User talk:Raj208

O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. Andre🚐 23:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Andre🚐 19:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Factual reasons were provided. Not personal attacks. Raj208 (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as

contentious

. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

Andre🚐 00:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been editing. Only participating in talk pages. That being said, it is extremely concerning that there is an overall lack of neutrality in the editing and it appears that editing is controlled by an overly excessive amount of left wing bias. Raj208 (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Days ago you emphatically insisted that the dossier triggered Crossfire, which has been known to be false for literally years. You insisted it even weeks after Durham acknowledged it was not true. I am aware of sources that continue to insist it did, and that's just the beginning of their falsehoods. That might be a tip that those sources aren't being straight-up with their audiences. There's a whole lotta gaslightin' going down. At this point I recommend less Talk and more editing with reliable sources. soibangla (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soibangla is right. Discussions are also covered by the warning above, and one can be blocked for discussions that push fringe POV. Yours are definitely in that class. If you stick to how to make good edits that are based on RS, you'll be safer. That way you have to find and produce your sources. Then start a thread on the talk page and float your suggested content (the exact words you'd like to add or change) and your sources. Forget about bias and don't discuss other editors. You also live in a glass house, so it's just unwise. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of "fringe" POV as you note is very problematic and concerning. Other viewpoints cannot simply be labelled fringe. I hope we can debate them instead based on facts instead of labelling and passing judgment without that debate. Raj208 (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Viewpoints which are known to be false have no place here. The Earth is not flat, NASA didn't fake the Moon landings, and COVID vaccinations do not implant people with microchips, even though that is actually the viewpoint of a surprising number of people. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear and egregious mischaracterization of what I was expressing and is clearly false on its face, ironically. Also, course did not say anything about promoting "false viewpoints." Rather, I was attempting to respectfully request healthy debates. Again you are helping me show why there is a problem. When healthy debates don't occur and in this case, attempt to be suppressed, then we have bullying and censoring at play.

For example, the Russia collusion narrative was false and any anecdotal evidence by certain editors do not make the narrative true. The FBI did suppress opinions on Twitter directly. COVID vaccines do not stop spread and debates on the issue are still being suppressed by people such as Peter Hotez. Men cannot pretend to be women. These are facts that are in fact indisputable. However, I have seen this page and many other pages promote opposite and false narratives as well as the false mischaracterization in the previous post. If you want others to treat you with respect, try to debate them with intellectual honesty. Raj208 (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, first you say we must be able to debate anything. Now you say These are facts that are in fact indisputable. Worse, much of what you claim is indisputably true is actually indisputably false. And your statement that Men cannot pretend to be women This is a disgusting statement which I advise you to strike. You need to find better sources as it's clear you believe in fringe conspiracy theories. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Facts are facts. They are technically indisputable because they are facts. A view point would be to mention that those facts contributed to x,y, or z or cause people to do a, b or c. I would dare anyone to dispute or debate anything I have mentioned in an open forum without the protections around the echo chamber they enjoy on this platform. I also do not think anyone should be directly attacking someone's comment as "disgusting" without so much as trying to prove it wrong. I am not sure how saying men and women aren't the same and cannot pretend as such, is controversial even though certain fringe individuals have named it to be. I am trying to be respectful here but I ask you to be intellectually honest. Raj208 (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you have stated are not facts. Indeed, most are factually incorrect. As for your request that I be intellectually honest, that is a

WP:PA. Please be civil. As for your statements about men/women, we have many articles on Transgender subjects. They may help you gain some understanding of what you apparently believe to be a simple, biological, binary subject. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

