User talk:Mazerks

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 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.

Funcrunch (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia talk:No queerphobia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. This tips over the line into trolling. We are not required to indulge your games. If you re only here to flit from article to article adding sections with names like "completely biased" then people are likely to assume that your presence here is intentionally disruptive. If you want to help us to write an encyclopaedia then you are very welcome here but if you are only interested in starting drama then please just stop. DanielRigal (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a game? I genuinely do not understand how you can justify saying a woman is not female. There is actually no way you reverted a TALK PAGE comment, as well. This is blatant censorship. Mazerks (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

US cabinet nominees

Howdy. Will you please stop putting "Nominee" into separate 'status' sections, in the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

This is your only warning; if you move a page disruptively again, as you did at Adult human female (hate slogan), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Golikom (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the move you made, due to the contentious nature of this topic, please use a full WP:RM process before moving this page, as well as using the WP:RFD before making any changes to the redirects associated with this page. This page move has been reverted per policy regarding contested page moves. Please see the article talk page Adult human female to discuss using the proper WP:RM method if you'd like to discuss a possible future move. This revert was performed by policy with no opinion regarding the merits of such a move. TiggerJay (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]