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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

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.

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

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.

--Neutrality^talk 14:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Eva Braun shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to your edit changes, when you have seen that other editors disagree and have reverted. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. In addition, you have violated the 3 revert rule, as well. Kierzek (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question also made their own change and has been reverting it back all the same. Their edit has as much consensus as mine, although rather interestingly you haven't posted this to the talk page of @Ninja Diannaa. DeaconShotFire (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You made six edits to the page and I only made three. After my third edit I immediately opened a talk page discussion to explain my objection to the use of the word "woman" and to invite others to comment on the situation. So I was never in a position where an edit warring template would be appropriate. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 19:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Harry S. Truman shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are also engaged in this, and you are wrong in the edits your are making, as backed up by your tiny "Rv redundant" edit summary in your most recent edit. Do not threaten me again. DeaconShotFire (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Harry S. Truman. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the other editor will also be receiving a ban, right? DeaconShotFire (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(This is a block, not a ban.) Which other editor? I don't see anybody other than you reverting so many times, or violating the three-revert rule. Bishonen | tålk 09:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Block/ban distinction isn't necessary; we both know what I mean. The other editor was reverting just as much as I. DeaconShotFire (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, nobody was reverting nearly as much as you. You unblushingly say the thing which is not so, which makes it kind of pointless to reply further. Goodbye. Bishonen | tålk 19:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

FWIW, your behaviour is beginning to worry me. Recommend you be patient & let the RFC run its course. I'll request closure next week, when the template expires. Please be patient. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm baffled by this edit. You made it in defiance of the rules for RFC's as well as of the Cluebot edit notice "DoNotArchiveUntil 03:01, 27 October 2021", and without even a visible comment at the archiving to acknowledge that it was done out of time, and/or explaining why. This apparently in order to force through the request you had made here. You have been blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 06:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I made an edit that has since been reverted, then didn't revert it back to my own, and apparently this is a disruptive edit, worthy of a 48-hour ban? You clearly love exercising fake power. DeaconShotFire (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting administrators is never a good method to avoid increasing long blocks for future infractions. You've had two blocks in a period of a few weeks which is not a good direction to be heading in. Listen to what other editors are saying to you or the next block could be for a much longer period of time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the backup? DeaconShotFire (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Donald Trump, you may be blocked from editing.

In this edit, you implicitly accused the dozens of editors who had reached consensus in the RFC or political bias. In this edit and this edit, you improperly reopened a closed discussion. You also vowed to make unsourced changes to the articles for Johnson and Buchanan. If you continue to attack other editors and spam the talk page with topics that were already discussed, administrator intervention will be requested. Cpotisch (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit linked includes no accusation of political bias. If you continue to attack me and spam my talk page, administrator intervention will be requested.

The discussion was improperly closed as I was not finished asking questions. You seem conspicuously keen to close discussions about the bias and improper writing within Donald Trump. I certainly hope you don't partake of any ideological bias. DeaconShotFire (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care so much about your re-opening a closed discussion, which the above comment complains of, as that is more a formal problem, but your input in this discussion is beyond the pale, with the insistence on ignoring what reliable sources say. The way you first (baselessly, obviously without looking) argue "The word worst (or best) is not used in the lead of any other U.S. president"[1] and then — when people refute that statement — you threaten to remove it in those other presidential articles articles as well, is the purest BATTLEGROUND and bludgeoning. Your response just above on this page, that "the first edit linked includes no accusation of political bias" is erroneous. The edit in question contains the sentence "Because the wording suggests that Demopedia Wikipedia has an opinion on what constitutes good and bad." The amusing cross-out rhetorical trick doesn't include an accusation of political bias, really? Of course it does. You have had three blocks for various kinds of disruptive editing within a month. If you intended to change the way you interact with others, I guess you would have by now. I have blocked you indefinitely. I'm sure you know how to request unblock, since you have been told with every successive block. Bishonen | tålk 19:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]