2600:1700:8680:E900:70CE:8839:84EF:84E8

Special:Contributions/2600:1700:8680:E900:0:0:0:0/64 Block appeal (quick link)

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.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

No, getting morally offended makes editing the article very difficult for me, so if for that reason then I would rather never look at this article again. People will feel how they feel about suicide, based on their experiences not based on what wikipedia tell them because almost everyone has experience with this subject. I want to edit because the article lacks important information pertinent to people who accept suicide as an option.

In the current form, the article has almost no useful information to such a person.

---

I also link wikipedia very often, so I'd prefer if linking this article not trigger them with excessive moralizing language one way or the other.

I know not to share romantic opinions about suicide with some because their suicidal thoughts genuinely haunt them, but I also know not expose some others to anti-suicide opinions because life genuinely haunts them. I don't say that for moral reasons, because I trust people to make that judgement for themselves. I say that because this article loses usefulness for people who make that moral judgement.

2600:1700:8680:E900:70CE:8839:84EF:84E8 (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: I refuse to give your other post any recognition by copying or responding to a single word therein.

You have no basis to demonstrated I disrupted or hindered any going-ons, or deceived anyone.

At this point, you've degenerated to complaining with a self-important air.

Not only have you moved goal posts, but you've invented rules.

Wikipedia has no rules, only pillars.

Tell me more about the damage to those pillars. (you caused)

I've disclosed feelings on the topic without soapboxing*, but you have yet to disclose yours.

• except about corrupt wikipedia admins | kidding ; )

@SQL: Please excuse the dynamic IP. Please look here to follow the conversation.

2600:1700:8680:E900:70CE:8839:84EF:84E8 (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

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

For clarity, these are the relevant IP contribs for this editor:

• 75.39.102.200
• 2600:1702:1740:2CA0::/64
• 2600:1700:8680:E900::/64

I would think that if you refuse to answer my questions that you have a snowball's chance in hell of getting unblocked since it is logical that admins would want to know the answers if they are logical questions.

So the answer above was

• biased in this topic, right? Unclear but it is implied that your answer is No.
• you are morally offended? "No, getting morally offended makes editing the article very difficult for me"

Your answers are 180° out of phase from the answers that your account has given. With your account you said that you are bias in this topic and that your moral code is offended by the wording of the article. <== That is how you entered into this and your answers as an IP strike me as dishonest given your previous answers. No one can get a straight answer from you. IPs giving answers that are 180° from their account answers needs more scrutiny. Your bias makes a prima facie case that you are POV pushing.

"I've disclosed feelings on the topic without soapboxing*, but you have yet to disclose yours." I responded to an ANI complaint and haven't been editing on that article or engaged on the talk page. I am an uninvolved admin and not debating the subject with you. You are blocked because of behavioral issues.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

---