User talk:CommunityNotesContributor

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be auto-archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 10.

The redirect Iran–United States war has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 9 § Iran–United States war until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 07:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | August 2025, Vol 11, Issue 8, Nos. 326, 327, 344, 345, 346 Online events: New: Alphabet run O & P | Indigenous women | Film and stage Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Wikipedia:Developing Countries WikiContest runs 1 July 2025 until 30 September 2025 Tip of the month: Read the essay Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities to understand the criteria for status as Native American or Indigenous Canadian 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

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hello, CommunityNotesContributor. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access should not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with an IP address or CIDR range.

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! CoconutOctopus talk 12:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The oversight removals appear to be related to the discord logs someone else posted, not something that HEB said. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. My recent comment wasn't influenced by that however, I didn't see it until after I had replied. Appreciate the subject header you chose though. Very demure, very mindful :) CNC (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm writing this as you seem to be only one of the few who are interested / motivated to correct Musk's wikipedia biography data. I spent about 2 days reading court cases about Elon Musk, including his depositions, evidence, and complaints dating to 1990s and find his "Education" part article outrageously false, fabricated and up for removal. It's a shame for Wikipedia to have this on one of the most-read articles on the Wikipedia, that has 99% of the world populations, simply trusts.

1. Elon Musk has no degree in Physics, only bs in economics. All sources cited rely on Vance's book, which is BASED on what MUSK said to her. I've searched all data on the internet, including court deposition, where Musk was caught lying on deposition in 2007, here are (just some, simplified for you) sources, – https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1zPeWaaCZHqfq0tnkPwc61A6bGHySdj91
2. The notion "wrote a business plan for an electronic book-scanning service similar to Google Books" cites article by the British Guardian, which is based on their interview with Musk himself (as Guardian replied to me in an recent email I can show).
3. The notion that "Musk held two internships" relies on Vance's book, self-interviewed. No one from Pinnacle Research Institute specifically had ever stepped up and confirmed it in ANY form. The company had a big presence in 90s.
4. The notion of "his acceptance to a graduate program in materials science at Stanford" is wrong, as there's no one who's ever confirmed Elon's acceptance, nor anyone who remembers him and there's no possible to verify it without Elon Musk's (confirmation). Information on it is substantially revealed in the lawsuits against him, where he was forced to reveal information (some of the lawsuits mentioned in the link above). Furthermore, there was no such department as "material science" at Stanford in 90s; at the time he claims acceptance, he didn't have graduation diploma from Wharton (which he, as confirmed in court depositions, had NOT received until 1997), Stanford would had never accepted ANY student against its own protocols (someone without a diploma). Stanford acceptance doesn't exist. Neither anyone from the faculty remembers reviewing his application.
5. The notion "applying for a job at Netscape" is based on Musk's own self-given interviews to CNBC (which it was happy to provide him with due to the views and publicity).
6. The rest two sentences are based on what "Musk has said". Everything is a blunt lie and it's heart-breaking to read it publicly.

I couldn't not proceed further because, apparently, everything is fabricated and I just wanted to start with a little note (this note with you), as you are the only who can do a change on Wikipedia and has power to do it.

Reading court cases and his depositions and the lies that he fed court is utterly painful (nevertheless it still recommended as all of his court cases against him must be read by anyone to see how much of a swindler he is).

Since I cannot edit, neither semi-edit, I reach out to you as the only remedy either to reach out to Wikipedia / or edit / lead discussion with Wikipedia yourself.

Thank you very much for reading it! Ruslanhonchar1997 (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please post about it on the talk page, thank you. CNC (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | September 2025, Vol 11, Issue 9, Nos. 326, 327, 347, 348, 349 Recognized as the most successful topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run Q & R | Women writers & their works | Microstates Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Wikipedia:Developing Countries WikiContest runs 1 July 2025 until 30 September 2025 Tip of the Month: Researching historical women writers who used pseudonyms requires careful investigation across multiple sources, as many women adopted pen names to avoid gender bias and judgment (e.g., being labeled a bluestocking) and, ultimately, to get published. Progress ("moving the needle"): The WikiProject Women in Red homepage is usually updated weekly, using the Humaniki tool. Sadly, Humaniki has been out of action since 23 June. 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

