User talk:CommunityNotesContributor

Please remember to add discussions removed from CENT to the archive: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive. Toadspike [Talk] 20:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry had no idea that existed, will add the other. Thanks for letting me know! Edit: Technically I must have known as would of read it when adding an entry sometime ago, but forgot that part. CNC (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:ICE Trump term 2 sidebar

It's poorly named. I also forgot how to draftify templates, so feel free to do so yourself. But I was very happy to see you in the Renee Good editing space so if you're interested I think this could be a very useful sidebar I'd love your help improving, especially with how immigration-related actions are a focal point of the Trump administrations and have many controversies. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Good to hear from you, I'm not that familiar with Trump-based immigration topics but looks like you know what you're doing. As you've mentioned it at the parent topic then there is just the template to add to the topics (which looks like you've been doing already). That and wait for anyone to complain about it, or criticise it. I'd wager it'd get kept if landed at TfD though. Regards, CNC (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Category:Pages with BLPCRIME talk notice has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I left a trout at User talk:Nehushtani after I felt like he contributed to a discussion in an unproductive way. He responded pretty combatively, so I was hoping you could take a look at the conversation since I don't want to take this to the administrator noticeboard, but I also don't think he's really engaging with what I'm saying which is why I want a third opinion. If you have the time, thank you! Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Trouting an editor, because their !vote in PIA topic was deemed to be of low quality, is quite frankly an awful idea. They are entitled to their vote regardless of perceived quality; it's not an error, thus not trout worthy.

Personally I wouldn't concern yourself with these types of votes, the rationale might extend to other editors who also made that argument (as the editor states), but if there isn't sourcing to back it up it's not an argument that will be taken seriously by a closer. So you don't need to point that out in a discussion, any decent closer should be able to recognise it, unless it's becoming a dominant viewpoint which actually requires countering; ergo not everything needs countering.

I'd just apologise for trouting and move on, before an admin asks you why you thought it was a good idea to trout an editor over their vote in a PIA RM. The unwritten rule would be never to trout someone for their argument in a discussion, only for mistakes they make, simply because nothing good will ever come out of it. From a not-so uninvolved perspective, going to their talk page looks like you are trying to badger them into changing their opinion/vote, which really isn't necessary.

Regards, CNC (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for letting me know. Appreciate your unbiased take on the situation and I'll backpedal the trout. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I see you have removed ruesha Littlejohn from the current squad. I just thought id let you know she is still with the team just shes on a ban atm due to her tackle last year. You might want to re-add her. Pendolino390119 (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

My bad, have restored. CNC (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

its alright. Thought it would've been a mistake Pendolino390119 (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Inviting you to help out, no pressure though—just thought this type of thing might be in your wheelhouse!

WP:SCA / WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, saw that but not really interested. You'd be better off notifying Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Regards, CNC (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I think I'll wait before proposing an RM for WP:WHYWAIT, in order not to be WP:TROUTed. Boud (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

You joke about it, but I wrote that a few days ago and spent that long trying to figure out a title. With WP:WAIT is taken, WP:Too soon to move and WP:Wait, don't move also came to mind. I still don't like the title at all is the irony. Remember that April 1 isn't too far away, that'd be a good time for people to !vote wait and the proposer not get trouted ;) CNC (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I saw your edit summary on the article Craig Silvey about an "edit notice". How does one employ an edit notice? Thank you. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Your edit summary. I had forgotten to add this to my question, here it is. Thanks! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

