For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their former name (birth name, professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple secondary and reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person.
... the policy can extend based on editorial consensus [emphasis mine] for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions only apply to contentious or questionable material...
... the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material...
... the policy would extend for [six months/one year/two years] beyond the date of death. Such an extension would apply in particular to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. After [six months/one year/two years], the policy may be extended further based upon editorial consensus.
Should this article include an evolution of Trump authoritarian rhetoric to the extent it is supported by reliable sources? soibangla (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I originally posted about this on the external links noticeboard, but I think a full-fledged RfC might be the best way to bring in outside perspectives. Basically, I want to discuss whether the police bodycam footage of her fatal shooting merits inclusion in the article itself. The link to the YouTube video was originally added in March 2020; the video itself was later uploaded and added to the article in May of this year. It is narrated, with a viewer discretion warning at the start, and the shots of her incapacitated body and the officer who fired the weapon are both blurred, so it's not as if no effort was made to depict what transpired in a respectful light; nevertheless, it still feels like something that should be approved by community consensus first. Kurtis(talk) 19:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
There's been a longstanding controversy on this page on whether an infobox should be included. Some state it would improve the understanding of readers.
Others state that including an infobox for Antonio Vivaldi would simplify a complex, long life. KlayCax (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Is this Forbes Contributor Interview, and Forbes Contributor interviews with the subject in general, appropriate for WP:BLPSPS/WP:BLPSELFPUB claims about Ray's personal and early life? Also, is ForbesCon appropriate for sourcing her decision to not join OnlyFans? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
As per the section "Redirect" above (last updated 2008) I actually think there is a fair case to be made for this page to be renamed after Wight's real name i.e. Alf (James Alfred) Wight, since really it is a biography of Wight; if it were a biography of "James Herriot" then some things would be different on account of the differences in life history between the fictional raconteur and the real man. Then "James Herriot" would redirect here... thoughts, anyone? Tony 1212 (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
There has been a discussion on whether or not the ProPublic sources used in the "Nondisclosure of finances" section should be considered primary sources. Please see that section for arguments made for and against considering ProPublica as a primary source, and vote/comment below.
Option A: the ProPublica sources used in that section do constitute primary sources.
Option B: the ProPublica sources used in that section do not constitute primary sources. Cortador (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Should this article include an evolution of Trump authoritarian rhetoric to the extent it is supported by reliable sources? soibangla (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
There's been a longstanding controversy on this page on whether an infobox should be included. Some state it would improve the understanding of readers.
Others state that including an infobox for Antonio Vivaldi would simplify a complex, long life. KlayCax (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Although this article describes Estonia as just a Northern European country, several sources categorise Estonia as a part of Eastern/Central and Eastern Europe. For example;
Kitsing, Meelis. "Explaining E-Government Success in Estonia"(PDF). This paper offers an evaluation of e-government in Estonia, which is usually seen as the most outstanding exemplar in Central and Eastern Europe.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
Because of this, I propose to add 'Eastern Europe' mention in the lede. My proposal is;
"Estonia, officially the Republic of Estonia, is a country by the Baltic Sea in Eastern and Northern Europe."
Also, Italy article mentioning both Southern and Western Europe when describing Italy's geographic locale. In my point of view, this article should follow the similar way to Italy article. 117.53.77.84 (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
There's a dispute between @M.Bitton and myself as to whether the article should contain Category:Moroccan Arabic words and phrases. M.Bitton claims it should not be added on the basis that the term is not exclusively Moroccan. I don't think this is a necessary condition, and adding that category does not exclude adding similar categories for Tunisian and Algerian Arabic, provided there are sources to support. M.Bitton keeps removing the changes I made in the article, including a reliable source (Dictionary of Moroccan Arabic). So as to avoid edit warring, I request comments from experienced editors in the project.--Ideophagous (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Should the lead section, and section title, be called the "Drop Fox campaign" (article version 1), or "War on Fox" (article version 2). (see the differences in the lead section wording, and in the name of the section "War on Fox") -- GreenC 20:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Should this article include an evolution of Trump authoritarian rhetoric to the extent it is supported by reliable sources? soibangla (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
There's a dispute between @M.Bitton and myself as to whether the article should contain Category:Moroccan Arabic words and phrases. M.Bitton claims it should not be added on the basis that the term is not exclusively Moroccan. I don't think this is a necessary condition, and adding that category does not exclude adding similar categories for Tunisian and Algerian Arabic, provided there are sources to support. M.Bitton keeps removing the changes I made in the article, including a reliable source (Dictionary of Moroccan Arabic). So as to avoid edit warring, I request comments from experienced editors in the project.--Ideophagous (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Should this article include an evolution of Trump authoritarian rhetoric to the extent it is supported by reliable sources? soibangla (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
There's been a longstanding controversy on this page on whether an infobox should be included. Some state it would improve the understanding of readers.
