Hello, GenevieveDEon! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Blue Riband► 18:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

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.

Sweet6970 (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to climate change, 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 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.

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people 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. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GenevieveDEon, woudl you mind weighing in on the Anglican-related pages of GAFCON and Anglican realignment. I do not expect that you will agree with all of my concerns, but I suspect a third set of eyes and perspective would be helpful. SeminarianJohn (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm keeping an eye on them already. I'll take a look. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. At least a couple, maybe more, editors seem to have a pro-GAFCON agenda. I trust your judgement. I am experiencing frustration with at least one and that makes it difficult to be truly impartial at this time. I think I've tried to work things out through conversation and proposing consensus ideas. SeminarianJohn (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be doing well. I'll do my best to help out. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding this edit. WaPo doesn't actually say that Good was a writer or poet, and certainly doesn't mention any published work (which one would ordinarily expect when referring to a published author). WaPo says "On an Instagram account appearing to belong to Good, she described herself as a “poet and writer and wife and mom and shitty guitar strummer from Colorado” who is “experiencing Minneapolis”, ie this is her 'informal' social media description of herself. On WP we wouldn't describe people as being a writer or poet unless it were their profession and we wouldn't accept her self-description to verify it, several sources would need to endorse it. Pincrete (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources confirm that she received a prize for her poetry, which ispo facto qualifies her as a poet. I don't know why you're disputing this. (Your edit also, as I noted, broke the grammar of that section.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was disputing it partly because it was ultimately sourced to her own description on her social media account, mainly because we don't ordinarily describe someone as a particular profession, unless it is widely reported as actually being their profession, (Austria's best-known aspirant artist, isn't called an artist on his article, or included in 'art' categories, because he never sold a single painting, BUT he is called a writer, because his book was published). I also think it's trivia, as is her religion or political loyalties. Most of the civilised world is appalled by what happened to this woman, and would be whoever she was/whatever she was doing or not doing with her life. Details such as her hobbies, aspirations, quirks etc are the sort of stuff that news sources add to 'humanise' the victim, IMO they detract from the core matter as much as Vance/Trump etc's attempts to demonise her do.

But given that sensibilities about this incident are running high, I'm happy to let the matter drop. I just wanted to lay out my reasons. Take care. Pincrete (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the version you reverted the short description back to is far less idiomatic. I, for one (native English speaker), struggle to parse it as it stands.

Firstly, the crisis isn't in or on Denmark proper but concerns a territory thereof. Therefore "Denmark territory" functions as a complete singular common noun phrase the object of a preposition. As such, it requires a definite or indefinite article following the preposition.

Secondly, the crisis isn't located anywhere let alone in or on Greenland. Instead it concerns, is about or is (idiomatically) on the territory (as a polity). Most geopolitical debate on all sides is from non-Greenlandic leaders discussing the future of Greenland.

I can take this to the talk page for more input if you wish.

Thanks for editing. Llew Mawr (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, we might do better with a different preposition altogether. I think I'd propose 'about'. But 'on the territory of (a nation)' is only idiomatic if it refers to a boots-on-the-ground sort of situation, whereas 'in the territory' can refer to political and abstract situations as well. Let's avoid the problem. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "about" is the only precise option even if it adds 3 more characters. I understand the main technical reason for the suggestion that SDs be about 40 characters is now moot (but am happy to not include a date range whilst the crisis is ongoing to help with that).

I realise after writing that that my version is very ambiguous too (even to my reading) because "on" (especially of an island) an mean 'in' or 'about'.

Short prepositions in English are so idiomatic and subtly contextual, we're interpreting the semantics of 'on' and 'in' in this context in the exact inverse. Llew Mawr (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your neutrality and rationality at 2026 Tumbler Ridge shooting. Psephguru (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]