--Rosiestep (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

You declined the above draft on 27 August 2025 indicating additional independent, reliable sources were required and even suggested some sources. Since 14 September I have been improving that Draft and included additional references including some you suggested. After I improved the Draft, I placed a note at the submitter's talkpage: User talk:Laurel A Jones on the following day. It's been a week, but there has been no activity from that user (all their activity was three edits on their draft). Is it possible to have a Draft article re-submitted by a different user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didier Landner (talk • contribs) 07:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes per WP:AFCREVIEW you can re-submit as far as I know. Using {{subst:submit}} template should work either way, which goes above the declined submission template. I'm assuming as you're not the author that the option to click the "Submit for review" button doesn't exist, but I could be wrong. If that doesn't work, then WP:AFCHD should be able to help. Once the draft has been submitted feel free to let me know and will have another look. Regards, CNC (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ii did have a Submit button and it worked, hence I've re-submitted the Draft for Creation. Thanks for your wise advice above. Didier Landner (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the advise on board, have now approved. There's just one bit that I was a bit confused about with "In June 2025 Johnston transferred to Preston Lions FC (women) to compete in the National Premier Leagues Victoria Women (NPLV Women) during the A-League Women's off-season". I didn't quite understand whether that's like a loan thing, or is it a temporary move from Perth Glory? Not very amiliar with Aussie soccer leagues tbh. CNC (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I don't think it was a good decision close this RM as moving only the 2025 article and none of the others (which are identical topics) – this is now a clear breach of WP:CONSISTENT. Either they all have to be moved or none of them; if you do not believe the move has followed due process (to move all of them), it should have been closed as out-of-process. Can you please reassess your close – one option would have been to relist it but make it a multi-article RM. Cheers, Number 57 15:53, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough have reverted, I did not know it can be re-listed and converted to multi-page RM. That sounds like the best option, but either way will leave it for another editor to close or relist. CNC (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been closed as move by Veko - without the other pages moved similar to my previous close - who might also want to also re-consider their close given the contradiction in the close itself. CNC (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I'm going to revert my closing, knowing this new information however, I'd like to know what you think of closing it as no consensus. Let me know what you think. I'm a bit new with RMs and learning this is a help. Cheers, veko. (user | talk | contribs) he/him 17:12, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus, the issue is other talkpages not being notified of the discussion. It would be better converted to WP:RMPM and re-listed as Number 57 suggested, an out-of-process close (ie procedural close with no decision determined) isn't very helpful given the current consensus. CNC (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, apologies, I see the issue. I've gone ahead and reverted the move, and agree with both of you that it should be relisted and converted as suggested. Thanks. veko. (user | talk | contribs) he/him 18:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given this close I'm thinking there is simply consensus to move.​ CNC (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article December 2022 Twitter suspensions, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/December 2022 Twitter suspensions (2nd nomination) 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 customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | October 2025, Vol 11, Issue 10, Nos. 326, 327, 350, 351, 352 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run S & T | Women in STEM | Halloween Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Sister wikiproject Women in Green October 2025 Good Article Edit-a-thon focuses on What Women Do Tip of the Month: Notable does not always mean admirable; you don't have to like an article's subject to make the article a useful contribution to Wikipedia. Progress ("moving the needle"): Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 6,283 articles during this period: 19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280; 415,618 women) 24 September 2025: 20.20% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,088,533 biographies; 421,901 women) 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

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For diplomatically, respectfully, and persistently making unbiased positive contributions to discussions over contentious subjects on Wikipedia, thank you. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey CNC, could you please add extended-protected-confirmed protections to this new template for me?

