Hi CommunityNotesContributor! I noticed your contributions to Jackson Hinkle 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:
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Jackson Hinkle, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. According to the rules described in H:L, the links to the disambiguation pages are discouraged. Quote: "When an edit is previewed before saving, if the target of a newly made link turns out to be a disambiguation page, such as the Peacemaker page, the link should be changed to one of the choices on that page unless the link is purposely in a hatnote. If necessary, the new link can be piped, such as in [[Peacemaker (comics)|Peacemaker]], which appears as Peacemaker and links to the article about the fictional characters. Readers should not be directed to disambiguation pages unless there is no other option but to do so."Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:JacksonHinkle.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:JacksonHinkle.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thank you for your work to improve Wikipedia. I painstakingly editedTwitter under Elon Musk at 23:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC) with edit summary "rm spurious self-closed <p/>; {{cite tweet}}; straight single and double quotes and apostrophes; nested quotes single". That means:
rm spurious self-closed <p/>: A tag ending with a slash is a self-closed tag. Only a few tags are allowed to be self-closed and <p> is not one of them. I removed it.
{{cite tweet}}: This is the preferred template for referencing tweets.
straight single and double quotes and apostrophes: MOS:CQ says
Use "straight" quotation marks, not “curly” ones. (For single-apostrophe quotes: 'straight', not ‘curly’.)
Use single quotes: Bob asked: "Did Jim say 'I ate the apple' before he left?""
your edit of 00:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC) made some of the mistakes I had just fixed, so five minutes later, Sideswipe9threverted your edit with summary "Undid revision 1186114208 by CommunityNotesContributor (talk) MOS:CQ, undo changes of cite tweet to cite web for no clear reason, undo removal of wikilinks in cite templates, undo change of prose into an embedded tweet template". When someone reverts you and leaves a detailed summary, it's a good idea to pause and figure things out before you forge ahead. But then, you edited the article again (and many times more after that), again using curly quotes and again replacing valid uses of {{cite tweet}} with {{cite web}}. Unless you have a sound explanation for why you replaced valid uses of {{cite tweet}} with {{cite web}}, and a sound explanation for why you used curly quotes, please edit this article again, changing all tweet references to use {{cite tweet}} and all quotation marks to follow MOS:CQ. Sincerely, Anomalocaris (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for detailed explanation of the mistakes I've been making, as well as patience in doing so. I hadn't noticed the revert, after looking again I realise I indirectly reverted in error when making an edit to a sub-section (I used visual edit switched and for whatever reason I received no edit conflict warning to consider). But no excuses, I'll pay more attention to the history changes in the future when editing pages.
Have gone through and corrected, cross-referencing with the previous changes for cite tweets that were made. Let me know if there's anything I missed or didn't do correctly etc. Thanks again for the message. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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 special powers 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 practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
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.
@Burrobert Thanks, am aware it would be a contentious topic for the reasons specified. However the notice provided is incorrect, given that the page is currently only WP:SEMI not WP:ECP, so I recommend you make an edit/copy of the template for it to be accurate rather than misleading:
The content you added to Maram's bio related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. The following contentious topics procedure applies to all pages and edits related to this contentious topic:
Extended confirmed restriction – only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area. This means you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days. Burrobert (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
The 30/500 ECP restriction applies to all articles within the Arab-Israeli contentious topic area, regardless of whether the articles themselves are unprotected, semi-protected, or extended protected. As a non-extended confirmed editor, while you may be able to publish an edit on some individual articles within the purview of the contentious topic, those edits can and often are summarily reverted as non-EC editors are not allowed to edit this topic.
In particular, point B of WP:ARBECR covers this scenario, where an article is within a CTOP with the extended confirmed restriction, and the article is not currently ECP locked. If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required.Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Don't you mean WP:ECR applies to all articles within the scope of contentious, not WP:ECP? As edits by non-extended confirmed users can still be made, as you pointed out, even if they shouldn't be. But thanks for explaining with references, I'd misread the "restriction" vs "protection" part of things, I'll stay away from contentious topics.
