User talk:BarrelProof

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BarrelProof.

Archives

Archive 1 (2010–12) Archive 2 (2012–13) Archive 3 (2014) Archive 4 (2014–15) Archive 5 (2016) Archive 6 (2017) Archive 7 (2018) Archive 8 (2019) Archive 9 (2020) Archive 10 (2021) Archive 11 (2022)

Happy New Year!

BarrelProof,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Pritzker has two new roles that should be included in his article. I've put up an edit request that is still pending. Your edits on the page, specifically in 2017 were constructive and helpful; I'd be grateful for your involvement again. Thanks for facilitating these changes and improvements. DCBPI (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look and reviewing the request. In response to your questions, I revised the suggested language and included quotes from the paywalled sources for your convenience. I appreciate your help with this. Thanks again, — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCBPI (talk • contribs) 16:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BarrelProof. I wanted to check in and see if you might be able to revisit my pending edit request and consider implementing the changes. Based on your previous feedback, I've highlighted the relevant texts from paywalled sources for convenience and clarity. I also explained some of the organizational details that might have been unclear. I appreciate your time and attention to this matter. With thanks DCBPI (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BarrelProof, I would like to know your reason for the removal of the Urban Music Awards from the category Awards and Nominations from the page Flo. Silencedoc (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was a bad edit. Sorry about that. I must have edited an old version of the article. The only thing I meant to do was comment out the hatnote, since AFAICT the article title Flo (group) is not ambiguous. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please will you remove or strike your "I dislike being told what to do." comment. Your every post on that page was telling others what to do, in this case, telling a former admin (retired) who has been editing here for nearly 16 years and with multiple featured articles under their belt what process you think they should have followed. -- Colin°^Talk 21:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I have told anyone what to do in that discussion, and I take umbrage at the last sentence of the other editor's remarks that I believe was directly trying to tell me what to do (and was telling me to stop saying what I was saying). I dislike being given orders. I was not aware of the experience level of the person I was talking to, or of the extent of their prior involvement in the matter under discussion, but I'm not convinced I should retract that remark.

If you can show me (e.g. by a quote) where I was telling anyone what to do in that conversation, I would appreciate learning what you are interpreting that way.

—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The way to make people aware that the renaming of an article is being considered is to use the WP:RM process. That process was not followed". You are telling Graham what he did not do and in your opinion should have done. Your use of "the way" only permits one way. It isn't true. An article talk page posting is the primary way to alert editors of a proposed name change. And a wiki project post is another, such as the one made to WP:MED. Indeed, nearly 40 article talk pages were posted to informing them of discussions. Many name changes (most probably) occur without any RM posting. The name change is not controversial in the real world. It isn't like any publication said "Oh, I think we'll stick with the old name, thank you very much, we like stigmatising African people." -- Colin°^Talk 18:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That comment was not telling anyone in particular what to do; it was not directed at any particular person and was primarily discussing the past, not the future. It was also not phrased as a command. You also omitted the second half of the second sentence, which explains why that statement was made. The full second sentence was "That process was not followed, so those who have a general interest in the naming of Wikpedia articles would not be aware that such a discussion was taking place." That is simply a statement of fact and consequence, not a command. (There were also additional sentences before and after those two that provided additional context.) That is a very different tone from "If you think X, do Y instead of [negative characterization of that specific person's behavior]. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also not fond of the apparent suggestion that those who use the term "monkeypox" must be doing so because they "like stigmatising African people". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of things you aren't fond of others doing, yet defend your own post's shortcomings in, em, creative ways. I'm afraid that RM notice is just evidence that this is a bunch of editors I never want any where near a naming discussion. -- Colin°^Talk 09:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment about my creativity, although I really haven't thought of it that way. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for noticing I failed to put my signature on that talk page. I'd guess I've been using the new way to communicate which does not need the ~ to add signatures for a long time, I must have forgotten to add them while giving my view yesterday. I should pay more attention when using talk pages through either the inline form or the classic legacy experience (i.e. editing the same way as normal articles). Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BarrelProof, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around — ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 21:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Talk:Zelle (financial service) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 4 § Talk:Zelle (financial service) until a consensus is reached. Bsherr (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good day BarrelProof. I am having a bit of trouble following your comment here. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a comment about the current target of the Nilkanth redirect, in case someone wonders what you are proposing to replace. WP:DABMENTION says we should generally not include a topic on a disambiguation page (or presumably as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT) if the topic is not mentioned in the target article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BarrelProof, I've got one more ongoing move discussion that's encountered some resistance. Would love to read your input on it. Cheers! Woko Sapien (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for a Move review of List of spaghetti Westerns. Because you were involved in the discussion, you might want to participate in the move review. --В²C ☎ 04:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BarrelProof. I noticed your RM a bit too late, but you said something interesting that I figured I should chime in on. You replied to someone with, Interesting comment that "all the House can do is vote for a speaker or adjourn" (if that is true, this article should say that, but it doesn't). There is an unfortunate pattern to the various Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election article. They tend to have material copied from the prior vote, with or without attribution. You can see this easily by looking at the version of the January article three months out and comparing it to the current version of the 2021 article. This means that only the content that has been needed overall is generally moved to the upcoming article. The only reason this matters is because up until the January 2021 article, there was never a need to specifically mention that the House cannot do anything other than vote for a new Speaker or vote to adjourn because modern elections had the Speaker elected on the first vote. Currently, the January 2021 article does have this line in it due how long that vote went for; If no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast for a person by name, then the roll call is repeated until a speaker is elected with a citation from the Congressional Research Service.

In any case, it should be added to the article, though it should also be made clear that voting to adjourn is also valid for the House. (In fact, the House has adjourned until next Tuesday.) Right now though, most of sources I can dig up besides the CRS refer to how the January 2021 election worked. The New York Times has relevant information, but is presented as for only "a newly elected House." Politico might work, but it doesn't specifically word it that there are only two voting options until a Speaker is elected, just heavily implied. CRS might be enough to work, but it is easier to do it with a regular source. In any case, my rambling aside, I hope that this was helpful in some form. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment and information. When I made that remark, I was hoping someone would notice it and it would result in improvement of the article. I think it might also be good to cite the article I referenced that says it is not an entirely settled matter. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might also be good to cite the article I referenced that says it is not an entirely settled matter. And it was a good idea I made this as I somehow forgot about that part of things in all of this. Thank you for the reminder. (Also sorry for not fixing the article sooner. Figured I would try to head to bed soon after I typed that up.) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BarrelProof

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Significa liberdade, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Intensive Care (film), for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Significa liberdade}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Significa liberdade (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of this was continued at User talk:Significa liberdade § Intensive Care (film). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Whisky Advocate requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.insidehook.com/drinks/whisky-advocate-best-whiskies-2021. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: I only created that as a simple redirect (see this). Any copyright problem was apparently just introduced by Lorirosen today, just 10 minutes before you flagged it. I suggest also checking Marvin Shanken, Cigar Aficionado and Wine Spectator, since those were also just edited by the same person (and Blacksocks was edited by that editor in 2009 and then by a similarly named editor in 2012). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info S Philbrick(Talk) 00:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Nick Turani requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Phuzion (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Phuzion: I only created that as a redirect, not as an article. See this, which is the version I created. Rather than deleting it, I suggest just converting it back into a redirect, since he is mentioned at the target page about Barstool Sports. Some of the recently added content appears to be vandalism / test editing. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, BarrelProof, how are you? You created Bloodhorse a while ago. We now have a page on that topic at Hot-blooded horse. I'm always hazy about the best way to configure dab pages, but my guess is that your dab should be moved to Bloodhorse (disambiguation) and the short title redirected to the principal topic (which should then have a suitable hatnote). Does that sound right to you? I'll do that soon – unless it's wrong or you do it first! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Web search results are dominated by the publication. I don't know of a way to determine whether hot-blooded horse is the primary meaning of "bloodhorse". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you restore your only stable edition and remove Funimation from the infobox brand, which is not listed here because it is the parent company that has been renamed from Funimation Global Group to Crunchyroll LLC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crunchyroll_LLC&oldid=1189096970 200.88.217.75 (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the mention/ping at Talk:Samuel Ashe (North Carolina governor). I think the crux of the matter is that there are several different opinions about how titles for articles about politicians should be disambiguated. The rule of thumb I have went by is what I stated in that discussion, but obviously opinions on the matter seem to be different. What I'm getting at here is I think the bigger issue here is that the process for titling such disambuguators is not streamlined when it probably should be. Maybe a new policy titled Wikipedia:Naming conventions (politicians) needs to be created so we all can be on the same page ... but it's nothing that I am up for proposing or writing myself. Steel1943 (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @BarrelProof, I just wanted to give you a heads up that I closed your requested move for California High School (San Ramon, California) as not moved. Just wanted to give you a heads up since you made the request awhile back. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @BarrelProof, I'm back again and just wanted to let you know that I moved all the articles from the discussion at Al Mushayrifah (31°30′0″N 35°52′0″E). If there are any problems or if I made a mistake please just ping me and let me know. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Lost (2021 TV series has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 3 § Lost (2021 TV series until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was obviously a typo, and I supported its deletion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to Bianca Censori. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: I didn't generally "change the format of dates" in the article. The article contained two dates. One of them was improperly formatted per MOS:BADDATE, so I changed that one to match the style of the other one. If you prefer a non-US date format for the article about this person who appears to live in the United States and is married to a famous American and is featured on an American album cover, that's fine. I don't have a strong opinion about that. However, I suggest to not template the regulars. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies I started the article and I am in the Uk and the subject is an Australian. Thank you for your improvements to the article, much appreciated. Theroadislong (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, mate. The Australian date format is fine with me. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BarrelProof, my comment on Talk:USS Liberty incident was reverted due to arbpia, but to answer your question, I used the online references below.

MW: incident (n) 2 - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incident

OED: incident (n) 1.b - https://www.oed.com/dictionary/incident_n?tab=meaning_and_use#783228

UpsilonWay (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the filming, "The film was entirely shot using Arri Alexa LF digital cameras...". That usually translates as creating a digital film. HenryRoan (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bit of a problem with the phrase "to transfer the digital film onto the IMAX 70mm film format". It seems like confused (or confusing) terminology. The Arri Alexa does not record its images on "digital film"; in fact it does not use film at all, whether digital or otherwise – the images are stored on hard drives, not film. The artistic product can be called a film, of course, but I think it is better to replace "digital film" in that phrase with something else, like "footage", or to rephrase it to clarify the phrasing so it refers to the film as the creative product. I note that the "digital film" link that you used is a redirect, not an article title. There is no topic called "digital film". The article that digital film links to (i.e., Digital cinematography) does not use the phrase "digital film" as a noun except to refer to the completed creative product that is displayed in a theater. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may already know that Villeneuve and his friend Christopher Nolan are in complete disagreement on this issue. While Christopher Nolan is dedicated to using chemical film is all his movies, DV has gone in the other direction of being fully open to using digital photography from start to finish in the filmmaking process. What you say in your description is all correct; what DV and Christopher Nolan have done is to recognize the interchangeable use of the language of digital photography and the language of chemical photography even if it is imprecise in the details when interchanged. In Dune 2, the production process was to create a digital master copy using Arri Alexa, and then to eventually use this to create a derivative 70mm Imax format film for convenience of cinema distribution upon release. Its true that DV starts his filming with a digital recording and that Christopher Nolan starts his filming with a chemical film recording, so when the two of them speak about a 'digital film' in this context they generally know exactly what they are referring to. I think that is similar to your point as well if the interchangeability of terms as used in the cinematic arts is accepted. HenryRoan (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the cited source is using the phrase "make a film transfer" (in which 'transfer' is a noun) rather than what the Wikipedia article said, i.e. "transfer the film" (in which 'transfer' is a verb). I think the difference could be significant, and is another matter of jargon. I just edited the phrasing again. Also, I note that IMAX 70 mm film is not equivalent to ordinary 70 mm film. If I understand correctly, IMAX 70 mm film has about 3× as much imaging area per frame as conventional 70 mm film. It feeds through the projector horizontally rather than vertically, and at 3× the linear speed (if the frame rate is the same). I also wonder about the aspect ratio. Isn't the aspect ratio different for an IMAX theater screen than for a conventional theater? That could have a significant impact on the creative authoring. Maybe they just use letterboxing for a film like this one that's not primarily intended for IMAX theaters. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did some nice edits on the Dune 2 article for this. The aspect ratio debate probable goes all the way back to Cinemascope from the 1950s and 1960s which went to a 2.55:1 ratio. Most of the Imax aspect ratios are under 2:1 as I recall. It is still probably too early to tell what the effects of using 2022 Alexa 35 cameras or 2020 Blackmagic URSA Mini Pro 12K cameras will be on the future of which direction preferred aspect ratios go from here. