Welcome Rootsmusic!

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.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just in case you find yourself adding more hatnotes like you did on Weaponization Working Group, it should be done using the {{Hatnote}} template. This way it won't show up on What links here, the search results and on navigation popups etc. because it has semantic metadata or whatever it's called in it. This isn't really your problem or anything and it's not disruptive but just so you know.

I changed it to a {{Confused}} template and redirected the piped link text because you shouldn't really have piped links in a hatnote but that isn't important as far as I'm aware.

Thanks for your contributions! – Mullafacation『talk』 16:05, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Mullafacation for the solution! You're right. I knew that I should use a template, but I didn't know how to link to a section with that template. I had a similar problem with using the {{copied}} template to link a section heading in this edit, which I also asked for help on the Talk Page. rootsmusic (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear that I was of some help!

You are technically able to do all the things you can do normally if you use {{Hatnote}} so I guess if in doubt use that. I imagine it's deliberate that there's no way to link to a section that way because of rule 1 of the WP:HRULES but if you really wanted to, {{hatnote}} works:

Not to be confused with the Interagency Weaponization Working Group

There's usually some kind of catch-all template that you can do anything you want with like {{ombox}} and {{Notice}} if a more specific one makes things difficult. Though it might work out better if you don't use them because it might actually be more likely to be fixed if they look out of place, who knows.

Kind of unrelated but you can use {{Section link}} which will format the link text a bit cleaner (including with the cool § symbol). That doesn't seem to work very well plugging it into {{copied}} though but I don't know much about that template. Some templates will automatically style section links like that so it's not very useful for templates but it's a clean way to display section names. – Mullafacation『talk』 17:11, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]