Jump to content

User talk:Jeffrey34555/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Please unblock my IP.

icon
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jeffrey34555 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Thecoolman5576". The reason given for Thecoolman5576's block is: "Vandalism-only account".</nowiki>

Accept reason:

I have lifted the autoblock on your account. You should be able to edit now. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Jeffrey34555 (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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 special powers 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 practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

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.

Left guide (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, but please remember that Wikipedia isn't a place for walkthroughs, cheats, lists of game content or detailed instructions on how to play a game. For more information please read the video game guideline. Thank you. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wuthering Waves. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Listing in-game weapons, attributes, factions, and trivial descriptions are very much WP:GAMEGUIDE-like material. You were the one that added it, use the article talk page please to discuss your edit. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Look, believe me, I really am trying to understand where I was in the wrong for adding characters. Honkai: Star Rail and Genshin Impact both have characters listed for their games, and Genshin even has entire articles dedicated to their characters. (Yun Jin, Zhongli, and Furina to name a few.) Please let me know what the right way is so I can deepen my Wikipedia knowledge. Thank you! Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays and Best Wishes for 2025 from VulcanSphere

Photo credit: Kabelleger / David Gubler
Happy Holidays
Jeffrey34555!
Vulcan Wishes A Great 2025 For You!
– VulcanSphere (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


Caretaker

Hi

According to the Constitution (amended, 2024), such PM is a Caretaker. Panam2014 (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for reverting my edit (forgot how to revert on mobile), but I didn't see 'caretaker' in Galab Donev on his page, so I thought to get rid of it. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
No problem. Until 2024, the PM have been named after the dissolution of the National Assembly, so he is a regular PM during a power vacuum. Since 2024, the Assembly is not dissolved but new elections are called so it was necessary to give him a status. Panam2014 (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for the info! Jeffrey34555 (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Puzzling undiscussed move

Hi, I created the Landtag Styria article at that title because, as far as I can tell, it was the common name in English for the assembly. I even cited two sources for that name, which is not required but I would consider good practice. When you moved it, you made it seem like the sources were supporting a different name "Landtag of Styria" that they didn't verify. Please don't make assumptions and instead check the sources before making edits. (t · c) buidhe 00:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Heyo, thanks for the comment. I guess I got confused on the absence of the word "of", since every single article I saw before this one with "landtag" in it had the word "of". No need to reverse the diagram though, that one is 100% correct. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, I'm pretty sure "Landtag Styria" isn't grammatically correct. Without the word "of", it sounds strange in English (kind of like Parliament of Canada and Parliament Canada). Jeffrey34555 (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
The German is " Landtag Steiermark" so that's just a direct translation. It does sound a bit odd in English but I wouldn't say it was grammatically incorrect. I'm pretty sure I've seen that same construction "Organization Geonome" for other foreign entities, but I can't find it right now. (t · c) buidhe 02:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
If you do, please send them over to me. Thanks! Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Composition Bundestag

Dear Jeffrey34555,

The graphic looks very good, thank you very much. Just one tiny correction request: The single dot for the BSW MP still needs to be outlined in gray (the MP will be non-attached), and should be placed between SPD and Greens (the SSW is a center-left party). This is how it was handled in the diagram for the previous Bundestag. Thank you very much!

Alektor89 (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for the feedback. One thing I will say about your diagram is that the borders around SSW and CSU are a little too thick, you may want to lessen that to around 0.25 thickness. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisting requested moves

Please do not add a return. The bot will assume that it is a new comment and will not recognize the new timestamp. DrKay (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I see that yesterday, you relisted the requested move Response to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government → ? Would you say why you did that instead of closing it? It had already been open for 2 weeks. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, I don't really see a consensus on what the article should be moved to. I've counted 3 different titles that were proposed (Response to the Department of Government Efficiency, Criticism of the Department of Government Efficiency, and Opposition to the Department of Government Efficiency), and since there was no real consensus on any of them, I've relisted it to generate a more thorough consensus. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Neither "Criticism of ..." nor "Opposition to..." would be consistent with NPOV, since the article addresses support as well. (Admittedly, that section is only a small part of the current article. It needs to be improved per NPOV, since it's not currently in proportion to its coverage in RSs. But that's a matter of improving that content, not the article title.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Again, I require a more thorough consensus on which title is favored to close the request. I'm willing to concede that "Opposition to..." is generally unfavored, but there is still the "Criticism of..." suggestion, as with "Response to...". Jeffrey34555 (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it "unfavored." WP:RMCIDC notes that due consideration must be given to applicable policy. The article in question addresses both criticism and support. It's totally inconsistent with WP:NPOV to title it "Criticism of ..." or "Opposition to ...," so they have to be rejected. "Response to ..." was consistent with policy, and also had more support. Or you could have closed it as no consensus, though I do understand your desire to get consensus.
(FWIW, my view is also influenced by the fact that further down the page, another editor requested that everyone take the discussion over to the DOGE article talk page, as there were simultaneous discussions of moves for two different DOGE article spinoffs, where editors were discussing both naming and how the content should be split between them. But I wouldn't have expected you to know that.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested-move closed but handled differently