Template:Gaza genocide consensus citation bundle

Thanks! Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaking me for an admin ;) Have requested at WP:RFPP for you. CNC (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Someone got it added per your request. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the failure of a recent RM for "doctor (medical)", there is no way this RM demonstrates a consensus to move. Please reconsider. Srnec (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last RM was "weak consensus to Medical doctor, and similar weak consensus to Doctor."[1] that was closed as no consensus. As for this one, there was strong consensus not to move to Doctor as referenced, while Doctor (medical) was barely mentioned. Instead there was broad support for Medical doctor which lacked any real opposition, while only your !vote was explicity to remain at the current title. Given it's a discussion and not a !vote, when support/oppose !votes support alternatives, and others only oppose the initial proposal of "Doctor" (per ambiguity), then this is not opposition to the favoured title unless specified, or unless the rationale can be extrapolated (which it couldn't as "Medical doctor" is not ambiguous). These were effectively neutral/unknown votes towards the favoured title, not oppose votes, hence WP:NOTVOTE. Opposers are expected to read the discussion, in full, thus not just opposing the target that fell on deaf ears (unless that's all they wish to oppose). It'd require at minimum also showing support for the current title, specifically when there is a popular alternative, which was distinctly lacking, whereby you were the only oppose vote who stated as much. For example the first vote laid the foundations for "Medical doctor", specifically referenced this, thus it was factored in as support towards the rationale of WP:PRECISION, while the other support/oppose !votes were more explicit about supporting the alternative title, or at minimum wiling to compromise. For lack of fewer words, it's not a binary support/oppose vote, whereby oppose means the page won't move. I've otherwise only reverted one RM close before, and that was a mistake as it got re-closed the same, twice over, with a weaker rationale; so unless there is something specific about the close that you have a problem with, then I have no reason to revert here, as I believe the only correct way to close that discussion is with a move to Medical doctor. I otherwise read the discussion about four times over, knowing it'd be a strange looking close on the face of it, so I wanted to make sure that the consensus was clear. I could expand the close with the extended rationale if you like, but as you were the only participant that explicility supported the previous title, it doesn't feel necessary. CNC (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have taken the liberty to improve the wording of the close. In hindsight I can see how it wasn't clear enough and I should of better explained how the consensus for the move was reached. CNC (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can find nothing in the comments of the following users that indicates any support for a move:

Coolcaesar

Blindlynx

Zacwill

Steel1943

Srnec

BD2412

Randy Kryn

162 etc. declared no objection to the move to medical doctor, but with a caveat and without indicating any problem with the title physician. Estar8806 was merely open to medical doctor, which I think falls short of no objection. I know that if I declare myself open to something in an RM, I do not mean to imply that I support that, only that I am willing to listen to arguments and do not necessarily oppose it. MYCETEAE was also open to alternatives and cannot dismiss the concerns raised, but that does not amount to support for a move, especially when your favoured title is described as not without problems. I don't think TommyGundam's comment can be taken to indicate support

