User talk:71.99.200.242

June 2017
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Christopher A. Wray, you may be blocked from editing. v/r - TP 13:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Who says?

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Christopher A. Wray. v/r - TP 13:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

So you are going to tell me that the Fortune 100 in America is Corporatist? George Bush did not lead us into an illegal war? The Attorney General of North Georgia is not heavily involved in the War on Drugs? So now wikipedia is more interested in defending appointees by a corrupt President like Trump than letting folks understand the Truth of the matter? And you as a "wikipedia administrator" are more concerned with protecting a Trump nominee. That is what wikipedia is all about? And you claim to be of "Liberty"? You have no clue who I am.

There is no such thing as neutral point of view.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Vanamonde (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

I have read 1000s of entries in wikipedia that have not adhered to a neutral point of view. But none of them concerned a Trump appointee. If wikipedia is not a forum, then perhaps you should certify folks to edit and not have editing open to the general public. So what if I cite cases where this man pursued drug cases (War on Drugs)? What if I cite some of King & Spaulding's corporate clientele do receive benefits from lobbying (corporatism)?

No one asked for a citation of FACTUAL information. Rather you just ACCUSED me of not having a neutral point of view. I do not even oppose the nomination of this man. But I DO KNOW that the North Georgia US Attorneys are involved with. I do know FIRST HAND that King & Spaulding do NOT take on small clients against the government (elitism). I bet I can edit a dozen article not connected to TrumpWorld and you folks will not blink an eye. If you cared of the Truth, you would have me to cite my sources. You don't want to know and that is not exactly a neutral position.

January 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tom Dowd, you may be blocked from editing. Mikemyers345 (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.