Yeah, I see what you mean. I know the Arbitration Committee recently changed the text of the extended confirmed restriction, and that may not yet be fully reflected in the templates used. But yeah, adding a wikilink to WP:ECR would aid clarity. I'll make a template edit request for this shortly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for understand my point. Was about to open a topic in the template talk page to point out the obvious, as to me if just seemed like I'd received the template in error based on the description that mimics ECP. First time in 15 years that I've seen a template that doesn't provide a link to the information the warning is trying to convey. In fact, it gives all refs but the key point. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
No worries. I've made the template edit request now. I believe the intent is that you're meant to click the "here" wikilink, at the end of the notice, so that you get a fuller idea of what this particular CTOP means. On that page, ECR is more clearly spelled out at the top. But I'm of the opinion that adding this link would be helpful, because it does improve overall clarity. Hopefully it gets changed :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Good news, the templates have been updated! Now you won't see the difference here I'm afraid, because the CTOP templates are one of the few that are always substituted instead of transcluded. But it will take affect for anyone receiving an Arab-Israeli CTOP alert going forward :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I just had a check, looks great! Very clear and well referenced, great job :) Now the edit page for ECR articles just needs to be updated with a warning for users not XC and it'd all make a lot more sense ;)
For reference at present it only has the usual statement: "Note: This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse."
(But you've already done enough here and I appreciate that so not expecting anything else)
If I was being cynical I'd say I suspect some people like the fact there is no warning, in order to publish templates to oblivious users talk pages, so I wouldn't want to take that away from them. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Finally getting to the bottom of this, has taken some time I have to admit. I knew something was badly wrong here, even if I went the wrong way about it by suggesting alert notice template updates. That wasn't the fundamental problem here, it's the lack of edit note.
Was the Maram Susli page missing the {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}}[1] by any chance? Is this why there was no edit warning? @Burrobert If you could otherwise please explain how I was supposed to be aware that this was WP:ECR it'd be appreciated.
Good luck sorting out the technicalities. When I posted the notice I did not assume you were aware of the restrictions relating to the A-I conflict. The intent of the notice was to make you aware of these. Now that you are aware of the restrictions in that area, "err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations". Burrobert (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I'll need it, re sorting out technical implementations. To calrify, you didn't post a notice, you posted an alert template, even if this is what you were implying. The edit notice can be found in docs and instead must be applied to the page in question.
I'm only really proposing what has already been implemented as procedure, just isn't being applied in this case:
This template must be used as a editnotice on pages that have active contentious topic restrictions.
This includes WP:CT/A-I. This is reiterated in the Template:Contentious topics at the bottom under enforcement as well, but maybe should be brought into the lede if it's going unnoticed. Please let me know if I'm missing some loophole here.
I'll let the lawyers work out the fine details of that. I will continue working on the assumption that any edit relating to the A-I conflict is governed by the contentious topic rules above, even if the page on which the edit is made does not have a notice. If that is wrong then someone in charge will let me know. It is important to alert new editors of the restrictions that apply here. As you said above, how else were you to know "that this was WP:ECR". My feeling is that it would be impractical to include the contentious topic notice on every page that touched on the topic in some way. Burrobert (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
It's a fair point, and there appears to be misunderstanding whether topic's without the editnotice are subject to enforcement or not, so still a long way off clarity it seems. Ideally there would be a generic template for contentious topics, and another for contentious topics with page restrictions using an editnotice. But I realise this would be a clerical nightmare to implement. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Hinkle misinformation.png listed for discussion
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by InterstellarGamer12321 was:
This is not the correct place to request new redirects. Please follow the instructions at Article wizard/Redirects. Thank you.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:History of X and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, CommunityNotesContributor!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Hey man, sorry to cause you distress with this edit [2], that wasn't my intention and I (and it seems at least two other editors) would have made the exact same edit without having any prior interaction with you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes I'm aware I shouldn't be called others a troll, thanks. That user in reference hasd't made a single edit on Tommy Robinson's page [3] prior to reverting my edit, claiming it's part of their watch list - which I find impossible to believe. Instead they were recently reverted by 3 users (including myself) making edits to History of Twitter, due to lack of consensus. I find it hard to believe it's not related. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I have most far right figures on my watch list (its many many thousands of articles long, many of which I have never edited). Did your name pop because we had just interacted? Yes it did but the size and the article popped even more, I would have reverted that edit no matter who made it (as it seems would a number of other editors if I hadn't beat them to it). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Can you strike "and otherwise spend most of their time trolling Talk:Twitter"? Its not only inaccurate but its a personal attack. You can confirm that it is inaccurate using my edit [4] counter and the one for my previous account [5]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Sure I removed the person attack for you, it's not helpful anyway. I acknowledge that and even apologise, reluctantly. You still never made an edit on that page from your alt either, but it's irrelevant. Sure, you could have watchlists for thousands of far-right figures for all I know. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
WikiProject Internet Culture invitation
I checked out your other contributions and they seem pretty interesting. Would you mind joining WikiProject Internet Culture?
