@DrDeth, not to get too meta here, but do you have any examples where people pushed back on your Wiki cite? In other words, cite?
That would require some work or memory. But do you doubt that has happened? Not only to me?
Would you like a cite that the Earth revolves around the Sun? 
Are we getting into XKCD "citation needed’ territory?
I believe that @RitterSport is curious about the context of people protesting your Wikipedia cites. Because sometimes it’s not appropriate to use them, sometimes it is. So if you were able to provide an example of a time that you used one and were criticized unfairly for it (in your opinion) it would be helpful so we understand where you’re coming from.
I don’t think there’s any doubt that it has happened, of course it has. Again, context matters.
Now, I know you’ve been around awhile DrDeth and posted a lot. And if it hasn’t happened to you recently then it’s probably a pain in the ass for you to dig up an example. So I personally wouldn’t blame you if you don’t have anything available to show. I’m sure nobody thinks you’re making it up; we know it happens. But it’s hard to determine whether the criticism you’ve received in the past was justified or not without examples.
No, because the background work on that has already been done, and is easily accessible.
Can you say the same about your claim?
Don’t you remember how we sussed out how your stories about your father were complete fiction? We tend to believe you better when you can actually back up your claims. You’ve been here long enough to understand that’s what this board is all about.
Yes, exactly. It’s possible they were disagreeing with you’re takeaway from the Wiki cite, in that maybe it didn’t support your claim, or saying that the particular Wiki page is not good because of reasons or a dozen other things.
Moderator Note
And you have been here long enough to know that personal attacks are forbidden outside of the Pit. No warning this time, but treat others with respect while in ATMB.
Was this in the last fifteen years or so? “Don’t trust wiki cites” used to be a common refrain back when Wikipedia was new, but it’s not something that comes up much any more, except in some fairly narrow circumstances.
The relevant standard here is, “Do it honestly.” D’Anconia was suspended because, in the opinion of the mod staff, he wasn’t dismissing the cites due to a genuine problem with their provenance or their reliability, but instead to wind up other posters. There isn’t a bright line we can point to and say, “Doing it this way is okay, doing it this way is trolling.” As is almost always the case in these circumstances, whether something crosses the line into trolling or not is a judgement call.
What would be the point of typing “Dopes” vs “Dopers” unless it was meant as an insult. You save typing one character.
It’s worth noting that he was dismissing videos of people saying things because the videos were Tweeted. If you link me to a Fox News video of Obama saying, “If you like your health plan, you can keep it,” it’s legitimate for me to say, “What’s the full context of that video?” or “I believe that, strictly speaking, he was right” [although he wasn’t], or even, “I see signs that that’s a Deepfake video.” Any of those can continue the conversation.
But if I say, “lol, Fox News, do better,” I’m being absurd.
Probably both, to be honest. Sometimes to be a jerk, sometimes because Wiki wasn’t really a good cite. I remember a couple times I agreed, that wiki wasn’t the best but then I found good cites on that wiki article.
Actually, you didn’t. Nor did what’s his name, and in fact I posted a cite that proved him wrong.
But let us listen to the nice Mod.
I see what you did there.
Moderator Note
If you were really listening to the nice Mod you wouldn’t have continued the argument and THEN posted this. Next time, listen to the nice Mod first.
No warning issued.
And he himself had previously used Twitter for cites.