Others state that including an infobox for Antonio Vivaldi would simplify a complex, long life. KlayCax (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
I want to re-open the debate on the reliability score given to the Daily Telegraph as a perennial source. It's currently on "Generally reliable". Epa101 (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Sabrina Carpenter is an opening act of the Eras Tour by Taylor Swift. Should this fact be mentioned in the lead? ℛonherry☘ 17:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
The Agatha Christie novel Hallowe'en Party has been adapted for television, radio, and most recently in the film A Haunting in Venice. The film is the only adaptation with a standalone Wikipedia article. In accordance with MOS:INTRO, which says to summarize the most important points covered in an article, is it appropriate to mention the film in the lead? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Should the sentence Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians. be changed to any of the following options:
Option 1 - no change
Option 2 - Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism along with accusations that it has commited war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations and United Nations officials.
Option 3 - Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism from the United Nations.
Option 4 - Israel's policies and actions on the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism for violating the human rights of Palestinians, along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by human rights organizations and UN officials.
Should the lead section, and section title, be called the "Drop Fox campaign" (article version 1), or "War on Fox" (article version 2). (see the differences in the lead section wording, and in the name of the section "War on Fox") -- GreenC 20:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Should this article include an evolution of Trump authoritarian rhetoric to the extent it is supported by reliable sources? soibangla (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Reliable sources agree that Trump said that he'd be a dictator on "day one," and use this exact phraseology: the Atlantic "Donald Trump, the former president of the United States who tried to steal the 2020 election, says he’ll be a dictator on day one of a second term. That’s not the rhetorical excess of the mainstream press, nor is it the cynical spin of a political rival. It’s just what Trump said." "Trump says he'll be a dictator on 'day one'", CBS "Trump says he would be a dictator only on Day One if he wins", NY Times "Trump says he wouldn't be a dictator, except on day one", USA Today "Trump says he will be a dictator only on day one." Some editors believe Trump didn't say exactly that and this statement shouldn't be included and/or the article should ignore this topic entirely. QUESTION: Should the article state, as claimed by reliable sources, that Trump said he'd be a dictator on day one of his presidency, and discuss the wider topic of Trump and dictatorship, which has been extensively covered in reliable sources?67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The use of "Independent Liberal/Labor" is a term that is not permitted in elections for parties/candidates or for electoral material, so to use them in lists like these is completely erroneous. Under sections 64 and 180 of the Electoral Act 2017, this is not permitted. You may include a reference to individual party membership in the notes section, but they do not sit under this label, they were not elected as such, they are not permitted to use such labels under NSW law, and it is misleading to describe them so.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
So there have been disputes on this page over the inclusion of flagicons, other peerages held by peers whose highest titles were in the Peerage of Scotland and subsequent extinctions of peerages.
Item 1: With the flagicons, they have been removed from similar pages such as 1999 House of Lords elections and By-elections to the House of Lords on the grounds that peers do not represent countries in the House of Lords, thus this is in contravention of MOS:FLAG. However, it could be argued that since only specific peerages gave a right to sit in the House of Lords, it may be relevant to show which title was in which peerage, since titles in the Peerage of Ireland did not have automatic representation, thus some Irish peers had lower titles in Peerage of England, Peerage of Great Britain, and/or the Peerage of the United Kingdom by which they sat in the House of Lords.
Item 2: However, related to this issue, the page also added such listing of lower titles to peers whose highest titles were in the Peerage of Scotland, even though the Peerage Act 1963, to quote that article, "granted peers of Scotland the same right to sit in the House of Lords as peers of England, Great Britain or the United Kingdom", thus their holding of titles in other peerages doesn't seem relevant to their membership.
Item 3: There was also notes adding marking which peerages subsequently became extinct, many of which happened years, if not decades after the act was imposed, which doesn't appear to be directly related to the Act.
There has been a discussion on whether or not the ProPublic sources used in the "Nondisclosure of finances" section should be considered primary sources. Please see that section for arguments made for and against considering ProPublica as a primary source, and vote/comment below.
Option A: the ProPublica sources used in that section do constitute primary sources.