There is simply no consensus for the move you made in the discussion. Srnec (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I've misinterpreted the consensus then I'm confident such editors would notify me of that, however nobody else has argued against the close which indicates to me it was a reasonable one. The context was also very important, that of lack of consensus for the current title per previous RM. One that realistically should have been closed as move per WP:BARTENDER. Given consensus is based on the principle of compromise, I weighted such !votes appropriately. If such !votes were not intended to provide such a compromise, then these editors are encouraged to speak up. CNC (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am one such editor notifying you. I have not pinged the others, but will do so now. @Coolcaesar, Blindlynx, Zacwill, Steel1943, BD2412, Randy Kryn, Estar8806, Myceteae, TommyGundam, and 162 etc.: What say you? Srnec (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ping missing: Abo Yemen, Ladtrack, and RGloucester. In fairness I care less about the opinions of those who only opposed the move to Doctor, as they got what they !voted for, consensus not to move to that target; aside from being able to retrospectively clarify/change their !votes that is. I'm more interested in those who were willing to compromise here, but nonetheless all opinions are welcome. CNC (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: You've done your duty by discussing on the closer's talkpage, and the closer has declined to reopen. User:CommunityNotesContributor's talk page is not WP:MRV. Either start a move review, or let it go. 162 etc. (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with Srnec. I never indicated that I supported any kind of move. A couple of users did say they were "open" to medical doctor, but openness is not the same as support. CNC has badly misread the consensus. Zacwill (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Half did to be specific, only one opposed. Your !vote acknowledged that you didn't understand the purpose of the RM which was based on the previous lack of consensus for current title. CNC (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear i opposed a move in general, not just a move to the proposed title —blindlynx 16:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems like a well-reasoned close to me; in fact, I would suggest it represents the ideal RM close per WP:NOTVOTE. We see the dialectic: thesis – 'physician' is ambiguous and only holds the meaning of 'medical doctor' in North America, therefore doctor should be used per WP:COMMONALITY → anti-thesis – doctor may also refer to all holders of doctorates and is insufficiently precise → synthesis – use WP:NDESC title (medical doctor) that resolves the well-reasoned concerns of both parties. This is precisely the sort of consensus that Wikipedia has always purported to value. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 23:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Honestly, I was surprised by the close and it caused me to re-read my !vote because I wondered if I'd been misinterpreted or had simply been unclear. I think the close was reasonable, at least within the bounds of acceptable. I also think the objections are reasonable and that this is one of those RMs where 5 different closers would reach 10 different conclusions.* I'm rather conflicted about the whole thing. I think the discussion and its outcome reflects the inherent difficulty of naming this article. I don't know what the right answer is. (*This is hyperbole, but only a little.) --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The close seems reasonable to a point, as they usually do. I'd personally name this page Doctor but if going with 'Medical doctor' it maybe should read Doctor (medical). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...and just saw that Doctor (medical) is still a red link. Will bounce it over to the Medical doctor page but looks better as a page title. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I actually think the parenthetical is better here. I prefer Doctor (medicine). I don't want to re-litigate this or the prior RM here and I don't have the appetite to launch a new one but this seems to resolve the issues with the alternatives… --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably needs a new RM. This is one of those interesting ones where editors like myself preferred the title remain 'Physician', so we didn't comment on alternatives. Now that we have to go with an alternative, Doctor (medical) seems a better fit than Medical doctor (I guess I still read-out 'medicine' as actual medicine, pills and such). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer natural disambiguation generally. However, if a parenthetical must be introduced, 'Doctor (medical)' makes little sense. Why would we use an adjectival form in a parenthetical, when there is no noun to modify? The correct form would be 'Doctor (medicine)'. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then the two Doctor titles should be among the three choices in a new RM along with the present 'Medical doctor'. Just needs someone to put it up. Let's check if Doc James has something to say on these choices. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It really is a great shame that we have so many academics here on Wikipedia. In some alternative universe, a quotation from the Oxford dictionary would suffice as a justification to rename the article to 'doctor': Doctor ▶ noun 1 a person who is qualified to treat people who are ill. Primary indeed! Reminds me of the old car debate... Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...have just looked at how Wikipedia names the medical field, so Doctor (medicine) has a good case. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, no real position. Some view physicians and surgeons as separate. Medical doctor is fine, so would doctor IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yeah, 'Doctor' as the best fit probably follows common name. 'Medical doctor' seems a bit forced simply because 'doctor' as a word is understood situationally. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the current state of affairs, the page now being at Medical doctor. If it were to be moved again, I would prefer Doctor of medicine over Doctor (medicine) or another parenthetical alternative, but I see that this is a redirect to Doctor of Medicine, which is an article on the degree itself. BD2412 T 22:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not all 'medical doctors' are 'doctors of medicine', rendering said title inappropriate. Qualifications vary by country. British doctors usually hold a Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your decision, per WP:RMCIDC. --Joy (talk) 07:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per nom, that of primary topic and common name. Also as referenced in the discussion, NCCORP applies, whereas "Anker surnames" were not seriously considered per partial disambiguation and lack of common name. CNC (talk) 10:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main question is how did you assess WP:Consensus. AFAICT, I wasn't able to change Casablanca's and ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's mind, but The Grid seemed to start to agree with what I was saying (and they brought up NCCORP, so that seems moot). Changing people's minds isn't necessary, mind, I'm just saying, the discussion was ongoing, it wasn't concluded. Why would you not seriously consider surnames, where do you see consensus in that discussion that this was so? More generally, why not let the discussion go on for a bit more, maybe more people chime in (a handful of people isn't exactly great attendance)? Otherwise you risk casting a WP:Supervote. --Joy (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, I'll elaborate further as otherwise it could certainly be considered as a supervote. I did notice that The Grid had sort of flip flopped in the discussion in a somewhat vague manner, however at the same time did not strike their vote of support, while highlighting the foundational policy required for naming companies that confirmed why "Anker" could be correct, pending primary topic status. I did not see their final comment as a retraction of the previous vote, but instead only a recognition of the argument you were making, while remaining far from explicitly supportive. Vote striking would of otherwise clarified this, but this did not occur.

"Not seriously considered" was ambiguous phrasing, what I meant was that the argument that Anker surnames should be considered among primary topic was well countered with that of partial disambiguation, a policy that effectively excludes such names from primary topic consideration unless it's their common name, as argued by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. The fact that Conor Anker has more page views, historically, as you referenced, wasn't a policy-based argument in-and-out of itself as to why the article shouldn't remain at his full name. Hence I didn't see any strong argument rooted in policy as to why Conor Anker was known most commonly as Anker; I even checked the article just in case that it was reflected in reliable sources which may well of dampened the strength of the counter-arguments (ie, one not based in policy nor sourcing, but this wasn't the case). So when weighing the arguments based on their strength in relation to policy, I did give extra weight to the participants counter-arguments, or effectively down-weighted your argument, whichever way you want to look at it; I prefer the former, based on the general hierarchy of arguments, as I did not see the central point refuted but only reinforced.