If I was being sarcastic that would be indreictly be WP:PA. If I said that the user is simply trolling, like I previously have, that would also be WP:PA. I can neither confirm nor deny that my account has hacked. Apologies for the inconvenience. [6]CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
So idealy you should confirm if your account has been hacked or not, but you will not do it? please read WP:NOTDUMB, these kinds of games will only end up one way. I will not be asking you again to stop playing silly games. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I haven't checked if my account has been hacked, I'd have to check through every edit, as well as do a full security scan of my laptop in order to check for any intrusion. I'm not doing that right now. That's why I said I can't confirm or deny, because I'd obviously have to do a full check that takes more than a day. At face value, I'd say no though, based on the information currently available. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very insightful. I've seen enough of that about, related to nearly all of those points; edit warring, abuse of process, wikilawyering, disruption to make a point, and surprisingly never saw a reference to that. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Conflicting community note.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Conflicting community note.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
I'm starting to find the introduction section to Twitter under Elon Musk increasingly bloated and to question the relevance or necessity of including some apparently superfluous or irrelevant information. My doubts have started with the last two versions of this passage:
In December, the Twitter Files were released; reports intended to shed light on content moderation, censorship, and government influence at the company. The documents were provided by Musk, with former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey requesting information be released "wikileaks-style".
This does not obviously contribute to the article's topic and appears more like it should be merged into Twitter Files, where, at a glance, there's already a similar passage included.
Would you be interested in discussing trimming down the introduction? Alternately, we can try to determine what the intended topic of the article is so as to make it easier to find consensus on what is relevant to include in it.
Yes, please feel free to trim down the lead. I had already thought this after adding more brief info from the body today.
Twitter Files details would be the first on my list to go. I wasn't sure if others would find it controversial to remove the unecessary details regarding it. In hindsight, probably not, as prior to expanding the lead this was one of the few paragraphs that existed, that's why it's taking up much more info than necessary, especially given it's not featured much in the body apart from a one paragraph excerpt.
As per WP:LEAD, ideally it summarises the body's most relevant information. The only parts to be "cautious" with, in my opinion, would be the positive statements about Twitter. Ideally those would all be kept, as otherwise the outright negativity of the lead raises NPOV issues, as has already been bought up and I've had to address. Anything that can be better summarised I very much encourage to do.
I guess you misunderstood me. I'm not bothered whether that goes into the infobox or not, but I do bother about the reason why it wouldn't. Arguments based on vague definitions are still worth countering, even if it doesn't change the outcome, so others can make informed opinions.
Otherwise no, this isn't wp:bludgeoning, this is just (yet) another inaccurate observation you've made on that talk page, which is getting tiresome at this point. Please give it a rest. I'm not trying to get others to change their opinion, as I'm not bothered on the outcome - as you acknowledged - but I do care about how we get there, which remains important. I'm otherwise having a conversation with a single user, not replying to everyone at all. I otherwise haven't ignored any reasoned arguments, but instead agreed, so please find a more relevant wikipage to send me next time. Thanks. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
To provide a few examples of what I mean by inaccurate observations/opinions:
Can we not confuse the matter by discussing other issues?
