== Move of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine ==
== Move of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine ==
{{Moved discussion to|Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Move of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|2=[[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 23:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)}}
Hi. Could you revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&direction=prev&oldid=1313303215 this move] please? The [[Talk:Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)#Requested move 5 August 2025|article is the outcome of a very long and fraught RM discussion]] and the article now has the wrong article-talk page (it should be [[Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|this one]]). If you’re going to make this move we need to have an RM about it because this is not an uncontroversial move. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 12:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
:Ok I will revert, I moved based on the RM discussion. There is was consensus for 2022 invasion article, and there was previously consensus that no year applies as an unncessary disambiguator that AFAIK hasn’t changed, but alas I’ll revert upon request. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 12:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
:FYI have synced the talk pages, the archives are currently double redirecting but that’s what bots are for, so should be resolved shortly. [[Russian invasion of Ukraine]] now redirects to the 2022 article per revert, but can’t see how that could be controversial. That’s not a redirect I want to take to RfD per [[WP:NOTBURO]], nor re-target to the wrong location. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 12:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
::Yeah it probably should redirect there, I don’t think there’s any need for a big discussion unless anyone else kicks off. The issue is likely to be people arguing that 2022 was not the only invasion, or that the invasion is still ongoing (etc. etc.).
::I tend to agree we should remove the disambiguation in the end, but it’s going to need an RM because others may well object. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 12:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
:::I’ve added a hatnote for the redirect. Although this wasn’t clarified in the RfC, I’d like to think it’s common sense that [[WP:PTOPIC|primary topic]] still applies and thus in this case becomes a [[WP:PREDIRECT|primary redirect]]. But you’re right, it’s something editors would certainly re-litigate even though there has been long-standing consensus, even if personally I find using the original title far less controversial based on the close. Pinging [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] in case I have misinterpreted it as generally get the impression this is part of the ‘figure it out for yourselves’ part of post consensus. Likewise with the [[Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine]] that needs moving to new target per consistency, ideally boldly, as isn’t based on 2022 at all. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 13:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
::::The need for a year disambiguator in the title wasn’t a major topic of discussion at the RfC, and so I don’t think it’s within my remit to say there was consensus specifically for using “2022” in the title. But the (lack of) clarity in the scope of several articles was the subject of much discussion. I would generally suggest erring on the side of precision, and opening a new RM if you feel strongly. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 15:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}{{ping|FOARP}} I’m confused why you asked CNC to revert their move, which was consistent with existing consensus. There was [[Talk:Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)/Archive 14#Requested move 14 March 2023|consensus in 2023]] that the 2022 invasion is the primary topic of “Russian invasion of Ukraine”, and the most recent RM did not challenge nor change that consensus. Please correct me if I am wrong, as I did not read the latest RM in full. Also, these back-and-forth moves [[Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 14|have made a mess]] and turned the old archive links into redlinks; please fix them. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 23:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
:To clarify, I was the one who requested speedy delete of all the archive redirects for [[Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine]] under [[WP:G8]] (Db-talk), those at [[Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine]] were ‘independently’ deleted by admins per G8 (redirects to nonexistent/deleted pages). I was also the main architect behind the moving mess, so that’s not on FOARP, it’s my bad. That said, with one article effectively replacing another, deleting such archive redirects seemed necessary (as the admins who deleted them – who I have now pinged – appear to agree based on actions taken{{bcc|CactusWriter}}{{bcc|Rusalkii}}{{bcc|Liz}}). Otherwise it would interfere with archiving discussions for the new article. And yes, I’m aware it breaks all the discussion links at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), and that all of those archive redirects from Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine could be restored, but to what end if the article is moved to it’s primary redirect as you suggest? Having a talk page unsynchronised from it’s archive redirect sounds bonkers to me, but I’ll acknowledge when I’m out of my depth. On final note, I’m going to move this to [[Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine]] as this discussion concerns more than the handful of participants here. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 23:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
== Nomination of [[:December 2022 Twitter suspensions]] for deletion ==
== Nomination of [[:December 2022 Twitter suspensions]] for deletion ==
|
Archives |
| Index |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be auto-archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 10. |
As far as I can tell, no one supported the status quo in the RM discussion, yet that is the outcome. No one directly said they were opposed. I suggest that some different result or simply further extending the discussion period would have been more appropriate. One guideline section to consider is WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- The WP:STATUSQUO is the status quo for a reason; it’s what remains when there isn’t consensus for change. The commentary was enough for me to see there was a lack of convincing consensus. There has been only one comment in the past ~7 weeks, it had already been shared with relevant wikiprojects prior to that, so I don’t see how more time would have helped here either. I also don’t see NOTCURRENT applying, that’s only if there is consensus to no longer continue with the current title, which was not the case whatsover. CNC (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
This was botched, as you had to move it twice, so please be more careful in future. GiantSnowman 17:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Apologies, with RM closer it left me the option of submitting at RMTR, or move to the proposed (incorrect) target. Next time I’ll click the RMTR option and revert, in order to avoid watchlist clutter. Unfortunately there was no option to move manually. Potentially worth mention this on the talkpage of said tool, as hadn’t had this issue before but was quite frustrating. CNC (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Hello, would you be open to undoing your close and allowing another editor to take a look? I think this close might’ve benefited from verifying the unsourced claims made by participants (for example, “there was no firebombing”).