In this closure, the proposal was for "BioLogos" (capital 'el'). But when you filed the request for an admin to make the actual move, you asked for "Biologos" (lower-case 'el'). I wonder if there is a bug in the script you used to handle it? But regardless, when User:Pppery acted on it, they moved it contrary to the discussion. DMacks (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to request "BioLogos", not "Biologos". Sorry, that was my mistake for not catching it. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
And I should have caught that too. And also caught that I had participated in the discussion and hence shouldn't have used my admin rights to implement it. Anyway, now fixed. Sorry about that. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
No big deal. Thanks all for the prompt re-check and fixes. DMacks (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Moving pages

I appreciate your interest in helping with RM closes. However, please don't move pages with tons of subpages if you don't have the extendedmover user group. It creates a big mess that someone else has to fix. You can still make the RM close and request the move at WP:RMTR. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize I was doing that. I'll make sure to not do it again. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
You might want to consider requesting the pagemover right at WP:PERM. I haven't thoroughly vetted you, so no guarantees that you'll get it, but the two RM closes you dropped at RM/TR today were good. Toadspike [Talk] 10:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
As much as I would love to apply (it would make my job wayyy easier), I unfortunately haven't met the requirement of 3,000 edits yet. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
I think you should consider applying once you have met the requirements cookie monster 755 14:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Shaitan

Hi Jeffrey

Please could I make a polite request for you to reopen and relist the discussion at Talk:Shayatin for one more week? I opposed this request two years ago and unfortunately I missed it this time, but I disagree with the move. The name "Shaitin" remains more common for this than "Shayatin" as can be clearly seen in ngrams... and also per the Britannica article on the same topic. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for your message.
Unfortunately, there really is nothing I can do about it now, given that the move is complete and the redirect is made. You may want to reach out to the people who commented in the RM to talk to them, or you can post in the talk page about your opinion. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
As the person who performed the move, I am willing to revert the move (and I'm sure Amakuru is too) if you decide to reverse your close. Toadspike [Talk] 07:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
I really don't know. The RM was open for 2 weeks, so I believe enough time had passed for people to find this RM and make their arguments. I've already told @Amakuru to talk to the supporters of the move, and if they can change their minds, I am willing to reverse my close.
@Amakuru, please contact me again if you manage to convince them. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:RM/TR

I've completed all the other round-robins under your recently closed RM for "Lists/List of publications in". Although, I was halfway through it all and realized that you should've relisted it as 2 supports isn't really consensus. But, it's whatever. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 20:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Recent technical request

@Jeffrey34555: The links are being directed towards a red link for List of deaths in rock and roll. You are able to move it yourself, so please do so. Thanks, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 04:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Kai_the_Hitchhiker#Requested_move_19_February_2025