As for leaving the discussion open for longer, granted this may well have changed the course of the consensus, either weakened it, strengthened it, or nullified it. However per WP:RMNOMIN there is no minimum participation required, and personally I saw consensus, even if not necessarily the strongest, in order to close the discussion. Per WP:RMRELIST, this wasn't a case where there was an absence of substantial discussion after 1 week that lacked consensus. Other editors may well have preferred further discussion, that I do not doubt, either from a closing perspective or as a participant, but personally I saw no good reason for the discussion to continue based on the support for the move that was rooted in policy. CNC (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the extended response!

I don't think anybody was proposing that we move Conrad Anker or place a primary redirect from Anker to Conrad Anker, rather the question was is there a primary topic for "Anker", and is it the company. I don't think any individual Anker people should be considered a primary topic there, rather they as a group or a class of topics qualify for consideration.

We don't have a policy about page views, only the WP:D guideline. With regard to policy, we have WP:PRECISE, which I think supports the premise that we shouldn't be very generous in assuming that primary topics exist, because it says that primary topics are an exception to the policy, not a rule. So basically we should figure out whether "Anker" is close enough to an unambiguous reference to the company in this case, enough that the WP:PTOPIC guideline can be applied.

The disambiguation guideline in turn has consideration of partial title matches, but it needs to be both justified and there's also a clarification that we don't want to astonish the readers.

With regard to justifying claims of partial title matches, the guideline says the standard is no significant risk of confusion between [article titles], and if the article's subject [...] could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context—regardless of the article's title. This standard isn't clearly in favor of the company here, because in generic context, we have to introduce him as "Conrad Anker the mountaineer", just like in generic context, we have to introduce the company as "Anker Innovations the electronics company". I don't think anyone posted a rebuttal of that basic argument.

Fundamentally the question is can we just say "Anker" and assume the average reader will understand that the company topic is meant? I don't think anyone in that discussion made a coherent positive argument to this effect. The best we had was the clickstream data in WikiNav, which I explained to be unclear by formatting the pie chart and explaining how it's not nearly as clear as WikiNav makes it seem, and I don't think anyone actually had any rebuttal to that.

Furthermore, I don't think the claim that because Conrad Anker isn't directly linked (because of WP:NAMELIST), he's necessarily a partial title match. We've had this discussion before, a lot of times, and I've had to contradict a minority of editors who disagree with this over and over again. It has been so repetitive that in the meantime I discussed that in WT:D in April 2024. There was no objection to that, so I documented that in the guideline in May 2025. The disambiguation guideline has ~800 watchers, of which ~50 may visit monthly. It was not reverted since, which is a good sign that this does represent organic consensus and this minority of editors is, well, simply not following the spirit of the guideline.

With regard to not astonishing the readers, I think I demonstrated with the example of this biography that there is a risk of astonishing the contingent of people who may be familiar with that person, but not the company. Because that contingent of people has historically been much larger than the contingent of people reading the company article, even a small portion of confused readers there may be noticable compared to the total readership. I don't believe I've seen a rebuttal to this claim - it was mostly just dismissed out of hand. I don't think that constitutes a reason required by the WP:CONS policy.

I think we have an underlying problem with arbitrariness with regard to how long to keep discussions open and what's the level of participation required. It's not clear whether the closer is supposed to decide like you did or to leave the discussion open, which sometimes extends to months. Often we decide a consensus among a handful of editors with terse comments, and there's a lot of ambiguity as to what constitutes a policy-based comment. I'll see if I can work on some way to clarify that. --Joy (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that you don't make good points, it's mainly that they weren't supported in the RM and it was nothing more than a unanimous-1 consensus decision, with enough participants to make that possible. FWIW, I don't necessarily agree that Anker should be the primary topic for the article, I see it as serving no harm leaving it where it was, somewhat irrespective of what NCCORP suggests. But not because of Anker (surname) being a possible candidate as primary, or otherwise equal to that of the company that suggests that Anker should remain disambiguous. I also knew any other closer would close the same way, likely also lacking a rationale because a strong majority support the nomination (which makes it somewhat self-explanatory, without the real need to summarise any opposition to that). So given I'd taken the time to read the discussion, and didn't feel strongly enough about the move to oppose it on weak grounds, I decided I might as well close it already.

