User talk:Schwagerjt

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Schwagerjt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Orly Taitz does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ravensfire (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help me![edit]

Please use the {{help me}} template appropriately.
The {{help me}} template is for help in using Wikipedia, not for unrelated issues. If you would like to ask such a question, replace the code {{help me-inappropriate}} on this page with {{help me}} to reactivate the help request. Alternatively, you can also ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance.

Please help me with... What is a neutral point of view? Who determines what is neutral? The mainstream media? Twitter? So-called independent 3rd Party fact-checkers?

Democrats are trying to suppress information that is being released on Twitter. As we are finding out from Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter and Musk's subsequent release of Twitter's internal communications, things haven't been so neutral online. Facebook has been called out for its Progressive bias and for restricting free speech. Isn't Wikipedia doing the same thing? The sources and so-called independent 3rd party fact-checkers employed by those who allege to be neutral have been promoting the Progressive narrative.

The public's voice and right to freedom of speech is being supressed by those who share the "Progressive" viewpoints of those who run the media, and who use their position as administrators to regulate discussion. I do not think Wikipedia is neutral and is using its bully pulpit to silence anyone whose opinion differs from their Progressive worldview.

Take mine, for example. Orly Taitz is a concerned citizen, not a crazy conspiracy theorist loon. I substituted political "activist" for "conspiracy theorist" and that doesn't fit your Progressive narrative. According to Wikipedia, she's a conspiracy theorist. And you claim to be neutral? Losing a court case or having it thrown out on technical and procedural grounds does not alter the facts of her argument. Facts are neutral. To say she is a conspiracy theorist is a judgment call. To say she is an activist is a fact. Orly Taitz asked legitimate questions that the Democratic Party did not have credible answers for.

We are expected to give benefit of the doubt on matters related to Obama's educational background, personal background, etc. and history will be on the side of those who questioned him. This country currently has a dubiously elected cognitively challenged puppet sitting in the White House, and the nation is in decline. And we're expected to believe that a guy who twice ran for President and failed, picks as his running mate a woman of questionable character who likewise had to drop out of the Presidential race because her campaign was failing, spends most of the campaign following the science hiding from the press in his basement, jumps into the lead at 4 AM after counting stopped (which should never happen) in the hotly contested Swing States, and makes history by getting more votes than Obama?

I'm a retired Marine that held an above Top Secret Clearance. I was educated at the University of Texas and have a degree in Management and Information Systems. I'm calling BS on your so-called objectivity. I had to produce a birth certificate (which I did not have) in order to enlist in the Marines. We had a Commander in Chief that refused to produce a birth certificate the whole time he ran for President and it wasn't until four years later that he published what the public is expected to believe is a legitimate birth certificate. The birth certificated uploaded on the White House government website was examined by a team of professional forensic examiners who sent the documents to independent forensics labs in the US and abroad and they all came to the same conclusion: human intervention was involved in the creation of Obama's long-form birth certificate that was published on the White House government website. Orly Taitz was merely exercising her constitutional right to question Obama's credentials which she as a voter has every right to do.

You have me blocked till 2024. Timing is everything. Why so long? Might it have to do with the next General Election? My editing was done to tone down the Progressive tone of the article and your Administrators mock "Yes indeedy" as they reversed my edit. You think you're so smart and can't contain your sarcasm as you silence those whose opinions differ from the Progressive narrative Wikipedia is promoting. I think you're going to be in for a rude awakening. Get woke, go broke.

I cannot contribute financially to an organization that professes to be free when it doesn't even recognize people's right to free speech. Twitter is shedding a light on the subversive activities of Progressives and it is only a matter of time before woke Wikipedia becomes more and more irrelevant as people turn to other sources to get information that is not tainted with Progressive bias - especially on social, economic, and political topics. Schwagerjt (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In reading this, it's clear this is a rant disguised as a question and you have already made up your mind, so any response is a waste of time. This account was not blocked, but it is now since you are just here to push conservative talking points and conspiracy theories. This is a private platform that can decide who edits here, just as you can decide what is said in your residence. It's clear Wikipedia is not for you. 331dot (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022[edit]

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 below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]