User talk:Globe Holder

November 2015

Hello, I'm Quenhitran. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Integralism, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 04:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CasaPound Talk page edit

Hi! I've noticed you removed a section in the CasaPound talk page. That section contained a legitimate (if misguided) question, with an informative response, and as such I think it would make sense to reinstate it. Could you explain your reasons for removing it? Asymmetric (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The question was made by me and I decided to rescind it, partially because I believe it was pointless and pedantic (political categories are semantic/"traditional" and rarely related to what the party supports in practice). Plus yeah, this isn't the place to debate politics. Wikipedia's criteria for a "source" is just an argument-from-authority and not necessarily descriptively consistent. I also just assumed it was my prerogative to remove my own inquiries at will. Globe Holder (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]