As for your additional here, to me this is in relation to BLPs like Pelé which is referenced at Pelé (disambiguation) rather than only at Nascimento (surname), this is for obvious reasons based on common name and the rationale you provide in that paragraph; similar to the rationale behind Einstein and Einstein (disambiguation), the example provided in the RM. This is why I didn't analysis your argument as something that necessarily needed refuting, as was a very subjective interpretation of policy, one that is not widely supported. This was also not a controversial edit because it only clarified common sense practices that are already in place, it doesn't suggest anything towards BLPs whereby the common name remains a full name and not a first/surname. As for astonishment, it does seem like most people would be searching for the company, even if only at minimum by a small margin, but otherwise more likely by a wider margin based on readers searching for a full name starting with the first name; this is again based on common naming conventions, which is partly intended for ease of navigation over anything else.

On closing, fundamentally different closers have different thresholds and there is no universal guideline or policy recommending leaving RMs longer than they needed to be left open. If they have elapsed, the idea is that they are clsoed if there is consensus, or re-listed (ideally with notifying wikiprojects) if there lacks consensus. A lot of RMs in the backlog eventually get closed as non consensus anyway, sometimes months later, so leaving these open isn't necessarily any better either. Often it's worse if there was weak consensus previously that someone failed to act upon. CNC (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That idea of "unanimous minus 1" is really contrary to the spirit and letter of the WP:CONS policy. The ideas of unanimity and voting are supposed to be anathema. Rather, we're supposed to have a discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense.

I'm not saying it's an easy task for a closer to figure this out. It's definitely not easy to counteract the logical impulse of seeing 4 people saying one thing, and 1 person saying another, and just thinking "80%, come on". It's absolutely not easy to counteract [knowing that] any other closer would close the same way - herd mentality is a serious phenomenon.

But, the policy is definitely meant to allow you to do so. You are allowed to disregard the numbers and you're allowed to disregard the apparent certainty that things tend to always go a certain way.

If you're still not comfortable with that, the least you can do is give things a wee bit more time to develop. There's no big difference between a week or two or three in the grand scheme of things. --Joy (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point of unanimous minus 1 is simply a reminder that your argument must be considerably better, based on weight, to overturn the consensus among others. That I did not see. I'm otherwise well aware it's not a vote, nor majority decision, and that votes can be discarded entirely.

The fact is I didn't see as being applicable in that RM, based on the nomination that others supported that was well rooted in policy, along with the counter-arguments, as I already explained really. As for herd mentality, that's what's best discussed in another discussion to change policy or guidelines, because at present it demonstrates a quasi-confirmation of consensus until proven otherwise, when other neutral editors also agree with such a determination. I'm certainly not concerned about remaining within the common norms of closers, even if not shy to make difficult closes when necessary either, or finding consensus deeper within discussions which is even more controversial usually.

Anyway, despite all that, I will take on board regarding leaving more time for discussions to develop, even if someone else would likely close it anyway, as at least then I won't be responsible for potentially frustrating a participant at least. To be honest for "primary topic grabs" as they are known, a 2 week time-frame would generally make more sense, even if there is weak consensus within a week. Whereas for current events the title can change week by week, along with the consensus, so it's best to move quicker instead of ending after a month with no consensus. If there is any suggestion for waiting longer at times, that would get my support, along with disambiguating a primary topic. These often take 2-3 weeks to play out anyway, unless it's a non-controversial unanamious move which is rarely the casre. Not all RMs are potentially controversial, nor primary topic grabs, but this change in guidelines would be a simple way to single out a good portion of them that overall could do with more time. CNC (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly right, in cases where the all-time history of topics is examined, there's no urgency. In this example, if there was time for just a handful of extra people to weigh in, it's completely plausible that the outcome could have changed. --Joy (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On this note, I started Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#One week before backlog, and so forth. --Joy (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the edit summary you attached to this edit: the current Government of Israel is so disfunctional that from one side of its mouth it gave the WP:MANDY denial, but from the other side of its mouth (i.e. Minister Ben-Gvir) it said "yeah, were guilty as charged", without using those exact words. Green Montanan (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, sorry I only head the first sentence in all honestly. WP:OVERSECTION is all I should of said there. Should of known better than to assume Israel wouldn't brag about it. CNC (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article used to explicitly say that Ben-Gvir contradicted his own government, but I slightly reworded it, because he did not DIRECTLY contradict his own government. Green Montanan (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, that was definitely synthesis. Readers also know how to read between the lines. Also just checked to see if the WP:HOWEVER was accurate or not, or whether it was editorial. Turns out it's well sourced so definitely belongs as a conjunctive there. CNC (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good to know. Green Montanan (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of good calls, this was a very good call. The previous section heading, "Late September–October", made it seem like the other 9 boats were a part of the Global Sumud Flotilla, and not a different flotilla, since the timeframe is the same for the two flotillas. Green Montanan (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	This award is given in recognition to CommunityNotesContributor for accumulating at least 10 points the September 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 19,000+ articles reviewed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Utopes (talk / cont) 03:44, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:Draft:Iranian Artists Forum, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. (See section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, should have done that myself. Or just suppressed redirect in hindsight. CNC (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CNC, I hope you're doing well.

