Should the first sentence of the lede read that the subject "... is an American right-wing activist and social media influencer, who is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators".
Note: at the time of the writing of this RfC, the first sentence of the lede reads that the subject "... is an American right-wing author and social media influencer, who is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators". Refer to Special:Diff/1222027778 for a record. TarnishedPathtalk 13:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Regarding MOS:FIRSTBIO, which says in part The opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources. Should this include or exclude the terms "convicted felon" or "convicted sex offender" in cases where the subject is notable for something else but is also a convicted felon or sex offender? Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein are two key examples where edit warring of the lead sentence to include or exclude this phrasing has occurred. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
The fourth paragraph of the lede currently contains the following sentence:
"In March 2022, The New York Times and The Washington Post reported that some of the emails found on the computer were authentic."
Should it be removed? TarnishedPathtalk 11:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Which photo should we use for Trump for the infobox & article:
Option A, Option B, Option C, Option D, or Option E (photo not in gallery, feel free to add additional options)? Please note there is currently consensus not to use Trump’s presidential portrait, since it is from 2017.
Prcc27 (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
This Rfc comes to resolve an ongoing impasse as to who should be listed as the founders for Tesla Inc. One argument states that only Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning should be designated as the founders because they originally incorporated the company which ultimately became Tesla Inc. Another argument states that Elon Musk, Ian Wright and J.B. Straubel should also be included as founders because a lawsuit settlement agreement stipulated that they should be designated as "co-founders". Bearing this in mind, which figures (if any) should be listed as founders in the infobox section? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
There is ongoing discussion about how to best present the content of the Insider investigative report on a Russian connection to Havana Syndrome. Two versions have been proposed, and we seek wider community input on which should be included in the article. The discussion has raised concerns about the due weight of content relating to allegations of secret weapons use by Russian military intelligence's GRU Unit 29155.
Version 2.1:
On March 31, 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report reigniting speculation that hostile Russian action was responsible for the syndrome.[1][2] The Kremlin Press Secretary dismissed the report as "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media." In response to the report, the White House Press Secretary said that a "foreign adversary is very unlikely." Following the report, several U.S. Senators, including Susan Collins, Jeanne Shaheen, and Mark Warner, sent a letter to the President calling for further investigation into the cause of the anomalous health incidents.
Version 3.1:
On March 31 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report claiming that the syndrome was caused by actions of Russian military intelligence.[1][2][3] The report states that members of the GRU Unit 29155, known for undertaking foreign operations[2], received awards and promotions for work related to the development and deployment of "non-lethal acoustic weapons", and that telephone and travel data pinpointing the locations of these agents correlated with the timings and locations of Havana Syndrome incidents worldwide.[4][5][6]
The Kremlin Press Secretary dismissed the report as "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media."[1] In response to the report, the White House Press Secretary said that a "foreign adversary is very unlikely."[7]
Following the report, in a letter addressed to the President several U.S. Senators called for further investigations into the causes of the anomalous health incidents.[8]
Please provide your opinions and rationale for supporting either version 2.1 or 3.1 and please ensure your responses are based on Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. (FailedMusician (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Is the current title NPOV? (Edit, change to POV from NPOV since all the answers are the other way about) If not, what would be an appropriate title? Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Should the alternative spelling Sulayman Beg and the mention of the presence of a Turkmen minority be included in the article?--Ermanarich (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned in the lead, that the governor general is described as Canada's de facto head of state? GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Should the article mention that in the "Media coverage" section ?
If so, could this draft work ?
In April 2024 certain Western media outlets called the war as the Israel-Gaza war.[1][2][3][4][5][6]The Washington Post published an article titled "six months of the Israel-Gaza war: a timeline of key moments".[7]BBC explained the history of the conflict, calling it the "Israel-Gaza war".[8]El País called it the "war between Israel and Gaza".[9]The Guardian talked about the "Israel-Gaza war" when analyzing US views.[10]CPJ spoke about the "Israel-Gaza war" by writing about journalist casualties.[11]Deblinis (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
An IP user added a description like 'geographiclly located in Northern Europe' in the lede. (1, 2, 3, 4) I think it violates "Lithuania solution", the consensus which is made in the previous talk. (#RfC - The geographic locale of Estonia) I request other users' opinions for this issue. Do you support or oppose to add this description? 117.53.77.84 (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Should the alternative spelling Sulayman Beg and the mention of the presence of a Turkmen minority be included in the article?--Ermanarich (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Recently, from the two discussions (one a few sections above this one and the other on Talk:Tornadoes of 2024), I have a proposal for the new layout, taking in feedback from those involved in those two discussions.
