User talk:Xenosystem

hi

hi 81.107.34.57 (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheodoresTomfooleries. 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. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:D8C7:13A5:F937:D20E (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
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.

RegentsPark (comment) 14:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Great Replacement conspiracy theory, you may be blocked from editing. Also noting that removing some uses of Vice because you, mistakenly, assume it's not reliable, but leaving others. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things:

1) I did not vandalize the page at any point. All my editing is in good faith.

2) All I did was remove a claim which used a highly opinionated (speaking generously) news website which did not seem to introduce anything relevant to the topic of the article.

3) I did try to remove other usages of Vice Media sources in the article, although I must have forgotten to remove them.

4) I will concede that my understanding of how "no consensus" sources should be approached was wrong.

5) This does not mean I was somehow vandalizing the article or removing things without explanation. Xenosystem (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t use the word vandalise. I don’t see your explanations justifying removal of a source where there was no consensus it was unreliable as adequate. I wasn’t the only one who reverted you nor of course did I give you the alert. Doug Weller talk 18:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]