Option B: the ProPublica sources used in that section do not constitute primary sources. Cortador (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Nobody in Israel openly describes themselves as espousing the ideology of fascism, but Otzma Yehudit is widely described by the media, both Israeli and non-Israeli, as a Jewish fascist party. There are plenty of sources on this page that describe it as such, and no sources (which might be a flaw of the page itself) that contest the description or assert that Ben-Gvir is not a fascist. As such, should we put the description of being fascist in the wikibox and label it in categories as a neo-fascist party? HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Should this article include an evolution of Trump authoritarian rhetoric to the extent it is supported by reliable sources? soibangla (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
"Shambuka (Sanskrit: शम्बूक, IAST: śambūka) is an interpolated character, which is not found in the original Valmiki Ramayana but in the later addition called "Uttara Kanda"." version
"Shambuka (Sanskrit: शम्बूक, IAST: śambūka) is a shudra ascetic mentioned in the Uttara Kanda Book of the Hindu epic Ramayana."? version
Baseball player Shohei Ohtani has agreed to the terms of a contract with the Los Angeles Dodgers. That agreement has not been published by the Dodgers themselves yet, nor have they announced that a contract has been signed. However, the agreement has been announced by Ohtani themselves, his agency, and posted by the official MLB Twitter. There's significant secondary coverage of the announcement in The Athletic and several other high-quality outlets, like CBS Sports. Those two sources confirm that Ohtani himself announced the arrangement.
Should the information [that Ohtani says he has agreed to a contract but no official announcement has been made] be included in this article prior to an official announcement by the Dodgers? Applicable guidelines here include WP:RSBREAKING, in addition to the essay WP:SPORTSTRANS. BLP, specifically WP:BLPGOSSIP or WP:GRAPEVINE, do not appear to factor in as Ohtani has spoken on this himself. Ed[talk][OMT] 23:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Should the lead section, and section title, be called the "Drop Fox campaign" (article version 1), or "War on Fox" (article version 2). (see the differences in the lead section wording, and in the name of the section "War on Fox") -- GreenC 20:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
There's been a longstanding controversy on this page on whether an infobox should be included. Some state it would improve the understanding of readers.
Others state that including an infobox for Antonio Vivaldi would simplify a complex, long life. KlayCax (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their former name (birth name, professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple secondary and reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person.
What should be done with emoji redirects, particularly with emoji redirects that are found to represent vague concepts that are not well reflected on Wikipedia?
Note that the discussion only pertains to emojis that do not have their own pages (as in 😂 which links to Face with Tears of Joy emoji), in which case the redirect consensus is clear in that it should direct to the article. microbiologyMarcus(petri dish•growths) 17:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their former name (birth name, professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple secondary and reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person.
... the policy can extend based on editorial consensus [emphasis mine] for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions only apply to contentious or questionable material...
... the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material...
... the policy would extend for [six months/one year/two years] beyond the date of death. Such an extension would apply in particular to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. After [six months/one year/two years], the policy may be extended further based upon editorial consensus.
also, currently the only 2 given news sources nyt and ap are both american organisations. by adding the 4 below, there will be 3 american vs 2 british and 1 global, which will be less usa-centric as a whole.--RZuo (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Sabrina Carpenter is an opening act of the Eras Tour by Taylor Swift. Should this fact be mentioned in the lead? ℛonherry☘ 17:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
There has been a discussion on whether or not the ProPublic sources used in the "Nondisclosure of finances" section should be considered primary sources. Please see that section for arguments made for and against considering ProPublica as a primary source, and vote/comment below.
Option A: the ProPublica sources used in that section do constitute primary sources.
Option B: the ProPublica sources used in that section do not constitute primary sources. Cortador (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
The Agatha Christie novel Hallowe'en Party has been adapted for television, radio, and most recently in the film A Haunting in Venice. The film is the only adaptation with a standalone Wikipedia article. In accordance with MOS:INTRO, which says to summarize the most important points covered in an article, is it appropriate to mention the film in the lead? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
What should be done with emoji redirects, particularly with emoji redirects that are found to represent vague concepts that are not well reflected on Wikipedia?
Note that the discussion only pertains to emojis that do not have their own pages (as in 😂 which links to Face with Tears of Joy emoji), in which case the redirect consensus is clear in that it should direct to the article. microbiologyMarcus(petri dish•growths) 17:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
There has been a lot of comment on this page recently, with several new threads and a lot of commentary. Many of these discussions have become intertwined with other topics and suggestions, which means they are unlikely to be settled. These RFCs are about trying to hone the FAC process and allowing nominators the ability to manage the FAC process as effectively as possible.