After contending a point, I stayed respectful. On the other hand you used the word "disgusting" to describe a comment that is at the fundamental level, true. So I would suggest following the guidance you yourself posted. When someone calls a comment disgusting instead of pointing out opposing facts, it is hard to consider that person civil. I am realizing through this discussion how people with opposing viewpoints, especially conservative ones, are simply bullied and personally attacked on emotional rather than logical bases. Transgender topics are not at debate here either. I was simply pointing out the overall pattern of bias on Wikipedia. Freedom of speech is at play here and its complete disregard by political ideologues who have taken over these pages, is indeed unfortunate. Raj208 (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although you are replying to Objective3000, I will mention something. You write: "Freedom of speech is at play here." Yes, it is, and Wikipedia is a private company, not a free speech zone, and it is not even a democracy. Discussions here should serve the purpose of creating better content. Outside of that, there are limits to how much will be tolerated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying this is "not" a free speech zone, but in the same vein, saying that discussions should serve for the purpose of creating better content. How does suppressing free speech result in better content? It is clearly contradictory. My contention is that to develop more quality content, more discussion and more free speech needs to be allowed, regardless of the forum.

As for this being a private space, that is not conclusive. Given the clear interference from government bodies into Twitter over the last few years, it is not unfathomable that similar speech restrictions are in play at Wikipedia.

We should all strive for a more open and less biased forum here. Raj208 (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that I contended that it is wrong that the Dossier triggered the investigation. However, many editors with their clear political left wing bias are dismissing the Dossier's clear role as one of the elements leading up to an investigation that Durham has clearly proved to have little probable cause to continue. The issue isn't the facts that you are supporting. The issue is that editors appear to be protecting their own views while clearly censoring and bullying opposing viewpoints. For an investigation that is extremely controversial with little factual backing and clear political bias, it is important for Wikipedia to stay neutral. That lack of neutrality is now damaging the reputation of Wikipedia and placing it into the territory of Twitter whose leaders faced high scrutiny for colluding with left wing politicians. If you are omitting conservative viewpoints, you are not being neutral. Raj208 (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read what you wrote. soibangla (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will assume you understand what I wrote. Raj208 (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You write "the Russia collusion narrative was false". That's misleading in several ways. Get your terms right. "Conspiracy", not "collusion", was examined by Mueller, and "conspiracy" was not proven "false". It was unproven. Myriad forms of collusion, using many different terms, were found. Trump and his campaign invited, welcomed, cooperated, aided and abetted, lied about, facilitated, encouraged, did not prevent the interference, and tried to prevent U.S. intelligence from doing its job because Trump "expected to benefit" from the Russian interference. That sounds like collusion to me, and it was proven. Unfortunately, much of that is not directly illegal, even if it's very disloyal to American and endangers national security. Since when is it okay to cooperate with an enemy power? Since when is it a good idea to elect the candidate your enemy wants you to elect? They do not have America's best interests at heart. Russians know that Trump is more of a friend to them than to his own country. That's why he shares classified information with them that gets our good sources killed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no "collusion" was proven. Mueller said so himself in the report. Durham's investigation further solidified this conclusion. You can't say that something is "not unproven" and use that to legitimize something as "proven." I understand you want to but you do not have enough persuasive evidence in light of Mueller and Durham reports to actually prove anything in a remotely indisputable way. Raj208 (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, get your terms right. He only focused on "conspiracy", and expressly discussed "collusion" to explain why he would not focus on it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are deflecting now, using semantics and being intellectually dishonest. The fact is that you are indeed attempting to legitimize an opposite argument by a simple change in terminology is unfortunate. Whether it's "conspiracy" or "collusion" you said that it "was not proven false," and hence legitimizing that it must then be true. This runaround of sorts disregards the reality that in order to prove something, you need more than that. A simple "was not proven false" doesn't legitimize an opposite argument. It's a far reach and should not be allowed on Wikipedia. Raj208 (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These things are not binary. They are not all either "proven true" or "proven false". They can also be "unproven". "Conspiracy" and "collusion" are separate topics that should not be conflated in the same discussion. Keep them separate and it's easier to deal with.

"Conspiracy" was investigated by Mueller and remains unproven. He did not say conspiracy was "proven false" (nor, contrary to your claim, did he say that collusion was "proven false"). That is my argument, contrary to what you write: "and hence legitimizing that it must then be true." Just because it is not proven false does not mean that "it must then be true." I am not making that argument.

Regarding "collusion", you are the one who is claiming that "For example, the Russia collusion narrative was false." I am saying that it was proven true by Mueller, as he found myriad different ways that Trump and his campaign cooperated with and helped the Russians in their interference.

