User talk:CommunityNotesContributor
|
|
Women in Red March 2024[edit]
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Your GA nomination of Community Notes[edit]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Community Notes 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 Cocobb8 -- Cocobb8 (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Community Notes[edit]
The article Community Notes you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Community Notes for comments about the article, and Talk:Community Notes/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cocobb8 -- Cocobb8 (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Andrew Tate[edit]
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)
Your GA nomination of Andrew Tate[edit]
The article Andrew Tate you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Andrew Tate for comments about the article, and Talk:Andrew Tate/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 750h+ -- 750h+ (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Congrats![edit]
|
The Million Award |
| For your contributions to bring Andrew Tate (estimated annual readership: 5,731,024) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! DFlhb (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you![edit]
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Congrats on the Andrew Tate GAN! ;) Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
A kitten for you![edit]
getting Andrew Tate to GA is no small feat! great work!
sawyer * he/they * talk 07:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's much better than a barnstar :) CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Whack![edit]
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. 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)
Introduction to contentious topics[edit]
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 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.
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.
TarnishedPathtalk 02:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red April 2024[edit]
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
DYK nomination of Andrew Tate[edit]
Hello! Your submission of Andrew Tate at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Z1720 (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Incomplete DYK nomination[edit]
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Andrew Tate at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step III of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red May 2024[edit]
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Taps the sign animation?[edit]
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)
Thank you for your work on "2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses"[edit]
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)
DYK for Andrew Tate[edit]
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 influencer Andrew 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.
— Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Involved closing[edit]
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)
- Per WP:SPLITCLOSE:
"Any user, including the user who first proposed the split, may close the discussion and move forward with the split"
CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 07:47, 12 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)- You do you, I guess. 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 13:58, 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)
- You do you, I guess. 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 13:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi CommunityNotesContributor, are you 'adopting' this draft? S0091 (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what is meant by adopting. I was asked by @RayScript assistance with the article and provide a review, so hopefully the required changes can be made in order for it to move into mainspace. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Great, thanks for info. I'll wait for RayScript to further improve the article, then either they or I will move it mainspace all being well. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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.
- Oh, and you do understand that indef is actually better than time-limited blocks? Valereee (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- OK, let's agree to disagree then. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:52, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oh, and you do understand that indef is actually better than time-limited blocks? Valereee (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Requested move for Twitter article[edit]
Your opinion on this issue is requested
You have been tagged to this conversation because you may have previously participated in similar discussions and there has been a notable development. Please consider sharing your views.
𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 06:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)