Please keep comments and responses within the Discussion sections where possible, and please keep all comments limited to the point of each RFC in question. - SchroCat (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Should MediaWiki's built-in signature validation disallow new signatures with obsolete-taglint errors to be set in a user's preferences? HouseBlastertalk 01:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be in violation of Wikipedia's username policy. Before listing a username here, consider if it should be more appropriately reported elsewhere, or if it needs to be reported at all:
you wish to have the block of a user reviewed. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator (see also Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Unblocking).
Before adding a name here you MUST ensure that the user in question:
has been warned about their username (with e.g. {{subst:uw-username}}) and has been allowed time to address the concern on their user talk page.
has disagreed with the concern, refused to change their username and/or continued to edit without replying to the warning.
is not already blocked.
If, after having followed all the steps above, you still believe the username violates Wikipedia's username policy, you may list it here with an explanation of which part of the username policy you think has been violated. After posting, please alert the user of the discussion (with e.g. {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}). You may also invite others who have expressed concern about the username to comment on the discussion by use of this template.
Add new requests below, using the syntax {{subst:rfcn1|username|2=reason ~~~~}}.
Please remember that this is not a vote, rather, it is a place where editors can come when they are unsure what to do with a username, and to get outside opinions (hence it's named "requests for comment"). There are no set time limits to the period of discussion.
Place your report below this line. Please put new reports on the top of the list.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result was: User has agreed to change their username. (non-admin closure). Shadow311 (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Conflict of interest username regarding Draft:Wookey Films. User was given a username policy COI warning 2 days ago and the user has continued to edit without responding to the warning. Shadow311 (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC).
NVM User responded to the discussion notice just now saying they have made a request to change their username. Shadow311 (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result was: allow. Name has been determined to be a pun/play on words. Primefac (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
One letter variation on United States Naval Observatory to make a pun ("navel gazing") inadequate as this may readily confuse passing editors who are not observant. User was rude when notified on talk page and called me dense for not getting the "navel gazing" part when in fact I had included as much in the notice. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Allow. While the user being rude was not helpful, the similarity here comes more in pronunciation than in how it appears on the screen, so I think confusion will be minimal. 331dot (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Allow. Neat pun and worthy of Wikipedia. Whether or not the user's edits are problematic, I do not address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) 09:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Allow, as it does not meet the bar of "unambiguouslyrepresent[ing] the name of a company, organization [etc.]" in the relevant section of policy. Where possible, we should give users latitude in choosing their usernames, and I don't think that this will prove disruptive down the line. Thanks for reporting this here instead of UAA, though, as discussion is a Good Thing. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Allow for the fun pun and the comments of the users above. I don't think it will cause any trouble though I can understand the initial concern. BogLogs (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Comment, Diyeditor was not only extremely rude but also spammed me this morning. I'm removing this from my talk page and considering it closed and I would appreciate the rude Diyeditor not messaging me with this kind of humorless nonsense any more. USNavelObservatory (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Comment, Diyeditor was not only extremely rude but also spammed me this morning.: [1][2] If that's extremely rude and also subsequent spam (not sure which is which) to you then I imagine you will run into trouble on Wikipedia sooner than later. Have fun. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
No one has been rude to you and no one has spammed you. Please see WP:AGF. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
It is not spam to notify a user about a discussion involving them. In fact, it's common courtesy and in many cases required. - ZLEAT\C 16:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Allow - Per above, but this user needs needs to read WP:AGF. It's not rude to bring up a percieved problem with a username, it even happened to me once. - ZLEAT\C 14:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Allow. User does not seem to be trying to be confusing with their username (like by actually editing pages about the US Naval Observatory) and it seems to just be a goofy joke. Jessamyn (my talk page) 17:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Allow. Seems reasonable. If they proceed to make edits that are deceptive, then we might want to act on it, since blocks are preventative. But, if they continue their good behavior, I see no need for a preventative block here to force a name change; Sdrqaz correctly notes that it's doesn't meet the policy bar for being per se prohibited. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 20:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Allow. This username does not really seem to violate any policy, and moreover, WP:ILIKEIT. jp×g🗯️ 05:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result was: Withdrawn. This can be revisited in the event of promotional edits, but there is nothing in the user's editing history to suggest that that is a risk. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