So keep the terms separate. It is okay to say that "conspiracy" was not proven. It is not okay to say that "collusion" was proven false. They are two very different things.

There is a small but vital gap between the subjects. The Russians and Trump campaign aided each other in many ways, but we don't have evidence of a formal oral or written "conspiracy" and "coordination". That is what's missing. We don't have clear evidence that they coordinated, although the actions of Roger Stone are seen as evidence of attempted coordination, with Trump's knowledge. Even in certain situations where we don't have direct evidence, the situation is described as it was "not for lack of trying" by the Trump campaign. They tried to coordinate with the Russians but didn't always succeed. They even tried to create a secret backchannel for communication (that U.S. intelligence couldn't monitor) that was so risky and dangerous the Russians wouldn't even go along with it. It would have been discovered, and then it would be proven that Trump was working directly and knowingly with Russian intelligence against American interests. The Russians didn't dare risk that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally written in the report that there was no collusion. The report said so. That was my original point. You should contend that fact openly and genuinely as much as you want to deflect to the "conspiracy" narrative. That would be the intellectually honest thing to do.

Furthermore, the deflection is rather elementary given there is little to no clear proof of conspiracy which even you seem to agree with albeit efforts to the contrary. The Russians aiding a campaign does not constitute collusion which was the spirit of the Mueller report. There are many intelligence agencies across the world that aid certain candidates in other countries on their own. To suggest that it was intentional or even known by the Trump campaign is fairly careless and even irresponsible. Especially at this point, it is time to move away from these politically motivated narratives which are clearly biased to the left. Raj208 (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You keep repeating "It's literally written in the report that there was no collusion." No, there is no such quote in the report. Your exact claim is considered a myth. The closest is that Mueller was unable to gather strong enough evidence, "beyond the shadow of a doubt" (in a court of law), to prove a "criminal conspiracy". (Not that there was no conspiracy, just unable to prove it.)

"While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”[1]

Mueller refutes Trump's 'no collusion, no obstruction' line:

Mueller: “We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term,” Mueller added. “Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”

As long as you keep conflating the terms, we won't be able to communicate, and you will keep misunderstanding what actually happened.

You claim the report says "no collusion", so produce such a quote from Mueller. I'd love to see it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So since there was no exact quote in the Mueller report regarding a lack of collusion, you are totally dismissive of the substance of Mueller's conclusion, which was that there is no evidence of the wrongdoing under question.

Again, grasping of semantics is not going to change the facts.

What I find interesting is that you yourself agree that Mueller found no evidence. Yet, you disagree with the way I or others are characterizing it. That is called semantics, otherwise known as grasping at straws. Furthermore, you are then taking your own characterization and appearing to draw your own conclusion that is contradictory to the Mueller report and now the Durham report, both of which are relevant regardless of your political bias.

As long as you continue to disregard the overall substance of the report, of course we will not be able to communicate.

collusion to make him appear guilty. Raj208 (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion between "conspiracy" and "collusion" has benefited Trump:

"Trump then crowed on Twitter, writing, "No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. . . ." That statement was false on all three counts. Mueller's report explicitly did not exonerate Trump, and it cited at least ten possible instances of Trump's obstruction of justice, while noting that Justice Department policy prevented the filing of criminal charges against a sitting President. Mueller made no judgment on collusion, meanwhile, because that isn't a crime."[2]

If you do a Google search of "no collusion", you will find that myriad RS have made the same mistake you do. They repeat Trump's original false claim as if it's true. In those instances, they are not RS for that matter. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you continue to be extreme in your views. Trump is also clearly being extreme, but the truth is that Mueller was clear that there was no evidence of Collusion. This is extremely important as a fact. Unfortunately many contributors here have been downplaying this fact and deflecting to other issues in order to justify their preconceived notion of Trump being guilty of something. That would have been reasonable if the topic were different. There are plenty of areas where Trump did not exactly do what he should have, but unfortunately the fact patterns in these circumstances do not make it so here. Again, my proposal to those reading these pages is that we need to provide more respect and less bullying to those who provide a different perspective. We should be able to respectfully have these discussions without calling each other "disgusting" or other such personal and emotional epithets. Raj208 (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement is false: "Mueller was clear that there was no evidence of Collusion". Read, really read, the links to articles I provide at User talk:Valjean#Trump's false claims of "no collusion". Then read the RS used there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So where is the evidence needed to prove the claim? Earlier you said it was "not unproven." That is not enough for you to make a contradictory argument regardless of "exactly" what Mueller said.