This was a contentious RM with no clear consensus for any one name, you completely ignored the editors who wanted to keep the current name. I am asking you to undo your move, and let an administrator handle it. If you won't do that I will seek a review of your action. -- GreenC 15:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for your message. I'll do my best to explain why I moved it to Kai the Hitchhiker as best as I could.
You claim that there were editors that wanted to keep the current name. As I'm scrolling through the RM, I'm only noticing you and @King of Hearts opposing the RM without proposing anything else. King of Hearts seems to be proposing "Kai the Hatchet-Wielding Hitchhiker" but I don't know for sure.
Nonetheless, the editors that wanted to keep it "Caleb Lawrence McGillvary" were drowned out by ~7 editors who wanted it to be moved to something else. There were 5 votes for "Kai the Hitchhiker" and 4 votes for "Kai McGillvary". However, given that most of those editors proposed both of them, I am assuming that they'll be fine with either title, and so I moved it to "Kai the Hitchhiker", which had the most support.
I still stand by this move, so I will not be reopening the RM unless consensus from the review says I have to. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
This was not WP:SNOW ("drowned out"). SNOW means there is a "snowballs chance in hell the proposal won't pass". For example, had you closed 'No Consensus', and someone re-started a new RM, with one of the Hitchhiker variants, would it have come out the same in support of Hitchhiker? I don't think so, because we would be having a different conversation about a real name vs. a meme name, different arguments and positions would have been made. Instead we had a debate over the merits of "Kai" which was obviously going to fail due to primary topic. The proposal was a non-starter and simply ignored by most everyone, other suggestions made, but there was no real debate over the merits of the Hitchhiker variant vs. the real name. It was a badly formed RM. It should have been NC with a suggestion to reopen with a realistic proposal. If there is consensus here, it is weak and will likely be challenged in the future, because there has yet to be debate over the real issue. -- GreenC 22:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
You're right that the proposal was weak to begin with, because "Kai" would have never made it to be the article's title per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That said, I don't see any reason why you couldn't debate about the alternative proposals that the editors brought up. It's there for everyone to see, so my view is that because not a lot of people voiced their opposition to the alts, they must (at least somewhat) agree with it. Heck, the RM was open for over a month when I closed it, and I didn't see anyone opposing it but you.
You are completely allowed to suggest alternative titles in the RM per @Necrothesp, like people are doing here and here. It a very common thing to do, and not at all prevented from Wikipedia policy. In fact, I would encourage it, because then there would be a title that most people agree with, and it saves time opening up another RM months later. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Did you see any evidence that "Kai the Hitchhiker" meets COMMONNAME? I brought this up saying ("Also the sources don't support the nom's statement: 'he is most popularly called Kai. Just Kai. Not the hatchet wielding hitchhiker. But just Kai, no one calls him Caleb Lawrence McGillvary'. Not true when you look at the sources.") Not a single person gave any sources to support commonname. In fact when I looked at the sources in the article, I saw the opposite, sources using his real name more commonly. The lack of argumentation, lack of evidence. Your methodology of vote counting, but it's the quality of argumentation and how the rules are applied. -- GreenC 01:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm taking a look at the sources in the article, and I'm finding very few that states his name as "Caleb Lawrence McGillvary", which you seem to support being the title. I'm seeing more and more of either "Kai the Hitchhiker" or "Kai the Hatchet-Wielding Hitchhiker" in the headlines, with "Caleb 'Kai' McGillvary", "Kai McGillvary", or "Kai Lawrence" in their body articles.
Also, now that I've read the sources, I don't know about your claim about the "quality of argumentation" either. Given that the sources (which you raised in your arguments as one of your main points) don't seem to indicate that "Caleb Lawrence McGillvary" is the COMMONNAME, it would be weakening your argument, not strengthening it.
Either way, if you still feel like I was wrong in this close, please take it to WP:MR, where more people can weigh in their opinions on this matter. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Well that wasn't what I saw. I need to decide if it's better to explain this complex issue to MR, or wait a while and reopen a new RM. Either way this should have been closed no consensus, and make someone justify, with evidence, why it should be changed to the name of the meme, contrary to previous RM consensus. -- GreenC 17:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Note that Caleb Lawrence McGillvary violates WP:COMMONNAME. If there is a common name, it most certainly isn't that. As far as I can see, nobody except you actually supported keeping it at his full name. Kai McGillvary (4 editors supporting) or Kai the Hitchhiker (also 4) were the most popular alternatives. Either would therefore have been an acceptable close. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
"it most certainly isn't that" - are you sure? I looked at the reliable sources in the article. I didn't check, for example, Reddit, Twitter and Facebook. Of course the meme is very popular, but the primary topic of the article is a person, not a meme. It used to be the meme, but a previous RM rightly changed the primary topic to the person, because events went far beyond the meme video. Right now the way it's titled, the primary topic is the meme and the whole article should be redone with that meme video as the focus, in the lead section and article, with maybe some small weighted portion about the person. But the sources don't support that, there is way too much about the person. and most sources about the person use his real name. -- GreenC 16:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Articles about people being charged with or tried for crimes very often refer to their full names. That doesn't make it the common name. Similarly, biographical dictionaries use full names, as do formal documents. That doesn't make it their common name either. I've seen arguments like this before. They are usually rejected. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Clear and unbiased edits.