I'm not really sure how to word this. But I'm just a little bit taken aback by another editor who I feel like has possibly taken a special interest in my account and "correcting my mistakes." It was pretty normal at first, but based on the tone in the culmination of the interactions we've had, I'm starting to feel a little bit taken aback. Here's some of the interactions we've had (it's probably nothing, and I'm probably just overreacting, so please tell me if I'm just being unreasonable):

• [2] Accused me of "intensively hovering" over articles related to Gaza
• [3] Spoke negatively about articles I've written, again criticizing me in a way that felt a little bit demeaning
• User talk:Alexandraaaacs1989#Your edits... The user asked to add me on Discord. He also noticed after viewing my user page multiple times that I removed my userbox — something about the tone rubbed me a little bit the wrong way due to the level of interest and comfortability he seemed to have taken in me (he seemed like he may have wanted to emotionally connect with me)
• [4] He then found the Protest paradigm through my account page and removed a source cited repeatedly throughout the article (thereby introducing citation errors) without mentioning anything about this on the talk page, saying noam chomsky is not a reliable source on anything other than linguistics, let ALONE "manufacturing consent"
• [5] Added "multiple issues" tags criticizing article for relying too much on examples in the United States
• [6] Added multiple issues tag saying heavily slanted in favor of Left-populist politics in the United States, which again felt like an unconstructive way to handle criticizing the article
• [7] [8] [9] Multiple changes that introduced issues like replacing "mainstream media" with "News Media" (incorrect capitalization mid-sentence), writing a sentence with a period mid-sentence, and creating headers with hyperlinks that serve little navigational purpose without correcting any of these changes after making them
• Talk:Protest paradigm#Article is incredibly america-centric Comment he left after making these changes

In the back of my mind I'm wondering what degree of this (mainly asking for my Discord and seeming to attempt to emotionally connect with me on my talk page) is due to my female account name, but I obviously don't want to make any big assumptions. And if I'm just overreacting please do let me know, but I am a little annoyed with some of the arguably reckless changes he is making to articles I wrote because he found them through my account. Your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated whatever they are, and sorry for the bother :) Thanks Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Alexandra. Overall I'm really not qualified to assess this and I know when I'm out of my depth. Good-faith stalking is somewhat covered at WP:HOUNDING, which is what you're alluding to here. Hence I'm pinging a couple of admins in the hope they can offer some advise here; one I trust, Clovermoss, and another who has sharp judgement, Tamzin. The latter because of your high activity in PIA topics, which to be honest I don't know if it is a relevant factor in this, so an objective opinion without the sugar coating could be useful here. Failing that if these two are busy I'll try think of something else, while recommending you disengage with the the editor/situation for now. As per previous discussion, I'd avoid taking this to the vultures nest unless desperate as ideally things can be resolved via discussion and understanding.

Otherwise from my persective having seen the initial interaction with you, it did seem very bizarre and lacked a focus on content. There are also some outright bad edits there, "New Media" comes to mind, but they don't necessarily fall within the parameters of wikihounding "tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior", and certainly doesn't appear to be malicious per talk page discussion. There are also good edits. [5] is reasonable as many articles are US-centric, even if only initially, likewise [6] arguably. Given the rationale was provided on the talk page, it's certainly in good faith rather than done via drive-by tagging. Bare in mind that maintenance templates aren't intended to act as criticism, even if that's how it can feel, but instead to encourage improvements of articles via discussion.