You do understand that such evidence doesn't exist in a capacity to prove what you are trying to claim? You have even admitted this in a roundabout fashion.

Look, I understand how much you want to believe something went awry. However, the evidence isn't there to prove as such. To imply as such, therefore, is intellectually dishonest and grossly misleading. Raj208 (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You must stop accusing editors of intellectual dishonesty. Not only are your accusations false, they are personal attacks

WP:5P4 O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Would you like to point me to the Wikipedia policy that clearly states this? My point was meant as a reminder for you to please be civil and stay honest instead of attacking those such as myself because we have a different view point. This is something congruent with Wikipedia policies.

You have previously used uncivil language in that you referred to my comments as disgusting. I am wholly willing to forgive that but I humbly ask you to be civil. Raj208 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raj208, this is the second time that you claim I said it was "not unproven". I don't know where you got that wording, but I can't find that I wrote it anywhere on this page.

You don't seem to have read the stuff at User talk:Valjean#Trump's false claims of "no collusion". Read it.

You keep moving the goalposts. Your original claim was that Mueller said there was "no collusion". Later you wrote "It's literally written in the report that there was no collusion." No words to that effect or even meaning that are in the report. You have still failed to provide such a quote from Mueller, yet you press on with claims there was no collusion. Stop pushing that claim and admit that Mueller did not say there was no collusion. Produce the quote or drop your claim of "no collusion".

Ryan Goodman has examined the Mueller report's findings on collusion. He described the findings as "a series of activities that show strong evidence of collusion. Or, more precisely, it provides significant evidence that Trump Campaign associates coordinated with, cooperated with, encouraged, or gave support to the Russia/WikiLeaks election interference activities." The Mueller report documented 14 different forms of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians which Goodman analyzes.[3]

There was collusion. Mueller found lots of it. Rudy Giuliani admitted it. The Mueller report documented 14 different forms of collusion. It was "conspiracy" and "coordination" that were unproven. He didn't even say there was "no conspiracy". He only said conspiracy was unproven. That leaves it open. It may have happened or it may not have happened, but it's wrong to say there was no conspiracy, just as it's wrong to say there was no collusion. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to miss the forest through the trees and have fully disrespected and dismissed any and all attempts I have made to correct what I said before.

What I am simply saying is that the evidence simply does not exist for you to imply that there was wrongdoing, despite the terminology you use to label that wrongdoing, in a fashion which was relevant or persuasive. Your whole premise rests on the implication that was not unproven, and hence must be further investigated. Simply speaking that's just not enough for you to continue pushing a contradictory and misleading narrative. Raj208 (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should look up the term "intellectual dishonesty" that you accused a couple of us and look at your own post. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, look at my previous comment. I would humbly request you follow the policies on civility here. We can all learn plenty from each other. Raj208 (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been here 16 years and have never been found to be uncivil. And, false accusations of incivility fall under

WP:STICK. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You are also coming across as aggressive after calling a comment I made disgusting, which I made as a statement I believe. That is also against the policy you cite. Are you saying you did not post this? I also asked where the policy notes that citing "intellectual dishonesty" is considered an attack. You are obviously dismissing my point of view and continue to do it multiple times. Despite what your experience may have been, again I am humbly asking that you respond to the substance of my comments rather than pointing to them with emotional epithets such as "disgusting." Thank you. Raj208 (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I consider bigotry disgusting and and I dismiss all forms of bigotry. And calling my posts "emotional" is another