Itacolomy (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Those edits you made were most definitely not unbiased, and were in violation of WP:NPOV. You can't just write controversial statements as if they were true, that not how Wikipedia works. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
You did not read my previous reply. I asked you to be specific, stating which principle of editing has been applied and focusing on the evidence. Itacolomy (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Your previous reply is blank, forgive me for not seeing it. I have already stated what I believe was wrong in your edits in the edit history page. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
I would like to understand why my three polls have been deleted. I want to emphasize that these were the only polls compatible with the previous electoral results. Evo Morales won in the first round with over 55% for 12 years, and Arce, as his appointed candidate, also achieved similar results. All the published polls appear to be dishonest. I have not imposed my views on others and have respected their editing contributions without deleting their work. I kindly ask that you respect mine as well Itacolomy (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
That wasn't me who deleted the polls, I believe that was @ElBarcobasurero. You may want to talk to that person if you want a reason. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Itacolomy (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Itacolomy (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but whatever you just sent me in the past 2 messages are all blank. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

New Congressmen

Hi. Sorry if I caused an edit conflict for you at "List of current United States representatives", I didn't see how recent your first edit was and decided to revert without realizing you might still be editing. Patronis and Fine have not been sworn in yet (at least AFAIK), so they shouldn't be added to the main table yet, hence my reverts. Have a nice day. 87.49.43.171 (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Bolivia

Hello! I am informing you that an account you have interacted with in 2025 Bolivian general election is under an SPI investigation. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dietricht. Borgenland (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Your move of Karkaṭa

I've just done your RMTR request for Kanyā to Kanya, but upon looking through the RM, I noticed you moved Karkaṭa to Karkatha, instead of Karkata, as is specified in the RM. Could I ask why you moved it to a different target page and used consensus in the RM as justification for such? Thanks in advance. EggRoll97 (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I misspelled it. I'll change it now. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

On relisting RMs

Please slow down on relisting RMs in the Elapsed section.

  1. There are a number of discussions which could have been closed instead of relisting despite what seems to be a low level of participation. Many RM discussions would attract only 2 or 3 comments even if they were opened for 14 days.
  2. On Talk:Aberfeldie#Requested_move_31_March_2025, it is a discussion with many articles to be moved. Not all have been moved yet. Your request at WP:RM/TR does not indicated which discussion are you referring to, nor it indicates which articles that you have not moved. Without either, the pagemovers and admins have to retrace your work in order to process the request(s). Your request might have been accidentally removed, so take the opportunity to refile the request.

– robertsky (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for your message. I'll be sure to note that before relisting more discussions. I'll also refile the request later, as I am currently busy with other things. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
@Jeffrey34555 I am happy to re-list it at RM for you. Thank you. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Move closure on Talk:Denali

No reasoning is completely unacceptable in this case, even if I agree with the close. Please write up an explanation promptly or vacate the close. Thanks! Feeglgeef (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Israeli invasion of Lebanon (2024–present)

Since I don't want to go through the lengthy ordeal of an MR, would you mind reopening the RM with a relist, per the reasoning at RMTR? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Done. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you! HarbingerOfFire (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Racism in (the State of) Palestine

You seem to have moved Racism in Palestine back to Racism in the State of PalestineRacism in the State of Palestine. This seems to be counter to the RM I very recently closed, now at Talk:Racism in the State of Palestine#Requested move 6 April 2025. Am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The multi-move at Economy of Palestine was malformed with the result that there was inadequate notification. Most of the articles you've moved were not notified of the discussion, despite there being previous requested move discussions of those pages. Articles whose titles have been previously discussed should not be moved without a new discussion. DrKay (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

OHO! So this latest move of Racism in (the State of) Palestine was a result of Jeffrey34555 closing a malformed RM at Talk:Economy of Palestine#Requested move 31 March 2025 as move (all), is that what you're saying?
That makes sense but it's a bit of a mess as a result. How to fix it? Move review is a possibility but I think this is a bit above its pay grade. Maybe a technical request for the out of process moves to be reversed? Andrewa (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
@DrKay and Andrewa: would've been great if this was pointed out in the discussion, the original proposer and I were wondering if the discussion should've been re-done. But thought it was just a clear-cut case of WP:CONSUB. Apologies if it should've been more critical of the malformed request. DankJae 11:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
I think this is important... Essays such as WP:CONSUB can be helpful (otherwise we would not have them!) and I am myself a regular contributor to them both in my user space and in the project namespace (see wp:creed for one of my favourites), but they do not override established procedures, guidelines etc.. Andrewa (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Hey there, I profusely apologize for anything that I may have done wrong. I was closing a move on Economy of Palestine and wrongfully thought it was a move request of all of those topics. If you wish for me to move all of them back I'll gladly do so. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to leave things as they are pending an explicit request to overturn, but in future more care should be taken over multi-moves. DrKay (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Your close at Aberdeen (company)

Will the real Aderdeen please stand up?