When in fact what was being discussed was the same issue. WP:DAPE might be relevant to you here.
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Your edit [7] suggesting incompetence does not lead to collaboration -- the underpinning of this project. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andrew Tate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Brother. 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.)
That's good to know! Admittedly VE doesn't gather author name(s) data very often I find. But even just using first word of publication/title + year would work. At least by manually adding author names, which I obsessively feel the need to do, it would provide a correct ref name at least. PS - Thanks for your patience + heads up on ref errors. Still ain't finished with that article yet. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, CommunityNotesContributor, and welcome to Women in Red. Sorry you ran into difficulty with the above but happy to see you now intend to concentrate on women in football. From the biographies you have already created in this connection, you appear to be on the right track. You are obviously a highly competent editor but if you have not already done so, you may find it useful to look through our Primer. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
February 2024
Women in Red| February 2024, Volume 10, Issue 2, Numbers 293, 294, 297, 298
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Andrew Tate you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 750h+ -- 750h+ (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
For disturbing placid waters, illegal baiting, and failing to exercise proper sanitation after fish-gutting. (Permalink) The initiative is great but try to understand that a page associated with the WP:Kindness campaign is meant to recognize and praise the work of others, not to frustrate and annoy them. Happy editing! – Reidgreg (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red April 2024
Women in Red| April 2024, Volume 10, Issue 4, Numbers 293, 294, 302, 303, 304
Over at the April 2024 pro-palestinian protests talk page, it's impressive how many people use {{EPER}} but don't seem to read what it says, even in bold, and take that seriously. It's as if we have to add a blinking flourescent animation with the Simpsons bus driver "taps the sign" image meme ... It looks unfriendly if nobody bothers to answer, but nobody is obliged to respond: we're all volunteers. Boud (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Hey, CNC. No, no one is entitled to an apology. But sometimes it's what's needed to convince me the person won't do it again. Valereee (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeh, I do get that. But it's not about convincing you "a victim", but the community. The basic concept of showing remorse is a pretty weak barometer to go by for most people I imagine. For example, how many users show remorse and then repeat the same actions vs those who show none and learn from their mistakes? My point is it's a logically weak argument for being convinced that someone won't repeat the same mistakes. The fact that ATG is willing/accepting to be topic banned from DYK suggests that he has learnt something after all (read between the lines). Maybe that'd also be for the best if he's not capable of repeating the same mistakes, personally I was only objecting to the initial proposal of an indef ban that seems outrageous. The fact he "got away with it" without saying "sorry" seems to be the bigger issue, rather than the lack of apology to those he insulted. He could of just provided an insincere apology, not much else would of happened, and in my opinion would of been more likely to continue any disruptive activities (in fact I'm pretty sure of that). The fact he didn't apologise implies he's willing to be banned in some form, not that he hasn't learnt anything from the situation. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't consider myself a victim. Andy calling me an idiot has zero effect on me. I know I'm not. He likely knows I'm not. He's just venting his spleen, and I don't care.
But a lot of people do care. A lot of people are affected by what someone like Andy, who is experienced and expert, say about them. He just should control himself. And maybe if he has to apologize when he does these things, he'll stop doing it. Maybe it doesn't matter if he's sincere if he just stops doing it.
Fair enough, if you don't see it like that. Best to stop asking for an apology if that's how you feel, just saying.
As I said in a recent comment, he'll either learn, or get banned. Everyone opposing based on the name-calling alone isn't going to have the same sympathy if he repeats the same behaviour. He's been warned, so for me and others, that seems like enough for now.
Last point is completely subjective. An indef ban can last longer than a time-limited, a time-limited could seem more beneficial as you know exactly when your ban is over (without having to engage in any groveling for example). It's not even relevant that if, for example, statistically, more users have indef bans lifted prior to time-limited expiring. Claiming it's "better" is simply your opinion. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay, what's better: someone gives you a ban for six months. You try to explain, but no one want to lift it because someone thought you needed six months. Vs. Someone gives you an indef, you explain, and someone lifts it after five minutes. Which is better? Valereee (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Depends what you mean by explain? Explain how? If in doubt I'd take the 6 months, especially if it's to disprove a straw man argument. But in reality, we're talking about a 24 hour ban (previous proposal) vs indef (current proposal). That's where the current comparison comes from, at least in terms of severity. So I'd take a 24 hour ban over indef any day of the week (especially Mondays, I don't edit much on Mondays). CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
By "explain" I mean you go "Oh, I didn't realize calling someone an idiot wasn't okay here...yeah, I can totally say I won't do that". Bam, I unblock. If what you're saying is that you'd just prefer to wait out the 24 hours and go around calling people idiots again, that's exactly why I don't give time-limited blocks, whether 24 hours or 6 months. It's because people can just wait them out and not change their behavior. Valereee (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm be frank with you, as I'm not daft and I don't think you are either. We both know ATG is unlikely to apologise, so an indef ban could instead last for days, weeks, months, even years if he takes the stubborn road. Obviously an indef ban would be the way to qet a quick apology, or a user not remorseful banned for potentially a very long time. This is something I don't agree with and opposed, I imagine similar to reason why others opposed, as it would be completely disproportionate given the situation. Given that you acknowledge that an indef ban would be worse than a 24 hour, why are you bothering to argue for a indef ban when there was no consensus for a 24hr? Pick your battles, seriously. This isn't the hill to die on as they say. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not acknowledging an indef is worse than a 24-hour; exactly the opposite. An indef can mean 5 minutes.
I'm looking for an apology rather than an indef because I think it's best both for Andy and for Wikipedia. The point of an indef is to get the user's compliance, which a time-limited block -- of whatever length -- cannot usually do, because they can wait it out. Valereee (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Because of WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict which has invoked WP:ARBECR the creator, Scriptese who is not extended confirmed, cannot edit it/submit it which is why I rejected it rather than declining it (reject does not have a resubmit button). I had left a note Scriptese's talk page with the CTOP info and a suggestion. However, you are EC so what I meant by 'adopt' is to assume responsibility and move it mainspace. If that is what you or any other EC editor wants to do, there is no need to submit it to AfC for approval. Any EC editor is welcome to move it once it is ready. If you or another EC editor prefer to submit it to AfC, you can place {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft (or {{subst:submit|Scriptese}} so any AfC messages goes to them). S0091 (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Are you really sure you want to proceed with the GAN? This is a currently ongoing group of events, so I could see some issues with stability due to the rapid addition of content to the article. — 🌙Eclipse(talk)(contribs)13:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
The article has (in my opinion) always been stable per GA criteria "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute" (emphasis added). Per notes at WP:GA?, the future state of the article is irrelevant here: "Stability is based on the article's current state, not any potential for instability in the future." There otherwise hasn't been any edit warring (surprisingly you might say given the topic nature) with disagreements over content have been adequately resolved on talk pages with consensus. I can understand why someone would mistakenly fail the GAN due to how recent the topic is, and the potential for future changes, but this has never stopped me from getting an article to GA status before. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I was also thinking it will take 2-3 months before getting picked up anyway, and based on the current trajectory of less content being included day by day (with protests generally getting less coverage), it will likely be pretty dormant by then — which would help alleviate any (valid or not) concerns over stability. I appreciate the heads up though, even if I had already considered this issue. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Feel free to let me know where you think the instability lies though, maybe I'm missing something here. I just checked the recent history and last revert I could find (excluding self-reverts and bots) was May 3, and wasn't controversial. Prior to that, there was only one editing dispute (that was resolved on talk page) on May 2 among the list of reverts. If there's been one editing dispute in 4 weeks, 2 weeks ago, I struggle to see how this "change[s] significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute", but obviously could be very wrong here. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Involved closing
You shouldn't close discussions that you are involved in and a part of, least of all discussions that you started. The closer should be uninvolved and impartial. Even if you think the outcome is clear or obvious, there are processes around this for a reason. If you are involved and you think a discussion should be closed, your should request it at the dedicated close requests page. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
On 12 May 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Andrew Tate, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that social media influencerAndrew Tate described himself as "absolutely a misogynist"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Andrew Tate. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Andrew Tate), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Thank you for your work on "2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses"
Outstanding work. I'm interested to see how this article and articles related to this are framed over the coming months and years. Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red June 2024
Women in Red | June 2024, Volume 10, Issue 6, Numbers 293, 294, 308, 309, 310
Hey CommunityNotesContributor! Coming from the move review; thought I'd bring this here to avoid derailing the conversation there on a tangent. I think the sentiment you expressed about policy arguments is well-meaning, but I'd argue it's backwards and the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia a difficult place for newbies to grok. Participating in project discussions should have a low barrier to entry. In fact, it makes perfect sense for a new editor to have never run into a move request (or AfD or RfC or similar) before they encounter one in the areas they normally edit in. Wikipedia's policies are well grounded in common sense and good judgement; I have seen newer editors make solid policy arguments without knowing their WP:SHORTCUTS simply by focusing on sources and having a decent understanding of what matters.
Anyone closing a discussion, by contrast, should be well-versed in project space and understand the consensus process and relevant policies on a deep level. A close is intended to be a neutral and authoritative declaration of the outcome. I agree with you there were some silly comments in the RM (comes with the Twitter/X territory right now), but my biggest concern is that the close shouldn't be reflecting them. We need people willing to take on controversial and complex closes, but those people need to be experienced enough editors to discard comments that make extraordinary claims alongside "I don't have reliable sources to prove that", not such inexperienced editors that they're making those comments themselves.
I don't honestly have that strong an opinion on how the whole Twitter/X thing should shake out—I've been busy with other stuff recently and had I not seen the talk page notif I probably wouldn't even be actively editing at all right now—but I do care deeply about making Wikipedia a welcoming space for new editors. From what I've seen of your comments, I think you might care about that too, which is why I brought it up. Food for thought maybe, though then again maybe I've got the whole thing backwards myself. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)01:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
OSU pro-Palestinian campus protests
Hey @CNC, hope you're doing well. I hope you remember me from the 2024 Ohio State University pro-Palestinian campus protests article drama. I'm just reaching out because I have made a multitude of suggestions on the talk page of that article, but you have been the only one to actually help get these changes implemented, and it seems like you're taking a break from that article.
I just wanted to ask: is there anything I can do to make it easier for you to implement the remaining changes I've requested on that article's talk page? I just want to ensure the article is at its highest-possible quality, which is difficult to do without extended-protected permissions. I've requested help across all the project pages affiliated with the article over a week ago, but zero people have helped out so far.
Thank you again for all your help. I look forward to hearing back from you.
Should probably clarify my name isn't CNC it's @CommunityNotesContributor, so pinging CNC doesn't work, but opening a discussion on my talk page will. I'll try and have a look when I find some time, sorry to hear nobody else has been helped. CNC (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the chronological order of the discussions on that page, I didn't realise I started that in the wrong place. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red July 2024
Women in Red | July 2024, Volume 10, Issue 7, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 312, 313
Thanks for reminding me. I'll ignore the BLPCRIME violations per NOT3RR, but will avoid reverting anything else. It does feel like the IP addresses are taking over though, hopefully the page can be protected again soon. CNC (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Citing news streams often labelled as "Live Reporting"
In other articles I have seen, people have cited news streams. The URL they gave was for the news stream. At the time they made the edit, it seemed to work. It was not as bad as citing the front page of a news website - but there was still a problem because the stories on show changed with time. This meant that someone looking at the article months later had difficulty verifying information.