WP:PA. Nothing in the least emotional about my posts. They are logical responses to your comments. You may have the last word. I'm removing this page from my watch list. Do not ping me. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You called my comments disgusting directly, rather than argue the substance of its scientific validity. Good luck! Raj208 (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: I am confused by the claim that Wikipedia is a "private company"; it's a volunteer website whose hosting is provided by the Wikimedia Foundation, which is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization (and this is not exactly a secret; it's right there in the lead of their article, for example). Am I missing something? jp×g 07:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that it was an awkwardly expressed description of the

WP:NOTFREESPEECH policy, with the fact that WP is not subject to laws limiting government censorship (like private organizations, it can have its own policies, including about membership, with editing being a privilege, etc.) —PaleoNeonate – 14:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

That is correct. The context is here: "Yes, it is, and Wikipedia is a private company, not a free speech zone, and it is not even a democracy." Wikipedia is a private company/website, not a government entity. It makes its own rules, and "free speech" is not guaranteed here.

Advocacy of fringe POV is not allowed here, and inappropriate comments can be deleted. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The problem is regarding "who" does or does not guarantee this. When there are too many people including yourself that claim authority and it gets to the point where you decide what is "fringe" POV, this platform becomes nothing more than exactly that - a partisan fringe platform. This unfortunately is ironic and unfortunate.

No one should expect a guarantee of free speech but to deny it se egregiously is a major issue. Without free expression, ideas are not debated and are instead shut down because of labelling. Allowing for free speech only increases the quality of content. We need more debate in any platform, not less.

As far as Wikipedia being private, that is technically correct. However, in reality it is used as a public platform and is seen as such by many people across the world. So, that appearance is at least somewhat relevant if not significantly.

Overall, I do not believe you realize how much damage this authoritative rhetoric may be causing. Raj208 (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced editors who understand the rules here tend to voice more reliable opinions on these subjects. Newbies should try to learn from them, not dispute and argue with them. You need to adapt to this place. It is ruled by what RS say, and our

policies and guidelines (PAG)

describe how we should document what those RS say. We are not free to argue against the PAG. We can discuss how best to apply them.

Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, not a fringe one. Fringe POV are only allowed a limited voice here, just enough to document their POV, but not to advocate for them as being legitimate. They are not. Free speech within the context of learning how to best document what RS say is allowed, but advocacy of fringe POV is not.

If you feel too uncomfortable with that, then you don't belong here. We don't need you, and Wikipedia will not suffer if you leave. In fact, we will be spared a lot of wasted time arguing with someone who is so obstinate they will not accept how things work here. You are the one who must abandon your preconceived ideas of how you think this place should work. Research shows that Wikipedia's credibility immediately increases when editors like you leave the project. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are conflating your experience as an editor with gatekeeping of information. Perspectives like this have contributed to Wikipedia losing credibility not gaining it. Of course if you suppress what you believe as "fringe," it would lead to the rest of the content looking credible. This doesn't contribute to the neutrality of any topic. If people are able to back up their perspectives with proper sources, they need to be valued. Surely, at one time people were attacked for saying that COVID-19 originated in a lab, and this was called fringe. However, this has turned out to be true. Your experience in editing should be kept to editing, not content. Content should be allowed debate on any platform. I can learn a lot about editing but that is not reason to ban me on content. Furthermore, you can learn a lot about content from any one new. Being on Wikipedia for years does not provide any one with moral authority to dismiss opinions. It's rather immature to think so. Raj208 (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

You have recently made edits related to COVID-19, broadly construed. This is a standard message to inform you that COVID-19, broadly construed is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Acroterion (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to block this user and lock this page. They are

There have been many users attacking my point of view collectively in the sense of "ganging up," when it was clear that I was staying respectful and offering an alternate point of view. As someone that is new here, it is disheartening to see that certain users who have a pattern of attacking other points of view are allowed to be more aggressive and degrading.

As far as my contributions, I have been clearly trying to ensure that certain political topics do stay neutral. So, being blocked indefinitely is a bit harsh considering the circumstances, the amount of times I contended very small points of semantics and endured disrespect from many others that simply did not wish to have an open discussion. Raj208 (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Courcelles (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]