Hi! I see from the sections above that you've become very active working the requested moves beat. I operate the bot that supports RM, and have done extensive work on the RM-related templates as well. I long for the day when we have more experienced, competent administrators working at RM, and appreciate your stepping in to fill part of the void. Really, we need more experienced, competent gnomes working all over the project; unfortunately I can only work on one project queue at a time. Regarding Talk:Aberdeen (company)#Requested move 24 March 2025, before moving a page to a (parenthetically disambiguated title), you should check the dab page Aberdeen (disambiguation)#Companies to ensure that you are not moving to a title which should be an {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} redirect. WP:Primary topic says A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.

We need to evaluate potential primary topics from a worldwide view. That means that even in Waltham, Massachusetts and Chertsey, when people hear "the Aberdeen company" they think of the Scotland-based firm rather than the company in their own backyard. Unless someone specifically says, "the strategy and research firm". I think that's unlikely. The reason to keep Aberdeen Group isn't because it's the common name, but rather that the full official name makes for good natural disambiguation.

You can't just go by the editors requesting these moves. Often they have some affiliation with the company, and are inclined to think their company is the primary topic. Sometimes you just need to explain to them how the wiki works. I'm not gonna nag you to reopen the RM, though I wouldn't mind if you did. Just keep this guidance in mind when you evaluate other RMs for closing. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I didn't see anyone talk in the RM, but i'll reopen it for another week to see if anyone else has any input. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Hi Jeffrey34555, just to add to Wbm's thanks to yourself for stepping up to help with the long backlog at requested moves. I'd just add regarding your point "I didn't see anyone talk in the RM", it is a critical part of closing a discussion to critically evaluate the arguments and assess whether the move is correct or not, based on what was said in the discussion as well as the evidence you can see. In this case, it was clear that Aberdeen (company) is ambiguous, and even though nobody opposed in the RM, moving to that outcome shouldn't have occurred unless there was a clear consensus that the terms of WP:INCDAB primary topic were met. Cheers and all the best  — Amakuru (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Hi,
I was the requestor of this move, and as you will see I made the request on 24 March 2025.
The move request was open for several weeks, being relisted three times, twice by yourself (thanks for that). Then, following your most recent relist, two comments were made within the subsequent three-hour period, and then less than 24 hours later, the move request was closed. I hadn’t even seen any of this before the request was closed.
While I appreciate your administrative efforts, I don’t think this is reasonable. While there may not be any formal rules around what to do in this situation, if a move request has been open for over three weeks, particularly one with no comments, it doesn’t seem fair or reasonable that then two comments is followed up with a close all in the space of 24 hours. If as a community we could be so patient as to leave the move request open for several weeks, we can surely be patient enough to wait several days after such comments have been made to see if that represents the final view on the matter.
I at least want a chance to put the counter-argument to those now opposing the move (who didn’t do so for several weeks).
As you suggested you would do, could you reopen the request for another week? Kennethmac2000 (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Alright, I'll reopen it for another week. No more after that, though! Jeffrey34555 (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! Is it possible to re-add the banner to the top of the page highlighting that a move request is currently under discussion? Kennethmac2000 (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't know, you may want to ask someone else about that. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2025 Ecuadorian general election

On 17 April 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2025 Ecuadorian general election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 05:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Hyeseong Kim

Hi, thank you for acting as closer in this discussion.