But if you look at individual stories on the page, for example: Protesters face off in Weymouth, there is a button marked Share at the bottom of the story. If you then copy the link you will get this url: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c0jqjxe8d1yt?post=asset%3Af9607b97-2f2e-4cec-9fc1-607461858b87#post This gets you to that particular story. And even if 20 more stories are added to the news stream, that URL should get you to the story in question.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denny Draper until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
To be honest I was surprised this wasn't already a disambg when I created it, surely there have been far-right riots before was my thinking. I don't see any references to far-right riots in the Unite the Right rally, though can obviously understand the suggestion of relevance. I'm happy for it to whatever is considered useful and meaningful at this point. CNC (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Can you help to summarise July 2024 and August 2024. In Israel – Hamas War I think that we should include at least some of the claims of IDF and Hamas or at least sources to avoid violation of WP:NPOV.Pachu Kannan (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I did mean second sentence, as this references England. I'm still not convinced the riots in Northern Ireland were particularly notable as only occurred in a limited number of locations, in comparison to those in England. As a summary for what I think is due to clarify:
MOS:FIRST = United Kingdom, as straightforward article description as confirmation to reader of basic scope
MOS:OPEN = England, as "the context in which the topic is being considered" per due
MOS:LEAD = Notable events that happened in Northern Ireland, per second paragraph
I can see how NI could be considered due for the OPEN, but not the FIRST personally. If readers were searching for the the article about riots in England or Northern Ireland in 2024, I don't believe they would think "wrong article" after reading the first sentence, but instead think "this is probably the article I'm looking for" and continue reading. I can understand the argument for being more specific in the first sentence, especially from a non-British persepctive, I just don't see it as necessary. Thanks for checking with me though, I did afterwards think maybe I should clarify second paragraph as well, but couldn't be bothered to be honest as you had already done so. CNC (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
September 2024 at Women in Red
Women in Red | September 2024, Volume 10, Issue 9, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 316, 317
To be honest, as per criticisms previously expressed elsewhere, that section looks like Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present)#August 2024 in a different format, if anything with more content included rather than less. Unlike July that had less info, this looks almost impossible to trim, as would require the removal of most of the content. I actually had a go twice and was left thinking "but what do I actually keep here?" At this point I'd honestly just suggest WP:TNT and start again. A good summary would be a list of strikes in different locations (expansion of the conflict), total numbers wounded and operatives killed, and a focus on actual notable events such as August 2024 Lebanon strikes. This could be done in a single paragraph, for example what new targets were hit, was there an increase/decrease in casualties or operatives killed, etc. The format of the timeline is otherwise far superior than that the day to day account in the main article. If I wanted to read a day to day account of August, I'd prefer to be reading the timeline article personally. To me it seems like either TNT for FORK "Further clashes and retaliations" section if you want to retain the current content. But then this would again raise the question of why are there basically two timelines in different formats. I'm honestly lost with how I can help further with this article I'm afraid. CNC (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I am requesting you again to help because this month will be completed in my time zone in next few hours. You can remove any unnecessary content. I also think that mentioning Nabatieh attack is important. I will not repeat my requests if this is becoming disturbing for you. Thank you for all your help until now. Pachu Kannan (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi @CommunityNotesContributor, I'm currently working on a new article entry for Cornelia Kapocs (Liverpool Women) in my sandbox here just FYI. Feel free to join in if you're interested. I'll move it to the mainspace once it's good enough to be put up. GNKJ95 (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi CommunityNotesContributor, I just wanted to clear up something - I think it's just us doing things in a different way but just wanted to check - we both do destubbing work but I noticed that you destubbed Armisa Kuč, as I feel that is still a stub. What do you do to consider something not a stub? Hope your doing well :) RossEvans19 (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:ASSESS it has relevant images, links, multiple subheadings, with borderline reliable sourcing. Not enough content to be a full article, but has just about outgrown a stub. I'd also consider this sort of article on the border of stub and start. CNC (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
That makes sense, thank you for clearing that up - Thank you as well for your tireless contributions, I hope I didn't come off as rude or anything! RossEvans19 (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
