Hi Leninscat! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! CNC (talk) 23:59, 18 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.

Cullen328 (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 thank you for the insight and information! Leninscat (talk) 07:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Stumbleannnn. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Evil Queen have been undone because they appeared to add a purposeful typo. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 20:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for three days from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to American Communist Party (2024). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm PEPSI697. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Haz Al-Din have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 07:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PEPSI697 how is it not constructive to contextualize the fact that the person mentioned is a nazi? Leninscat (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NAZI. It should have more explanation on why it considers "No Nazis" on articles. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 07:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TFW you're perpetually 14 and just discovered Noam Chomsky BeatrixGodard (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BeatrixGodard which Infrared member are you? Leninscat (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin BeatrixGodard (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BeatrixGodard Lenin was a marxist, not a cryptofacsist. Leninscat (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ApricotAvalanche037 (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be straight up with you: if you can't avoid calling other editors Nazis you should not be editing articles about political extremism. Full stop. It's a difficult topic area even without casting useless aspersions. I appreciate you deleted your comments (though note that deleting comments is different from striking them which is preferred with comments that have been responded to) but this is not the first time you've got overly confrontational, especially toward BeatrixGodard. Just try a little collegiality next time, especially when dealing with editors whose POV you find frustrating. Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I wrongly accused you of copypasting your old reply. Perhaps you simply have a friend. BeatrixGodard (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BeatrixGodard or perhaps there are more than two people who know Heidegger was a nazi and his philosophy was reflective of his national socialist beliefs. just a thought Leninscat (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knows that. You are not special because you're 14 and just read about Heidegger for the first time. What would bring you up to the next level of discourse is if you could name a specific Heideggerian idea that reflects National Socialism, or, even better, an idea that Haz or the ACP puts forward which is National Socialist. BeatrixGodard (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BeatrixGodard you need to learn to be civil who people who question your favorite cult leaders strange anti-marxist interpretation of communism. Leninscat (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The offer for you to defend your assertions still stands. BeatrixGodard (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BeatrixGodard save the debates for your Infrared discord server. Leninscat (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your surrender. BeatrixGodard (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you need to stop this behaviour - I'm honestly inclined to go to AN/I about the two of you since you seem incapable of not sniping at each other constantly. The behaviour of the two of you is disruptive and taking it to your mutual user talk pages does not make it better. I am making one final request that you stop trading barbs and try to behave collegially. The next stop will be to talk to an admin about this. Simonm223 (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't really care what he calls me. I know that won't win me any points in the end, but it's true. BeatrixGodard (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BeatrixGodard just leave me alone and quit harassing me. I hadn't said anything on this for months before you started harassing me because some random anonymous user agreed with me. Leninscat (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. BeatrixGodard (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]