Change (revert) the layout from the currently used By Continent (example: Tornadoes of 2023), to the original By Month (Example: Tornadoes of 2008).
"(United States)" will be added to U.S.-based events, which was not done in original By Month layouts.
U.S.-only things will be left out of the infobox at the top of the yearly page (Infobox example Tornadoes of 2023). However, monthly U.S. totals can (and should) be mentioned at the beginning of each months section. Information regarding other countries or regions (example: number of European tornadoes or number of China tornadoes) during the month should also receive a sentence at the beginning of each months section.
In short, a small "monthly global summary" opens the section.
There is ongoing discussion about how to best present the content of the Insider investigative report on a Russian connection to Havana Syndrome. Two versions have been proposed, and we seek wider community input on which should be included in the article. The discussion has raised concerns about the due weight of content relating to allegations of secret weapons use by Russian military intelligence's GRU Unit 29155.
Version 2.1:
On March 31, 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report reigniting speculation that hostile Russian action was responsible for the syndrome.[1][2] The Kremlin Press Secretary dismissed the report as "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media." In response to the report, the White House Press Secretary said that a "foreign adversary is very unlikely." Following the report, several U.S. Senators, including Susan Collins, Jeanne Shaheen, and Mark Warner, sent a letter to the President calling for further investigation into the cause of the anomalous health incidents.
Version 3.1:
On March 31 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report claiming that the syndrome was caused by actions of Russian military intelligence.[1][2][3] The report states that members of the GRU Unit 29155, known for undertaking foreign operations[2], received awards and promotions for work related to the development and deployment of "non-lethal acoustic weapons", and that telephone and travel data pinpointing the locations of these agents correlated with the timings and locations of Havana Syndrome incidents worldwide.[4][5][6]
The Kremlin Press Secretary dismissed the report as "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media."[1] In response to the report, the White House Press Secretary said that a "foreign adversary is very unlikely."[7]
Following the report, in a letter addressed to the President several U.S. Senators called for further investigations into the causes of the anomalous health incidents.[8]
Please provide your opinions and rationale for supporting either version 2.1 or 3.1 and please ensure your responses are based on Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. (FailedMusician (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Should the following criteria be added as additional criteria in WP:TornadoCriteria?
(As a new point 5 in the criteria) Tornado outbreaks inside the United States with five or more tornadoes rated EF2
(As a new criteria section similar to “Rare oddities”):
Section title: High impact tornadoes
Text: Any tornado not meeting the above criteria may still qualify for inclusion as a “high impact” event. A hypothetical example of this criteria is an EF2 which does not kill or injure anyone, however, it damaged or destroyed 90% of a town of 2,000 people. Inclusion of these tornadoes is subjective. Any editor is allowed and should add such tornadoes to Tornadoes of XXXX articles, as inclusion of such events are considered to have presumed consensus. However, once a “high impact” tornado’s inclusion is challenged, a talk page discussion should occur to determine if the specific tornado qualifies as a “high impact” tornado and if it should be included or excluded in the article.
Option 1 — Support addition of both proposed criteria points
Option 2 — Support addition of proposed criteria #1, but oppose addition of proposed criteria #2
Option 3 — Support addition of proposed criteria #2, but oppose addition of proposed criteria #1
Option 4 — Oppose addition of both proposed criteria points
Hi everyone, this RfC is to retrieve consensus regarding the addition of mission outcome to the Orbital/Intergated launch wikitable, as well as adding the associated chart in the same section.
Context: IFT-3 has ben the subject of confusion and debate here in Wikipedia. The confusion between Launch outcome and Mission outcome has led editors to think of the two as one, despite those being different things. This article also doesn't show the launch outcome alongside mission outcome, meaning editors and readers alike might see the green "success" entry in the launch column/chart and believe the mission succeded, not reading the other text to learn that the mission wasn't a full success. This factor will lead to confusion among Wikipedia editors, and confused editors can't properly write a wiki.
The question: Should we list the mission outcome as clearly as we list the launch outcome?
If you wish to dispute this RfC, please raise your concerns over at the appropriate WP:DRN and WP:PUMP noticeboards. You may also bring this discussion up at WP:DfD and WP:AN, and if all discussions go wrong or end up with no real result, you can contact the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. But bear in mind, contacting the Arbitration Committee is a last resort option that should not be done for minor reasons, so only contact them if the discussions go very wrong. Thanks, 179.251.80.181 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Should the first sentence of the lede read that the subject "... is an American right-wing activist and social media influencer, who is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators".