It's at the base name Template:Editnotices/Page, so for Silvey the notice is at Template:Editnotices/Page/Craig Silvey. But as you will see they can only be edited by page movers, template editors, and admins. So your best bet is to make an edit request on the talk page for someone to add it when there is a need to create one, or use the talk page when one already exists but needs an addition. There isn't a request template for editnotice space that I know of, but {{Edit template-protected}} would work (which template editors and admins will check). Regards, CNC (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Theoretically, I can make a template page like the one you made for Craig Silvey? Thanks! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Not without the correct permissions no: Warning: This page can only be created and/or edited by administrators, template editors, and page movers because it matches an entry on the local or global title blacklist. The blacklist being Template:Editnotices space. CNC (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I will stay away then. Thank you! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/United States v. Maduro, et al. has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi CNC; that edit you made on Trump is supported by Onyx and that means that there are 2 of you supporting that edit; Space4Time is currently reverting which seems incorrect. As an option, it seems to you could change it back based on support from Onyx and open Talk page discussion at the Trump page where Space4Time can explain his thinking in reverting against 2-3 editors. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I already spoke to Space4Time3Continuum2x and explained to them the BRD restriction, but it seems that's been ignored. It was only the miss-citing that I was reverting as a sloppy edit per the edit summary; I wasn't opposing the content itself, nor do I endorse it. As I say on my userpage I otherwise can't be bothered with an edit war, so whatever issues others have with the content, that's been restored a second time now, will have to be dealt with by other editors. Thanks anyway, CNC (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back on this. Since you are supporting Onyx, then I'll offer to support you if you take this to Talk page. That would make two more editors supporting your viewpoint. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not supporting another editor. CNC (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red | February 2026, Vol 12, Issue 2, Nos 358, 359, 361, 362, 363 Online events: New: Alphabet run: countries starting with B | Black Women | Works by women: theatre, opera, music Continuing: #1day1woman ( year-long initiative) | Sports (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Join Wikipedia:26 for '26 and create or substantially improve twenty-six Wikipedia articles during the year 2026, at least one for each letter of the English alphabet. Tip of the month: Our redlists are a great resource, but not every redlinked subject is notable. Be sure to research before starting a new article. 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

--Lajmmoore (talk 22:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Welcome to Phase 2 of the January–February 2026 NPP drive. During Phase 1, we reviewed 16,658 articles and 4,416 redirects, and there is currently a backlog of 16,475 articles and 23,782 redirects in the queue. Fantastic job! Completing 22,502 patrols in the first phase made a significant dent in the backlog. Let's keep our foot on the gas for Phase 2, and I hope we can achieve even more reviews than Phase 1. Best of luck!

You are receiving this message because you added your name to the participants list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For your work on Prominent individuals mentioned in the Epstein files, especially in protecting it from vandalism and BLP violations. Bearian (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, though there should really be an Unoriginal Barnstar for this though. It's one of those articles that (while very much due) is asking for trouble, I think I just arrived first on the scene not much else. CNC (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Why are you removing content from this article? Guz13 (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Epstein files § Removal of list of names in lead

 – CNC (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Restore Britain. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. ~2025-42899-89 (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

You unnecessarily removed an edit fixing capitalisation, though it was a minor edit, please exercise more discretion to avoid removing content from wikipedia without cause LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Restore_Britain&diff=prev&oldid=1338496735 LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

You're referring to the }{} error right? I know it looks like I did based on the restore function, but for whatever reason I didn't (maybe due to using visual editor negating that). That error wasn't introduced in the diff, nor does it remain in the article. My plan was to remove it after that restore, but it disappeared. Regards, CNC (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

No i mean the capitalisation, scroll down, on "Grooming" LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

That was intentional. Grooming gangs scandal isn't a capitalised term per MOS:CAPS, unless it's the topic title, or start of a sentence. Apologies for not clarifying rationale in the edit summary. CNC (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey, sorry to bother you here, but I saw your response and assumed it would be better not to respond on the closure requests page.

Do you not think that if a subject keeps coming up for discussion, it should be settled to prevent future discussions? I think that RfC is a huge mess, because it looks like the way people interpreted the question changed somewhere along the way, meaning it is difficult to tell what they wanted, but does that not require some form of action? The dispute remains unsettled/unresolved this way. Slomo666 (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

In an ideal scenario the previous RfC would have been properly closed, and maybe this would of prevented another. Regardless, any editor is welcome to request either RfC is formally closed, I just removed my request given it's been a month and no closure, previous unclosed RfC, and editor time being a precious resource. CNC (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red | March 2026, Vol 12, Issue 3, Nos 358, 359, 364, 365, 366 Online events: March 1-31: Artists & Activists | Artworks by women | Alphabet run: countries starting with C Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: Celebrate Women Unreferenced articles backlog drive Wiki Loves Ramadan Tip of the month: Those experiencing difficulties with new articles can follow the guidance in our essays, perhaps starting with our Ten Simple Rules. 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) 09:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Sorry for this debacle. Hopefully I cleared things up but by now I hope it's clear I wasn't trying to throw any sorts of accusations around. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry forgot about your message, it's fine I didn't think you were making accusations as such, just disagreed with your argument. Probably I overreacted anyway, given with a relatively simple edit the situation seems to be resolved for now. CNC (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2026 (UTC)