It's otherwise best not to speculate on the intention of the Discord query, many editors here use it (there is an 'official-unofficial' Wikipedia chat there). But I can't lie I'd never ask that of another editor in such a way without explaining why I'm not being creepy, then proceed to make a series of edits on their articles. It's an unfortunate sequence of events to say the least. CNC (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first things first, I'm sorry you went through that Alexandraaaacs1989. It never feels good to be cornered like that. It's upsetting and I hope you don't feel like you somehow deserved that. These things don't tend to be easy to move on from. I know interactions with other editors that left me disheartened have a tendency to stay with me, too. It's not crazy to feel that way. It's part of why it's hard for me on a personal level to be pinged together with Tamzin like that. But CNC probably isn't aware of that history.

Tamzin can probably give a much more thorough examination of the PIA side of things, as I avoid AE and most user conduct issues. I will go over to the editor in question and tell them politely that they've made you uncomfortable and it'd be for the best if they left you alone as much as possible. Hopefully they'll listen to that advice. Sometimes a third party saying knock it off leads to a realization to how someone's actions are perceived, even if they weren't intending for them to be seen that way or acting with malicious intent. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't know this history. I wouldn't of co-pinged had I had known.  Self-trout CNC (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. We do have different strengths in the areas we focus on on-wiki, even if I haven't entirely moved on from how I was treated in the past. It makes sense to ping us both. For example, it's good to know that there's a place to record where I've officially warned someone if it's in a CT. I'm usually more informal about such things and don't usually go out of my way to warn people unless I stumble across something problematic, which is what I did even as a non-admin. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it was the different strengths as a reasoning for the co-ping, the need for human consideration with a delicate matter as well as the ARBPIA-specific considerations. It's not easy to think of an admin that has both of these if I'm honest, no offence intended to anyone. CNC (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much both of you Clovermoss and CNC—I really appreciate both your help with the situation. All of your comments on the situation made sense to me, and per CNC's suggestions, I'll work on getting the article to a less US-centric state/making more explicit attributions when attributing to left-wing sources like Chomsky. But thanks again for helping out, and if I had to guess Clover's message will probably resolve the issue Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've given a logged warning for hounding and incivility. If I can give you a more informal warning, @Alexandraaaacs1989—and I'll stress I'm saying this without having looked much at the substance of your edits, so this is not a finding of fault with any particular edit—I'd encourage you to keep an eye on the PIA edit percentage tracker that CNC linked. While there's no requirement that anyone stay below a certain number unless they're under a balanced editing restriction (BER), I strongly recommend that any editor in the topic area try to voluntarily stay under 33.3% (the threshold that a BER would require). This is partly based on a general observation that editors above that point have a much higher rate of getting themselves in trouble, and partly based on a feeling that it really can't be good for anyone to spend too much time editing about our most fraught subjects. Of course your mileage may vary on the latter point; some people are more conflict-tolerant than others. But I've seen a lot of very good, very conflict-tolerant editors still burn out in this topic area from the cumulative effect of editing in it so much. So a little more balance in topic selection can be a healthy thing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping out, I appreciate it. And thanks for the suggestion—you're probably right that it's not healthy to focus so much on one topic, so I'll try to diversify my area of interest. I've also noticed myself WP:BLUDGEONING a bit in some conversations, so I self-criticize for this and will try and be better going forward. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandraaaacs1989, it sounds like you have pretty good self-awareness of your strengths and weaknesses, which is pretty good for your future on the project. Just be careful not to take the self criticism too far and to have a growth mindset! I know that's something I've struggled with in the past. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey CNC, hope you're well!

Was just having a look at the England Women Under-23 page and wondered if you have a list of the previous results that you removed for being more than a year previous? I'd like to put together a separate page for their ongoing results and it would be great if I can just pull together any previous results that you'd removed! No worries if not, just wanted to reach out and check.

Thanks! Elsiehxo (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elsiehxo. I don't have a list I'm afraid but you will be able to find these in the edit history such as here, here, here, and here (by looking for text deleted). Courtesy ping to Hjk1106 who created England women's national football team results (2020–present) who may otherwise be able to assist you here. Regards, CNC (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]