User talk:ToxinDemon

Welcome!

Hi ToxinDemon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! AryKun (talk) 10:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roberto Vannacci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Statesman. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

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) 00:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenia Roccella

For all the problematic edits that User:En.wikieditor2 has been making, they're right with this one. It is cited that Roccella was formerly a socialist. —C.Fred (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, my problem is the sentence: it's already mentioned in the article that she was close to the PSI, but it sounded like a strange way to start a sentence, and the quote wasn't complete. I'll put the source elsewhere in the text. ToxinDemon (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about the phrasing being clunky. No objections to moving it elsewhere in the text. —C.Fred (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ToxinDemon (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stop harassing me

Stop harassing me! En.wiki.leftwebsite (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this:

1) You called me "satanic."

2) I think it's a strange coincidence that over the last week, a series of anonymous accounts have started deleting my edits, and one of the accounts accused me of being a "pedo-Satanist", while others accused Wikipedia of being left-wing/far left.

You keep undoing my edits without giving any real explanation, and you called me "satanic", see Brothers of Italy. ToxinDemon (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lega Nord

You wrote described as", you didn't separate the quotation marks. I noticed you make a lot of mistakes. ~2026-48023-0 (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Revert rule

Hello, per Wikipedia guidelines I am inclined to inform you about the WP:3RR rule. Have a great day! Brat Forelli🦊 22:26, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes

In the Meloni government article there are "aren't" ("are not" is correct) e "doesn't" ("does not" is correct) , which according to the Wikipedia policy are wrong. Can someone fix it? And xan you format the Sky TG24 source in the same style as the other Sky TG24s? ~2026-24546-47 (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing it right now ToxinDemon (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Matt Walsh (political commentator), a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Temp Account (~2026-17801-67) edit warring and possible COI/paid editing. Blue-Sonnet 19:39, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ESN

Hi @ToxinDemon, thanks for going back to add the source but, as indicated, the source was already there in the previous line, so quoting without reusing the same source is just fine. However, we cannot call it "a proof" when it is just a set of facts. I understand that the article uses that term, but then the term "proof" should be part of the quote. In practice, however, actually using that term in the quote does not really add anything and feel misleading, so we can simply discard it with a rephrasing simply indicating what the report relies on. Best, Julius Schwarz (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I think I reverted your edit while I also modified the text as you said before. ToxinDemon (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Though I did remove the "also", as syntactically it does not go with "in particular". Julius Schwarz (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Opinion polling for the next Italian general election, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Communist Refoundation was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]