blocked for "NotThere" I was blocked for "conspiracy theories" which I've just shown isn't true. Is there really any due process here, or do you all just make it up as you go along based on your personal biases? Have you gotten the "vax?" If so, I request that an "unvaccinated" administrator review my case. 96.255.69.229 (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For another admin to look at this, you must make another request. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pot, meet kettle. We try to be fair, but Wikipedia is not a government with a constitution requiring you to be given due process, any more I would have the right to forcibly enter your residence and demand due process from you before you threw me out. I said "if this were an account", not that NOTHERE was the reason you were blocked. I stand by my comments, but another admin will review any other request you make and any decision is up to them, not me. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the common admin refrain to end your remarks, "We're done here." By the way, you didn't answer my question as to whether you're "vaxxed" or not. 96.255.69.229 (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the talk page access.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't answer. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for persistently making disruptive edits.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 5 July 2022 (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.

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.

 331dot (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]