User talk:Abumoh00

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. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TarnishedPath^talk 04:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain the reason or point me in the direction of why you deleted the YouTube Template from Charlie Angus page? The only comment was "promo link removed."

Since retiring from the House of Commons, one of Mr. Angus' main roles has been as a YouTuber. He currently produces videos on an a nearly daily basis and it is mentioned at the end of his wiki page. Considering this is one of his main activities, I am not sure why this is considered irrelevant. Many figures active on YouTube have links to their channels on their pages. Are those also considered "promo links?" There are at least several hundred of them on the site if not more. Ottawajin (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

After I did that I realized maybe it's become normalized. To me it's very clearly promo, and yeah pretty much every Youtube link would be considered that. But, of course Im' open to other arguments, I don't know what the norm is. Abumoh00 (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:YOUTUBE seems to imply that it's alright to post links to YouTube so long as the YouTube video or channel is relevant and does not link to videos that contain copyright infringing or other prohibited content.

I think it's relevant in the case of Charlie Angus because it is one of the main things he does at this point.

Anyhow, it's good practice to cite the rules you are invoking in the Edit Summary when reverting other users' edits - unless they are clearly in bad faith or what you are deleting is obvious vandalism.

Adding a shortcut link (Wikipedia:Shortcut index) to your edit summary - such as "Reverted due to WP:PROMOTION violation" or even just adding the wikilink "WP:PROMOTION" helps you to communicate your reasoning better to long-term editors and also educate newbies about what they are doing wrong. They can click on the link and be immediately directed to the relevant rules that you used as the reason for your revert. I made a lot of mistakes as a newbie and shortlinks like these in the edit summaries of long-term editors helped me to better understand Wikipedia editing guidelines.

I don't use these so much as I don't revert that much - other than vandalism. Next time I post a comment on a talk page though, I'll be sure to use these in my comments as well. :) Cheers. Ottawajin (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)