Note that updating wikilinks is part of the closing responsibilities. As Kim Hye-seong is no longer a primary topic, it should be retargeted to the dabpage Kim Hye-song; and the incoming wikilinks updated to Kim Hye-seong (actor). See WP:POSTMOVE. 162 etc. (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, I'll do that when I get back home. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:
We do not disambiguate between two items, These woudl be better served by hat notes or navigation templates
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Jeffrey34555! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Page move

I agree that the participation was not much here[1] but the nominator failed to answer the question that was asked. This should be moved back to an earlier name and the nominator should be told that they have to actively answer the questions when they are making a request. Shankargb (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

BBC News (British TV channel)

Hi, thank you for acting as closer in this discussion. Note that updating wikilinks is part of the closing responsibilities. As BBC News (TV channel) was determined to be ambiguous, it should be retargeted to the dabpage BBC News (disambiguation); and the incoming wikilinks updated to BBC News (British TV channel). See WP:POSTMOVE. 162 etc. (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Sweetie Fox

Please follow WP:BRD and discuss your additions on the talk page instead of simply undoing others' reverts. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, I'm really not sure where you got the idea that partial names are inappropriate for encyclopedias. The reason you gave was that "Encyclopedias generally don't refer to people by their personal names" but that is just plain wrong. If you take a look at the list for YouTubers, you can find a bunch of articles with their personal names in them.
You also cited WP:TONE as a reason, but I read through the guideline and still couldn't find anything wrong. Nothing in the guideline says that partial names are forbidden. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
What's more, WP:BLPPRIVACY won't apply to her name anymore because she posted it on her official Instagram, which per WP:ABOUTSELF, is now completely fair game. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
I didn't say articles never contain personal names, just that using personal names alone to refer to a subject is not compatible with the formal, businesslike tone of an encyclopedia mentioned under WP:TONE. Wikipedia is not a fan club site, nor is its purpose to facilitate parasocial interactions with random celebrities. If there are reputable encyclopedias that refer to people primarily using their first name + last initial (not including stage names), then I haven't seen any. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
just that using personal names alone to refer to a subject is not compatible with the formal, businesslike tone of an encyclopedia mentioned under WP:TONE That isn't what happened, though. When I edited the article to include her personal name, it said "Daria K, better known online as Sweetie Fox", which obviously doesn't just include her personal name, but her better known online name. Also, I'm still not getting how WP:TONE applies to first name + last initial here. Her name isn't argot, slang, colloquialistic, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon, it's just her name. I'm trying to understand how you came to this conclusion, but it's just not making sense to me.
Wikipedia is not a fan club site, nor is its purpose to facilitate parasocial interactions with random celebrities. You linked "fan club site" to WP:FORUM, which doesn't apply here. Her name didn't come from my original research, it's literally in her official Instagram bio. I also have no idea what you thought to think that adding her name would "facilitate parasocial interactions", but adding a name does not do that. There are so many pornographic actresses with their full names on display on Wikipedia, so I really don't think it would make any difference. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
You didn't add her full name, though. You added her first name and last initial, which is not formal or businesslike writing as required by WP:TONE and which you choose to keep ignoring. Our biography of Meat Loaf doesn't begin, Mike A., better known as Meat Loaf. Show me a single professional secondary or tertiary source that uses a style similar to that. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
How am I ignoring WP:TONE? I've already made my argument on why I think WP:TONE does not apply to first name + last initial, but you haven't explained to me why you think first name + last inital is not "formal or businesslike". Also, your Meat Loaf argument holds no water here, because unlike Sweetie Fox, we know his full name. As far as I know, we only know Sweetie Fox's first name and last initial (using reliable sources, of course), Daria K.
However, since you asked, I'll give you an example, though it's actually first inital + last name: E. Polwhele. If you scroll down the references section, you will see that there is a source by Judith Milhous titled "Polewheele, E.", published by Oxford University Press. Given that Oxford University Press is part of the University of Oxford, I'd reckon that this source is reliable and professional.
There you have it, a professional and reliable source that uses a similar naming style to Daria K. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
The WP:ONUS is on you to justify your addition. Calling people by their first names is obviously informal (as in being on a "first-name basis" with someone), unlike referring to people by last name, sometimes with the addition of first initial(s). It's also incompatible with MoS for subsequent mentions of a person's name, for which we customarily use their last name. A single letter of the alphabet does not work here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
You're ignoring the main point I made in my last post, which is that I literally gave you a reliable and professional source with a similar naming style to Daria K. This is starting to make me think that you're not WP:LISTENING to my points, and are just ignoring it because it weakens your argument.
It's also incompatible with MoS for subsequent mentions of a person's name There was never any other mention of Daria K. after the first sentence of the article. We always use the name that the person is better known for, which is Sweetie Fox. Your 3rd attempted argument also doesn't work here. (Even Meat Loaf doesn't do that...)
Since we're clearly at an impasse, I've requested a third opinion over at WP:3 to hopefully resolve this issue. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
You did not provide a source with a similar naming style. Last name + first initial is the exact opposite of the style in question, as I indicated above: Calling people by their first names is obviously informal (as in being on a "first-name basis" with someone), unlike referring to people by last name, sometimes with the addition of first initial(s). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi all, providing a 3O. The semantic argument is a straw-man, I think. In my opinion, citations with first initial + last name are not similar to referring to an individual by first name + last initial. Listing names with just the first initial save space (yes, I was one of those people who typed up the cards in card catalogs) and avoided familiarity where there should be some professional distance.
Second, looking at a handful of character names, stage names, and pseudonyms at Wikipedia, the character/persona is not treated the same as the legal name. There might be a mention lower in the article if the identity has been discovered or revealed (see The Stig). Or the creator/actor of the character is named (see Mr. Bean or Pee-wee Herman). The character is not the person (nor vice versa). Stage names in the lede are followed by 'born ___', with the full legal name. This is a fully-fleshed relevant detail. (See Cher or John Wayne or Axl Rose.)
I'm not sure the source of the partial name. Was it a social media post by someone who is already using a fake name? Not sure if that would be considered a reliable self-published source. Who's to say that this isn't another pseudonym? If there was a reliable source for the legal name, then (in my opinion) the legal name should be used for consistency. Using a first same seems too familiar, and unprofessional. But that would also raise the question, for a living person, would this be relevant information for an encyclopedia, or a form of doxxing?
If there aren't multiple sources using the legal name for the purpose of clarity, then I think the use is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I think there is some difficulty created when real names are used for the screen personae. Think Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh who had personalities attuned for the audiences and advertisers. The personae said and did things that were firing for effect. If Sweetie Fox is a persona or character, then the artice might reflect that, and perhaps not treat it as the same as the real individual. John Holmes is the subject of an article for one notable occupation as an actor in porography. Numerous character names are listed. Cassandra Petersen has an article listing many jobs, one of which is the character Elvira. Yet, there isn't an article for the character Elvira. These different treatments of characters and actors, the full name was provided.
In summary, only a full name should be used, but only if it is written about by multiple reliable secondary sources AND does not appear to be a source for gossip or harrassment.
Hope this helps. Just Al (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Listing names with just the first initial save[d] space [...] and avoided familiarity where there should be some professional distance.
Who's to say that this isn't another pseudonym? [...] Using a first same seems too familiar, and unprofessional.
If there aren't multiple sources using the legal name for the purpose of clarity, then I think the use is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
This sums up my complaint well, thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Alright, since there seems to be consensus not to include the name, I'll back off from it. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Although, would including just the first name be fine? I know QTCinderella and Dream both only list their first names in the article, and there are multiple sources in Sweetie Fox that include it as her first name. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Did you not read what Just Al and I just wrote? Using a subject's first name in an article is unprofessional and too familiar. That goes for other biographies as well, with the exception of people like Cher who use some version of their personal names professionally. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Alright, no need for aggression. I'll drop it. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Easternsahara (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Trump Card page move