Note: at the time of the writing of this RfC, the first sentence of the lede reads that the subject "... is an American right-wing author and social media influencer, who is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators". Refer to Special:Diff/1222027778 for a record. TarnishedPathtalk 13:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
There was some dispute over what the cutoff for inclusion should be. Other pages listed on Template:Best-selling video games have a minimum of 1 million copies sold/shipped for inclusion. However, it was argued here that this page should have a lower minimum due to the shorter lifespan/low performance of the console. Should the minimum requirement be 250,000 or 1,000,000?2601:249:9301:D570:2871:2734:7DEE:FBF4 (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Should the first sentence of the lede read that the subject "... is an American right-wing activist and social media influencer, who is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators".
Note: at the time of the writing of this RfC, the first sentence of the lede reads that the subject "... is an American right-wing author and social media influencer, who is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators". Refer to Special:Diff/1222027778 for a record. TarnishedPathtalk 13:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to have a section about ongoing court cases involving living people who are not public figures before a conclusion is reached? XZealous (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Should unsubstantiated superlatives in the lead, such as:
New York is a global center of finance and commerce, culture and tech, entertainment and media, academics and scientific output, and the arts and fashion.
...and is sometimes described as the world's most important city and the capital of the world.
..the most economically powerful city in the world.
There is ongoing discussion about how to best present the content of the Insider investigative report on a Russian connection to Havana Syndrome. Two versions have been proposed, and we seek wider community input on which should be included in the article. The discussion has raised concerns about the due weight of content relating to allegations of secret weapons use by Russian military intelligence's GRU Unit 29155.
Version 2.1:
On March 31, 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report reigniting speculation that hostile Russian action was responsible for the syndrome.[1][2] The Kremlin Press Secretary dismissed the report as "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media." In response to the report, the White House Press Secretary said that a "foreign adversary is very unlikely." Following the report, several U.S. Senators, including Susan Collins, Jeanne Shaheen, and Mark Warner, sent a letter to the President calling for further investigation into the cause of the anomalous health incidents.
Version 3.1:
On March 31 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report claiming that the syndrome was caused by actions of Russian military intelligence.[1][2][3] The report states that members of the GRU Unit 29155, known for undertaking foreign operations[2], received awards and promotions for work related to the development and deployment of "non-lethal acoustic weapons", and that telephone and travel data pinpointing the locations of these agents correlated with the timings and locations of Havana Syndrome incidents worldwide.[4][5][6]
The Kremlin Press Secretary dismissed the report as "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media."[1] In response to the report, the White House Press Secretary said that a "foreign adversary is very unlikely."[7]
Following the report, in a letter addressed to the President several U.S. Senators called for further investigations into the causes of the anomalous health incidents.[8]
Please provide your opinions and rationale for supporting either version 2.1 or 3.1 and please ensure your responses are based on Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. (FailedMusician (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
The fourth paragraph of the lede currently contains the following sentence:
"In March 2022, The New York Times and The Washington Post reported that some of the emails found on the computer were authentic."
Should it be removed? TarnishedPathtalk 11:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Should a "list of leaders"-type article like list of president of xxx, list of vice president of yyy, list of prime ministers of zzz, or similar officials also includes those who are designated as "-elect"? Ckfasdf (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Is the current title NPOV? (Edit, change to POV from NPOV since all the answers are the other way about) If not, what would be an appropriate title? Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Which photo should we use for Trump for the infobox & article:
Option A, Option B, Option C, Option D, or Option E (photo not in gallery, feel free to add additional options)? Please note there is currently consensus not to use Trump’s presidential portrait, since it is from 2017.
Prcc27 (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I propose that the apartheid allegation be explicitly mentioned in the lead. This is an incredibly well-sourced allegation, and I think the current lead which vaguely talks about "crimes of humanity" and "war crimes" is avoiding the core of the issue — precisely which crime is Israel being accused of? Apartheid is the principal one.
Specifically, I propose that the current version "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations and United Nations officials." be replaced with "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism. It has been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the crime of apartheid, against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations and United Nations officials." JDiala (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I would like to restart a previous RfC on calling the operation a Hamas victory in the infobox. In the interim, multiple other sources ([1], [2]) have supported this position. No consensus was reached in the past RfC however I think the decision then was erroneous. Most of the opponents had no compelling arguments except essentially appeals to emotion that the attacks were "terrorist" and that it would somehow be immoral to call "terrorists" winners. That RfC was further tainted by an e-mail canvassing situation. I believe that the closer erred in his judgement of no consensus.
The operation should be called a Hamas victory.
The operation should be called an Israeli victory.
Should it be mentioned in the lead, that the governor general is described as Canada's de facto head of state? GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles about religious organizations often contain a “beliefs” section that describes the beliefs and practices of the organization and its members. Is About Self sourcing on the organization’s beliefs or practices acceptable as Reliable Sourcing when the information is derived directly from the religious organization or published by an employee or member of the organization irrespective of whether secondary sourcing is available? This RfC assumes that all other Wikipedia editing policies are observed. Meta Voyager (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
What should the result section of the infobox say? Leaving out some possible options here, other suggestions are also welcome.
Iranian operational failure. This appears to be the widely reported conclusion. 99% of the aerial objects have been reportedly intercepted, without any Israeli casualties and only minor damage sustained at one airbase.
Iranian partial operational failure. Another similar result, with partial for minor impact.
Successful Israeli defense. An alternative
Israeli Victory. Another alternative
Iranian Victory. Since Iran claimed victory
Discuss. Ecrusized (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to have a section about ongoing court cases involving living people who are not public figures before a conclusion is reached? XZealous (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles about religious organizations often contain a “beliefs” section that describes the beliefs and practices of the organization and its members. Is About Self sourcing on the organization’s beliefs or practices acceptable as Reliable Sourcing when the information is derived directly from the religious organization or published by an employee or member of the organization irrespective of whether secondary sourcing is available? This RfC assumes that all other Wikipedia editing policies are observed. Meta Voyager (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
There is ongoing discussion about how to best present the content of the Insider investigative report on a Russian connection to Havana Syndrome. Two versions have been proposed, and we seek wider community input on which should be included in the article. The discussion has raised concerns about the due weight of content relating to allegations of secret weapons use by Russian military intelligence's GRU Unit 29155.
Version 2.1:
On March 31, 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report reigniting speculation that hostile Russian action was responsible for the syndrome.[1][2] The Kremlin Press Secretary dismissed the report as "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media." In response to the report, the White House Press Secretary said that a "foreign adversary is very unlikely." Following the report, several U.S. Senators, including Susan Collins, Jeanne Shaheen, and Mark Warner, sent a letter to the President calling for further investigation into the cause of the anomalous health incidents.
Version 3.1:
On March 31 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report claiming that the syndrome was caused by actions of Russian military intelligence.[1][2][3] The report states that members of the GRU Unit 29155, known for undertaking foreign operations[2], received awards and promotions for work related to the development and deployment of "non-lethal acoustic weapons", and that telephone and travel data pinpointing the locations of these agents correlated with the timings and locations of Havana Syndrome incidents worldwide.[4][5][6]
The Kremlin Press Secretary dismissed the report as "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media."[1] In response to the report, the White House Press Secretary said that a "foreign adversary is very unlikely."[7]
Following the report, in a letter addressed to the President several U.S. Senators called for further investigations into the causes of the anomalous health incidents.[8]
Please provide your opinions and rationale for supporting either version 2.1 or 3.1 and please ensure your responses are based on Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. (FailedMusician (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
The fourth paragraph of the lede currently contains the following sentence:
"In March 2022, The New York Times and The Washington Post reported that some of the emails found on the computer were authentic."
Should it be removed? TarnishedPathtalk 11:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Which photo should we use for Trump for the infobox & article:
Option A, Option B, Option C, Option D, or Option E (photo not in gallery, feel free to add additional options)? Please note there is currently consensus not to use Trump’s presidential portrait, since it is from 2017.
Prcc27 (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Should unsubstantiated superlatives in the lead, such as:
New York is a global center of finance and commerce, culture and tech, entertainment and media, academics and scientific output, and the arts and fashion.
...and is sometimes described as the world's most important city and the capital of the world.
..the most economically powerful city in the world.
This page is currently hitting the post-expand limit, meaning that the templates used to display the missing Wikipedians' names stop working midway through the W section. This is resulting in the editors' names not being displayed, and instead being replaced with (e.g.) Template:User2. I therefore think this page should be split, but I'm not quite sure what the best way of doing it would be.
A few possible ideas that came to my mind were:
Should this page be split into subpages for the starting letter of editors' usernames? (To match the way the page is currently organised)
Should the page be split into subpages for the year an editor's last edit was made (or another timeframe)? (In a similar vein to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians)
Should this page simply be split (e.g.) in half?
I welcome any feedback and opinions on this proposal, as well as other ideas for how best to split this page. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow]RFC tag added 13:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
With the |birth_place= parameter having the corresponding |birth_date= parameter and the |death_place= parameter having the corresponding |death_date= parameter, do you agree to have the |burial_place= parameter given the corresponding |burial_date= parameter? 4theloveofallthings (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Having a parameter for "criminal_charges" is confusing for the following reasons:
Criminal charges are temporary things, either leading to a conviction or not. People are frequently charged with crimes, but never actually found guilty. Sometimes they're not even tried for them. (Because charges are dropped as new evidence is found by the police, for example.)
As charges are temporary things, it feels close to breaching WP:NOTNP.
Plus it is skating close to defamation. Why list charges for crimes that the person was not actually found guilty of?
If a person has not actually been found guilty of a crime, why is this a lead-level fact?
It seems "criminal_convictions" is what the parameter should be.
Consider, for example, Kevin Spacey: He was charged with 11 crimes. Three of them were dismissed during the trial. He was found not-guilty by the jury of the remaining nine. Listing "charges" on his Infobox could be potentially misleading to readers.
Another example would be Michael Jackson. Again he was charged with several counts of child molestation, but never found guilty. Whatever you believe of his guilt, why would we list those charges in his Infobox profile?
(Also, if the person has notable crimes, wouldn't Infobox_criminal be a better fit anyway? Is there an argument not to have criminal parameters at all?)
The guideline currently states that the "criminal_charges" parameter is "What the criminal is accused of (note that this is different from what the criminal is -- later -- convicted of)". Obviously the person can't be a criminal if they've only been accused of a crime, or even charged with one. However this Infobox seems to be restricted to use with notable convicted criminals. So this would imply that "criminal_charges" in this case relates solely to crimes they are currently wanted for (ie. which they have not been tried for yet).
I think there's a chance this parameter could be used to list charges that did not lead to convictions after being processed in the legal system (either because they were dropped, dismissed or otherwise found not-guilty). A short note could help clarify the correct use cases:
"What the criminal is currently wanted to be tried for. Do not list charges that were dropped, dismissed or which went to trial and did not lead to conviction."
With the |birth_place= parameter having the corresponding |birth_date= parameter and the |death_place= parameter having the corresponding |death_date= parameter, do you agree to have the |burial_place= parameter given the corresponding |burial_date= parameter? 4theloveofallthings (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
This page is currently hitting the post-expand limit, meaning that the templates used to display the missing Wikipedians' names stop working midway through the W section. This is resulting in the editors' names not being displayed, and instead being replaced with (e.g.) Template:User2. I therefore think this page should be split, but I'm not quite sure what the best way of doing it would be.
A few possible ideas that came to my mind were:
Should this page be split into subpages for the starting letter of editors' usernames? (To match the way the page is currently organised)
Should the page be split into subpages for the year an editor's last edit was made (or another timeframe)? (In a similar vein to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians)
Should this page simply be split (e.g.) in half?
I welcome any feedback and opinions on this proposal, as well as other ideas for how best to split this page. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow]RFC tag added 13:07, 3 May 2024 (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.
Monkeyeatmybannana69
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: vau blocked. Sure, give them the benefit of the doubt, AGF and all, and give them time to respond here. They chose to ignore that and intentionally tripped the edit filter a number of times after being notified . Obvious is as obvious does. Vaublocked per Deepfriedokra's suggestion. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a lot of discussion of this at UAA so I decided to bring it here. Personally I think that this is a violation as a clear sexual reference, but there seems to be disagreement about that. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
The name is childish and stupid and I seriously doubt the person operating it has any intent to stick around and actually help build an encyclopedia, I just don't think the name, on its own, is sufficiently explicit to warrant a no-warning block, which is why I declined to do so. If we decide here to disallow it or block for other reasons and move on that's fine by me. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 17:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
I can see how someone might not recognize this a blatant violation of the username policy, especially if they do not know about the sexual meaning of "69". Nevertheless, it is obvious to those who do know that this is indeed a violation of the username policy, and considering their only edit, they are clearly WP:NOTHERE. - ZLEAT\C 17:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
It's not just the "69", but what "eat my banana" refers to. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
I know what it means in this context, but it sounds innocent enough that it might not be considered problematic by the average person if it weren’t for the “69”... or maybe I’m just ignorant of common sexual slang. - ZLEAT\C 19:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Block The name evokes certain explicit mental images, at least for me, and I cannot imagine it not being disruptive to see it around. It is childish and stupid, yes. And disruptive. It is not going to be a no warning block as I informed them of the name's disruptive nature, and the user has been made aware of this discussion. Certainly a Uw-vaublock seems reasonable.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2024 (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 Snake Squad
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.
As per their user page they are a group of individuals and the strongest group in the world. In February I had notified them of the shared use policy and asked for change in username. I didn't follow up, but they logged in today and replied on my talk page with YOU CAN'T GET RID OF US - MWAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA. Jay 💬 14:04, 1 May 2024 (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.
Picture A
Picture B.jpg)
.jpg)
