User talk:DeaconShotFire

Info for talk page stalkers + people I've conversed with + admins

One clarification only: I don't plan on appealing the block on this account. I have no intention whatsoever of purchasing a VPN and creating a new account, as that would be against Wikipedia rules. Much love xx -Adam (DeaconShotFire)^TALK 22:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the justification to checkuser you. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 22:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you even think of saying such a thing. The next edit you make that is not a request for unblocking may result in you losing talk page access. Please go calm down and do something else for a while. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liz biz

Howdy. From what I can tell, it's likely your proposal will be adopted, per silent consensus. But it's best to let the RFC run its course & get a proper closure. You don't want folks reverting, with the complaint that you jumped the gun. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

republican sentiment

Seeing as there was an apparent consensus for your page-link change to "republican sentiment"? I've restored the link to the Abolition of monarchy page. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standard ArbCom discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump

Hi DeaconShotFire, I've reverted your wording changes to Donald Trump as I thought some of them weren't an improvement, and it wasn't clear to me what the bias issue is that you raised in your edit summary. I'd appreciate it you could clarify your neutrality concerns in a bit more detail on the talk page. Thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 10:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you thought some of them weren't an improvement then why not keep the ones you thought were? DeaconShotFire (talk) 10:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, to clarify, it wasn't clear to me that any of them were an improvement/necessary, while I thought most of the changes (including the ones I highlighted in my edit summary) were a step backwards. However, as I didn't see the neutrality concerns you mentioned in your edit summary, it might be helpful if you could clarify/expand upon them on the talk page so I can better understand the rationale for your changes. Jr8825 • Talk 10:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for battleground behavior, after a clear promise not to engage in such behavior a few weeks ago in your previous unblock request..

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 ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerking permalink to blocking discussion -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]