A selection of headlines given by googling “boulder firebombing”:
Fox News: Wife of Boulder firebombing suspect begs Americans for help while judge delays deportation
the Colorado Sun: Federal judge says hate crime prosecution in Boulder firebombing attack can proceed
Colorado Public Radio: One week after Boulder firebomb attack, thousands gather for 30th annual Boulder Jewish Festival
AP News: Man accused of yelling ‘Free Palestine’ and firebombing demonstrators charged with attempted murder
PBS: Boulder community to gather for vigil after firebombing attack that injured 12
Denver7: Judge rules federal hate crime case against Boulder firebombing suspect can move forward
Reuters: Man attacks Colorado crowd with firebombs, 8 people injured
Politico: Judge blocks Trump administration from quickly deporting family of Boulder firebombing suspect
LA Times: Vigil held for victims of Boulder firebombing attack
Haaretz: Judge Okays Hate Crime Charge in Boulder Firebombing of Hostage March
ABC News: Suspect faces hate crime charge in firebombing attack
CNN: How a demonstration for Israeli hostages ended in an antisemitic firebombing Mikewem (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- That’s quite a source list, I commend you for the research. My close was however based on the discussion in the RM. Had you provided those sources during the discussion in hand, I have no doubt the outcome could well have been quite different. You are welcome to take this to WP:Move review if you believe the close was inappropriate, given I believe it was fair and balance. I’d otherwise recommend opening a discussion on the talkpage in order to build consensus with those sources provided. CNC (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Hello, CommunityNotesContributor. Your account has been granted the “extendedmover” user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
Useful links:
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I’ll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 01:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to add an entry of your recent close to RSP! Your intuition about the section tag is indeed how SGML tags usually go; I find it incredibly wayward that labeled section transclusion elects to use such jarring syntax. I don’t think anything else does something like that.
You did forget to actually deprecate the source, though (see procedure: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Instructions#Deprecating a source); I’ve done that for you! Aaron Liu (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- Great, thank you! That’s the part I couldn’t figure out and didn’t find that link you just provided, so posted at DEPS talkpage for assistance instead. Have reverted that topic now that you have done the technicals, thanks again. CNC (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- ah, I should also subscribe to that page. np! Aaron Liu (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Aaron Liu Yes you should, you’d be an asset there 🙂 CNC (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- ah, I should also subscribe to that page. np! Aaron Liu (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
 Women in Red | July 2025, Vol 11, Issue 7, Nos. 326, 327, 341, 342, 343 Online events: Announcements: Progress (“moving the needle”):
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate: |
—Lajmmoore (talk 09:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hello I saw you removed my edit about Musk and Archeofuturism, I just wanted to make clear why I added it and why it should be included too:
Musk commented on the repost of the user DeepThinker, in which the user embraced the idea of Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism, the original post came from the European New Right publisher Arktos Media (Arktos Journal on X). Musk agreed with DeepThinker’s words on the post of the Arktos Journal about Archeofururism. 77.183.34.126 (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- It’s only sourced to WP:RSPTWITTER, not WP:secondary sources, thus is far from WP:DUE. That’s also why I removed it. CNC (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- In other cases of Musk views X is also used as source, I mean I understand that X isn’t a reliable source, but the comment came from Musk’s own account. 77.183.34.126 (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Only when quoting for context, because of secondary sources discussing the tweet and making it due. Not every Musk reply on X is notable, most aren’t, and those included arent random either. You need to argue on the talk page why its due, not here. CNC (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. 77.183.34.126 (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Only when quoting for context, because of secondary sources discussing the tweet and making it due. Not every Musk reply on X is notable, most aren’t, and those included arent random either. You need to argue on the talk page why its due, not here. CNC (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- In other cases of Musk views X is also used as source, I mean I understand that X isn’t a reliable source, but the comment came from Musk’s own account. 77.183.34.126 (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
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)
—Rosiestep (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
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)
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)
- 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)
| September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol |
 |
|
|
| 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)
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.
- 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
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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)
- Please post about it on the talk page, thank you. CNC (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
 Women in Red | September 2025, Vol 11, Issue 9, Nos. 326, 327, 347, 348, 349
Announcements: Tip of the Month:
Progress (“moving the needle”): Other ways to participate: |
—Rosiestep (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Given this close I’m thinking there is simply consensus to move. CNC (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
