User talk:CommunityNotesContributor

January 2025

Hello, CommunityNotesContributor. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

• @Footballnerd2007, I received your email, although apologies I'm afraid I'm not willing to reply for security reasons myself. I respect your privacy though, so I'll provide an encoded response. If you read through the entire section (and sub-section) of the subject you are specifically concerned about, you should find the answer readily available for how to handle the situation you describe. Alternatively, if that hint doesn't clarify the situation for you, you could email an admin to advise you. In general for private communication and any security concerns, you can otherwise contact WP:ARBCOM directly. I hope that helps, while respecting your privacy. CNC (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. I just want to be as transparent as possible before giving the go ahead to ensure no one questions my integrity. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:RM

Hi, I note that you've asked that I not participate in your thread at WT:Requested moves, so I'll post the following here:

Per WP:PCM: "The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if (...) someone could reasonably disagree with the move."

WP:RMT is for technical moves. A primary topic swap is not a technical move, and is in fact potentially controversial. Primary topic swap requests such as Ella Morris can go straight to an RM discussion.

In this case, I'm not objecting to the move, but rather the attempted shortcutting of our widely-accepted processes. I urge you to use WP:RMT only for uncontroversial technical moves.

Thank you for your continued contributions to the encyclopedia. 162 etc. (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey 162, there's been a misunderstanding here, please post this in the relevant topic. In no way was I attempting to restrict you from the discussion per "162 etc. can clarify if I am misrepresenting or misunderstanding this reasoning,(...)". I was only attempting to solicit uninvolved opinion on the topic for the benefit of neutrality. For what it's worth, based on the first response in the topic, it seems you're in the right. All the best, nothing personal, good-faith and all. CNC (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to say I get it now based on PCM, thanks for your patience, apologies for wasting your time :) CNC (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No apology necessary. Thank you for your contributions. 162 etc. (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Elon Musk Talk page

I'm sure this isn't news to you, but disparate discussions about Musk's recent actions continue to overrun Talk: Elon_Musk. I don't know what the proper response but it's become difficult to track what consensuses have or have not formed. QRep2020 (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:Consensus should be used to document this, but unfortunately this hasn't occurred. I've also used this template before for documenting "there is no consensus to change X/Y/Z", which in itself is a form of consensus. CNC (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red February 2025

Women in Red | February 2025, Vol 11, Issue 2, Nos. 326, 327, 330, 331 Online events: New: Black women | Alphabet run C & D Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements from other communities: Wiki Loves Ramadan begins on 25 February - a great opportunity to focus on women from Islamic history Tip of the month: Looking for an image? Sometimes you can find openly licensed ones on Creative Commons search Suggestion: Consider helping to promote women under In the news and On this day on Wikipedia's main page Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Boy your speedy!

No sooner was a responding to you, it was retracted. LOL. You're fast! No problem, and thank you also for your work with FBN! With regard top the issue you were about to bring up on my talk page, I will agree that it probably could have been otherwise closed if it wasn't for their pings. You also caught me mid-talk page post to the nom about CANVASS which their ping was rather inappropriate because you just don't ping those who have contributed to the article in alignment with your own views, but broadly. Part of the point on my pings where to demonstrate by example how pings/canvass should occur, which is broadly to all those who have expressed views. Of course, they seem to choose (understandably so) to not include those who have previously expressed opposing views. Cheers! TiggerJay (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeh sorry about that, I realised after the revert that you'd almost certainly be replying to a deleted comment lol. After seeing your pings, I think you played the right card here. If anything there could be a lot more to said about this RM and the nom with further participation from (historically) previous RM participants. Feel free to ping me in a week or so for close if it remains open. CNC (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh and as it related to your question of reverting an RM-NAC. Policy says (and I generally agree with) that a bad closure (outside of something overt like vandalism) should only be reverted by an administrator. For the rest of us, we're required to go to the talk page of the closer, and failing that, then we can bring it to WP:MR. However, based on your comment, I am going to make a few adjustments to my talk page template as you're the second person to mention not wanting to revert my edits, and generally speaking I do believe in BRD and have no problem with experienced editors (yourself included) reverting anything I did boldly... Although again, as to not create too much further confusion, I do think that BRD does not apply to RM-NAC, as there is an official procedure for those. TiggerJay (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, a clarification would be beneficial here. The suggestion (to me) is that you are OK with being reverted generally speaking, but as you point out, there's plenty of examples of when a revert is not OK per policy. Hence I was aware this was completely outside of the remit of a BRD based revert as it were. Without clarification, you're asking inviting trouble :) CNC (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

If you have a moment, take a look and let me know if that's more clear. TiggerJay (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

It's as clear as day now. CNC (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist! TiggerJay (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Other activities of Elon Musk for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Other activities of Elon Musk is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other activities of Elon Musk until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Original Barnstar
		For your work moving "Israel–Hamas war" articles to "Gaza war" name spaces. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for nice wording

Thank you very much for using the wording "revert good-faith edit" in the edit summary here. I really appreciate it. I'll try to follow your example and find ways to be nice to other editors! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

January 2025 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to CommunityNotesContributor for accumulating at least 25 points during the January 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 16,000+ articles and 14,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 19,791.2 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Ella Morris

The page Ella Morris has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguated only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ended in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguated zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• was a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that did not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. – robertsky (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Have a nice day/night.

ZayKitty Wiki (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate the kitten, I recently had a contentious kitty re-homed with another editor as had become quite a fandful, so have become kittenless for the time being which was upsetting. Also to clarify, is this a ctop kitten? CNC (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Views of Elon Musk

We were editing Views of Elon Musk at the same time. I tried to preserve your changes but I messed up. It would be easier for you to redo what you did before than for me to try to restore your changes. Sorry for imposing extra work on you. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

OK have restored, to clarify the tweet dates are not source dates, they are based on how they are seen on twitter, so only the first three letters of each month is referenced, unlike sources generally. CNC (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Your change to three-day archiving on Elon Musk talk page

Hi, on January 22 you changed to algo = old(3d) with edit summary = "3d archiving per WP:TALKSIZE". Yes there was too much but WP:TALKSIZE suggests "archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB in wikitext" and yesterday Lowercase sigmabot III archived some discussions e.g. Material inside the quotes section of the citations which was not long not closed not stale (the last comment was 13 February 2025]. I'm not going to try recovering, but am going to ask you: please don't do it this way again, and allow other discussions to continue. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

This was at a time when there the previous RfC's which had grown the page to >200KB. I was intending to wait for the recent RfC to be archived automatically and then change it back to 7 days once back under 100KB. I not convinced by your suggestion not to change to 3 day when required, there has been 3 weeks of de facto status quo consensus to have 3 day archiving. The issue is that nobody; not me, nor you, or another editor, reconfigured the archive bot as required, or otherwise used a do Do not archive template. Respectfully, this is better discussed at the talk page if you want to establish consensus not to use 3 day archiving when required. CNC (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

And the defacto status quo ends the moment it is challenged and holds no weight after that... Respectfully Peter Gulutzan has been very nice to you and you should listen to them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)