Hello! Regarding your closure at Talk:Trump Card (game show)#Requested move 16 May 2025, the old page name Trump Card now redirects to Trump Card (game show) but by my reading, there was consensus that Trump Card should redirect to the disambiguation page Trump card. Do you read it that way, and if so, would you be willing to make that change, and perhaps amend the closure statement either way to reflect your assessment? Thanks for considering, and for your work closing these discussions. Cheers! --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, I completely forgot. I'll make the change right now. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! It’s not clear to me if there was strong consensus to have the DAB page capitalized (Card). I’m fine with the now-current situation and will let another editor open a new discussion if they think an additional change is warranted. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Move of 13th Street

Hi Jeffrey34555, I see you closed the RM at Talk:13th Street (disambiguation) and used Page Swap to execute the round robin move. However, this resulted in 13th Street (disambiguation) redirecting to 13th Street (TV channel). The next step required was to retarget this back to the disambiguation page at 13th Street. Please be careful when doing round robin moves, especially when the page being swapped redirects to a different page- I avoid using page swap in those situations for this reason, and make each move individually using suppress-redirect as required. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Relist UMG Nashville operations page move.

Hello, @Jeffrey34555:. Could you please relist the discussion regarding the page name from UMG Nashville to the Music Corporation of America (see Talk:Universal Music Group Nashville#Requested move 25 April 2025), we need more participants to discuss this page move. The discussion has already taken place a month ago (same day as UMG Nashville rebrand), but until now the discussion isn't getting relisted. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

May 2025

Information icon Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Sweetie Fox.

