User talk:CommunityNotesContributor

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

CHAN 2024

What the hell is going on with 2024 African Nations Championship? There are various media reports reporting different things about the tournament and number of teams and CAF media releases are becoming increasingly unreliable, I have no idea what's going on! Should the pots be removed? What do i do with participating teams list? Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ — Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. CNC (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i can't open this document of the competition format information, any chance you can from your end? Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 10:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a broken link with no archive I could find. Either it moved or deleted (the cache still exists in search engines). I otherwise ran archive IA bot over the page,[1] but as the source wasn't included it served little purpose. CNC (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was only posted today. CAF posted images and thumbnails on Twitter/X with the pots and group seedings graphic, is this permissable? Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 11:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, approximately an ago more specifically. Technically yes, a WP:RSPTWITTER would be OK per WP:ABOUTSELF, but this is best avoided. There's a good chance there was a good reason why the article was deleted, for example because it contained an error or otherwise. That would be my assumption, as I didn't find it in the news section, so unlikely it moved. Consider that if you can only reference the information from their social media, but not their website, it's highly suspicious WP:V wise. So instead of rushing to include this information within the first hour, please wait. CNC (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't deleted as i was online when it was posted and it was a dead link from the outset. I noticed this happens with a lot of CAF articles these days, their media department is inept to say the least! Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 11:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a good reason to wait then. CNC (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, if you type into google "CHAN 2024 draw procedure" the preview text is still there, as is the thumbnail showing parts of the draw procedure. It shows that there will be 3 groups of 5 and 1 of 4 which we already knew and who the top seeds will be. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 11:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We now have the seeding and groups 'from the horses mouth' but they seem to have deviated from seeding formula and have provided no explanation for how the pots are formed. How do i explain this? Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are best of taking this to the talkpage, where you can discuss with other editors of the article. You might not be the only one with this question or query, and others might have answers. CNC (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link is now working and I updated page accordingly. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added all the information that is known, have i done this correctly? Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, these tournament based articles I'm not that familiar with. Keep an eye on the edit history as if you made a mistake, then hopefully there will be another editor who can correct it. Otherwise as suggested, head to talkpage if you're not sure. CNC (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Bitcoin buried in Newport landfill

The article Bitcoin buried in Newport landfill you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bitcoin buried in Newport landfill for comments about the article, and Talk:Bitcoin buried in Newport landfill/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 Pokelego999 -- Pokelego999 (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Menzies

Hello, you have tagged Harry Menzies as "an editor found sufficient sources exist". Well, could you put the links of those existing sources that you have found here, so that I can actually add them and improve the page.

Kind regards.Barr Theo (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I have no idea where I found sources to include after searching again. If I remember correctly I went down the Crystal Palace archives rabbit role, but can't find my way again. I've therefore removed the tag. For context I'm a relatively new at NPR, so this interaction is part of the learning curve for me. Next time if I find obscure sources I'll make sure to add a list to the talk page (unless they easy to find with a google search for example), as I realise it's not helpful leaving such a template otherwise. CNC (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only other point to add is that if I remember correctly, it was from searching "Crystal Palace: The Complete Record 1905–2011" in google books, and then having a look through some of the history books such as A History of the Crystal Palace and Its Football Club 1851-1915. It involved obtaining a copy via sources that I'm unable to link or share with you unfortunately. CNC (talk) 11:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your cooperation. I am glad to have contributed to your evolution as an NPR (whatever that means).

Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPR for reference, should have piped earlier. Thanks for understanding. CNC (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Convicted Sex Offenders

Hi, this matter is totally unrelated to football - i've noticed the notable alumni list here lists a convicted sex-offender, should i keep or remove? - i can't see any WP policy on the matter. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 10:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to remove verified information from the encplopedia per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Will leave you a notice regarding more specific BLP policy, so you can familiarise yourself with it. CNC (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just didn't that that a conomvicted nonce was deserving of being listed amongst such distinguished individuals! Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about being deserving, it's about about whether the content is accurate or not. CNC (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But doesn't such conviction diminish WP:Notability? Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, if anything it's much more likely to enhance it with WP:SIGCOV. I think you may have misunderstood the meaning of notability here, ie being notable. It's nothing to do with "good" or "bad". CNC (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 remove this notice 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]