I would ask for some further opinion on whether it is fine to have a username equal to the name of a popular old castle in a major town, such as User:Celjski Grad (using the native name of Celje Castle). In my opinion it allures to an official relation and promotes the castle for no good reason. To me this seems like a slippery slope as users could then use names of famous buildings throughout Europe and elsewhere. The username cotravenes the criterion at WP:U which states that "Usernames are not allowed on Wikipedia if they are promotional in nature, or appear intended to advertise, promote, sell, gain support, or increase the attention or user-base audience of any person, company, market, product, channel, website, or other good or service" and are not allowed to "imply that the account has explicit ownership of any articles, content, or topic areas, or any kind of "power" or "authority" over other editors". I have already discussed the issue with the user at User talk:Celjski Grad#Username, but we could not agree on this. TadejMmy talk 21:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, they've never edited about the castle. We usually look for that in such a situation. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Please note that User:Celjski Grad has been blocked indefinitely in the Slovene Wikipedia due to their inappropriate username.[3]
An additional component that adds to the argument regarding the promotion and explicit ownership of the topic area is the image they feature on their userpage.[4] To me this looks more troublesome than editing the article about the castle. --TadejMmy talk 12:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Still not enough for a username block. ENWIKI is not Slovene Wiki. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe user name policy covers ancient castles. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
It's not there, I checked. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I would feel differently if the user was editing about the castle, which might suggest that they represent the current owners. Otherwise, I see no issue. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
You're sticking to the letter instead of the spirit of the policy. The policy does not mention castles but it does mention that "Usernames are not allowed on Wikipedia if they are promotional in nature, or appear intended to advertise, promote, sell, gain support, or increase the attention or user-base audience of any person, company, market, product, channel, website, or other good or service" and are not allowed to "imply that the account has explicit ownership of any articles, content, or topic areas, or any kind of "power" or "authority" over other editors". --TadejMmy talk 15:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
They've never edited any articles about the castle, so they certainly aren't asserting ownership of an article and it seems very, very difficult for you to argue that they are promoting something they haven't edited about. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
It's actually very easy as they have a photo of the castle on their userpage. --TadejMmy talk 16:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Allow per the user's own response when this was brought up on their talk page.Thank you for your concern. Celjski Grad is neither a company, organization, website, product, musical group or band, team, club, creative group, or organized event. In fact it is not even an English word. It is not an email addresses, or URL. It is not a person's name, nor does it give the impression of administrative permissions.[5]Beeblebrox (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
The same concern applies here as above: the reply is following the letter and disregarding the spirit of the policy. --TadejMmy talk 16:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I've been doing this a very long time and have blocked thousands of promotional usernames. I know the policy better than most, both the letter and the spirit. You have failed to make the case that this user is engaging in promotional activity, because there is no evidence to support that claim. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Ok. Then please explain how featuring a photo of the castle on the userpage with the same name is not promotional activity. --TadejMmy talk 17:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Maybe they just like the castle. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Let's say I named myself User:Grand Canyon and then put this image on my user page busted, the canyon is paying you but never once edited any content related to the canyon. That's apparently the only argument you have here and it absolutely does not show a policy violation. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
So wish my thoughts had coalesced well enough to say that. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
All right. Let's keep it then as it is and if the user engages in promotional editing regarding the castle, we can revisit this. On the other hand, I find it surprising that nobody has yet registered as Grand Canyon. --TadejMmy talk 17:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
If they are blocked on the Slovene Wikipedia for their username, they will need to change it in order to be unblocked there, and changing it there will change it here- but that's not a concern of us. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result was: not done for now. User has not edited since the original talk page post and this discussion was started. If they return and do not adequately explain their reasons or request a rename, this discussion can be restarted. Primefac (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Wikimanagerhelper (talk·contribs)
This username implies authority as a wiki manager or helper, positions generally reserved for Wikimedia Staff. I notified this user after Tamzin declined my UAA report as not a blatant username policy violation. Eyesnore 02:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
You warned 'm. Let's see of they respond. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
But, yes. I think it conveys a sense of wiki-authority. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
What I said at UAA was, specifically, Feel free to discuss with the user and, if unable to reach a resolution, to take it to WP:RFC/N. Emphasis on "if unable to reach a resolution". Most people in this position either rename voluntarily or just never wind up editing again. Give them a chance to respond before hauling them here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
That's actually one of the hard requirements listed right at the top of the page. You have to give them a chance to respond, and you also have to inform them you opened an RFCU. Neither was done in this case, so this is invalid at this time and should be procedurally closed unless and until the user has clearly rejected the concern. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.
Add the tag {{rfc|xxx}} at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, {{rfc|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
.jpeg)