User talk:2604:6000:1114:C578:8001:C6C0:D1B5:7F

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you. El_C 23:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you were trying to support me in my previous edit regarding Deep state in the United States. The one word edit route isn't going to get the job done. This is a slog, not a quick edit fix. Conspiracy theorists do have an opinion on the topic. So do non-conspiracy theorists who have deep subject matter expertise. Those who don't like the non-conspiracy theories are pretending those don't exist and/or this is about Trump. Neither of those are tenable within Wikipedia's rules. TMLutas (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)