It's strange that you first contribution is starting an AfD discussion. You seem to know what you're doing, so curious what your background is. Dflovett (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm usually editing as an IP and have been active on Wikipedia (English and German one) on and off for a few years. Hence why this article grabbed a bit of my attention, because Musk has been on the news over here (Germany) for weeks now for his... Interesting views.

I've had an account before two years back, but forgot my old password and probably used a throwaway email back then (definitely not one of my main ones, I can't find my old registration email at least): User:SenorCar Mystic Cornball (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I had to ask, because sometimes this kind of thing ends up being a sockpuppet situation. To be clear, I'm not saying you're a sockpuppet or that there should be an investigation. But figured it was worth raising a flag and asking. I hope you stick with editing with this account this time! Dflovett (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go as far as to question whether the article itself {Attempted takeover of US federal agencies by Elon Musk} is necessary and can't just be worked into Department of Government Efficiency, again for now, but let's wait and see. You raise an excellent point; I think the takeover article has WP:CFORK written all over it, but in my estimation, it would be easier to propose a merger now while the article is short and not many editors are invested in it. (It was created today and I count only about 10 editors.) It would muddy the RfD, but I'm curious what other reasons you may have for not proposing a merger now. Carguychris (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. My account is pretty new, and I already was also the editor who created this pretty popular AfD recently for another Elon article. But I've also raised the point of whether that article should exist on its Talk page, to see whether others agree on my sentiment. If that's the case, I'd probably go ahead with it. Mystic Cornball (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Cremastra (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]