User talk:Fierysunset

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!.Winged Blades^Godric 16:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Informing you on behalf of Mercy11. [reply]

List of cults of personality

Hello Fierysunset, would you take a look at my sandbox HERE and leave me any comments at my talk page. I see you haven't edited much the last few days, so if I don't hear back after a couple of days, I will assume you aren't available and will proceed to post it to the article. thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Trump does have a cult of personality. Sorry to break it to you.

lol saw this after 4 years. his cult is like that of every president who gets the diehard fans to support him. Obama has this cult too, as did GWB when dems were calling him a war criminal. it develops naturally in opposition to the other side.

September 2017

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Antifa (United States). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries like this one [1] are not making things better. Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Acroterion (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Antifa (United States)

You reverted my change on Antifa (United States) with the summary Undid revision 798794932 by GorillaWarfare (talk) // No, you don't get to change Wikipedia because of personal issues. This is a very reliable article.. Please look more closely at my edit, which I clearly described in my summary as fix cite errors. If you look at the previous revision and scroll down to the references section, you'll see a big red section of text saying "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "dhs_ter" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page)." The same reference was cited twice; I removed one of them and modified the reference tag so it would just show the content of the first reference (identical to the second) for both. I also fixed another cite error where someone made a typo. I don't appreciate you accusing me of using "personal issues" to change Wikipedia; I made the most minor of changes to fix a citation error. I'd suggest you reevaluate your knee-jerk response to folks trying to improve that page, since apparently even the most trivial of edits provokes this kind of response from you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not call editors Antifa members

That behavior is likely to be considered a breach of discretionary sanctions and could get you topic banned or blocked. It's an easy thing to avoid, of course. Just read and follow WP:AGF. Doug Weller talk 08:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your talk

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Hello, I'm Beccaynr. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Frances Haugen have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notices

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.

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.

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.

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.

Beccaynr (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Jab1998

Hi there! I'd like to just alert you of a user named Jab1998. Jab1998 has repeatedly tweaked with articles relating to Pakistan-United States Skirmishes like the 2011 NATO Attack and cited it as a US Victory. The Pakistani repercussions in this and neutral assessments align with the narrative that in the longterm this was a Pakistani victory with the evacuation of Shamsi Airfield and closing of supply routes. Jab1998's repeated bias is very concerning and is affecting this encyclopaedia's authenticity and alignment with neutral assessments and third parties. Thank you. Izaan Iqbal (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jab1998 is a clearly biased person with an agenda who is not respecting the talk page consensus for the article. I will report him to the administration if he engages in further edit warring. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]