Hello, Akechi The Agent Of Chaos!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, AntiDionysius (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note on talk pages:

• Comments like the one you replied to on Talk:Questioning (sexuality and gender) that don't even pretend to be suggesting improvements to the article, just giving the user's opinion on the topic, don't need to be replied to. In fact they can simply be removed from the talk page, per WP:NOTAFORUM.
• It's generally not necessary to reply to drive-by comments made by IP users multiple years ago; definitely not ones from more than a decade ago. If they raise a real issue with an article that somehow no one has dealt with since the comment was posted, absolutely go and deal with said issue and then add a note to the thread saying you have done so, but a once-off subjective complaint about an article from 2+ years ago, one that the user themselves couldn't have been bothered to revisit since then, you don't need to bother with either.

Of course, your efforts to facilitate useful discussion are very much appreciated, but I just wouldn't want you to waste your time on threads that aren't going to lead anywhere useful. Thanks! AntiDionysius (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling, I will refrain from reply to really old IP comments, I did not notice how old the post genderism one was. I really only am here because I want to help explain rules and things to user on various topics I am interested in, I am not really interested in editing actual pages because I don't think I would provide much of help in that field. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I highly suggest you stop replying to everything. You said what you needed to say. Take a breather, please. closhund/talk/ 08:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to emphasize that I have no special power. I just read a lot on ANI and I can see that you're close to WP:BLUDGEON or WP:NOTHERE. Two admins have eyes on it now. You can do what you want of course. That's just my advice. And you don't have to be a full-time editor to edit articles. I mostly do copyedits and trivial stuff like that. It's kinda fun. closhund/talk/ 08:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan has apologized. If you accept that apology, that would be a great thing to say on that thread. I don't want it to sound like I'm coaching you. Again, do what you want. I think I'm done with this ANI discussion, so you shouldn't hear anything from me from now on. I hope you continue editing wikipedia. Editing isn't as difficult as it seems. And if you make a genuine mistake, someone will eventually correct you. Rinse, lather, repeat. closhund/talk/ 08:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you did. Great. closhund/talk/ 08:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 10:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#NPOV issue at Gender-critical feminism#Academic freedom. Thank you. Raladic (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Weirdguyz. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you unlinked one or more redlinks from Gender-critical feminism. Redlinks are useful and can often be helpful, so we don't remove them just because they are red. They help improve Wikipedia by attracting editors to create needed articles.

In addition, clicking on the "What links here" link (in the tools listed at the left in desktop view) on a missing article shows how many—and which—articles depend on that article being created. This can help prioritize article creation. Please only remove a redlink if you are pretty sure that it is to a non-notable topic and not likely ever to be created. Thanks! Weirdguyz (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my bad, thank you for letting me know feel free to undo those edits Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone those edits just now thank you for letting me know I will keep this in mind in future edits. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akechi The Agent Of Chaos! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 08:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)