This is becoming disruptive. You requested a third opinion about the subject's name but then just went ahead and added it anyway, after specifically acknowledging consensus not to include the name. Additionally, the text you added saying it is unknown whether that is her true name is pure original research. Please stop. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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:

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.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Crossover SUV

Re Talk:Crossover SUV, it is customary to keep an RM open for a full week. I'm not requesting to reopen it; just saying that's customary. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, the RM had been open since May 15, which was two weeks ago. After relisting the RM following a week, the length of time requirement no longer applies. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. Sorry. I was confused. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Lionsgate

Hello. You recently relisted Talk:Lionsgate Studios § Requested move 20 May 2025. I won't make a big fuss over it, but in the future, please be aware that per WP:RMCIDC: No minimum participation is required for requested moves. If no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy. Hence, this RM should have been summarily moved as there was no objection after the standard seven-day period. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand your view, but I perfer to let it sit for at least 2 weeks (1 relist) before I move it via WP:RMCIDC. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Why was Heinkel He 57 moved?

This was previously contested at WP:RM/TR and nobody except the nominator voted in support of the move at the RM. Please revert the move, ngrams are clear that the form "He" is more common.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll revert the move, but please remember that I will close any move as WP:RMNOMIN if there hasn't been any discussion on it for 2 weeks. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert. But on a point of order, why would you "close any move" in such a fashion? Per WP:RMCIDC, your job as a closer is to assess the discussion and weigh it accordingly. "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions". If there is no support for the move and the proposed title doesn't meet WP:AT, then it should be closed as "not moved" or "no consensus". In this case, I had clearly challenged the move at WP:RMTR, and the proposed title doesn't meet WP:COMMONNAME at all. Anyway, thanks again for reopening and wishing you a good weekend.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see that you challenged the move at WP:RMTR, and there was no indication on the RM that it was a contested technical move. I had absolutely zero idea that anyone even knew about the move but me and the proposer, and so closed it as "moved". Jeffrey34555 (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
No worries, that's the problem with RM/TR I suppose, there's no link between discussions there and subsequent RMs, unless someone specifically clicks the "discuss" button from that page. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

You can change

U can Change Governors, Lieutenant Governors, Administrators , Deputy Chief Minister, Leader of Opposition, Speaker & Chairman of Legislature like Chief Minister articles. @Jeffrey34555 லடாக்மாநிலம் (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to. If you can bring up some articles, that'll be great. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Check List of current Indian governors, List of current Indian lieutenant governors and administrators, List of current Indian deputy chief ministers, List of current Indian opposition leaders,Category:Lists of legislative speakers in India லடாக்மாநிலம் (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately, those were not discussed in an RM, so I can't move those. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Request

Hi @Jeffrey34555:! I saw that you can move pages after discussion. Can you please move Iqbal to Iqbal (disambiguation) and make Iqbal a redirect to Muhammad Iqbal as per much of the consensus at Talk:Iqbal, 6 votes in favor, 2 leaning towards oppose and 1 full oppose. It's been a long time since the discussion started and as per the majority in favour, it's a request if you could perform the move! IqbalianThought (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Closure of Requested Move at Officer South

Hello Jeffrey. Recently you closed an RM discussion at Talk:Officer South. I would request you revisit this close and undo the changes. I noticed there was only one editor who expressed support in the discussion and the nominator did not notify you that there is currently an open RFC to establish appropriate consensus on a naming convenyion at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board# RfC: The convention for naming Australian place articles. I know you may not have been aware of this thread, but it indicates that it was contentious and non-admin close is inappropriate per WP:BADNAC. Thanks! Dfadden (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted the moves. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! Dfadden (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

About Kurmanji move request

Hi Jeffrey34555. As for the Kurmanji article, I requested to move the article to Northern Kurdish. I included all the necessary information and sources that support this change. However, no one has responded to the request, except for one user who, unfortunately, doesn't seem to have a deep understanding of the subject. What should I do now?  Zemen  (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, your best bet is to ask an administrator to look at the RM, as the move is currently move protected. Even if I did want to move it, I would have to submit a technical request for an admin to look at it. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

King Roger

You moved King Roger. Will you kindly clean up after that move which leaves articles going to a dab page? Would you please do that before the move next time? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I helped by fixing Template:Karol Szymanowski, which brought the count down to close to 100. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeffrey34555/Archive_1&oldid=1299237508"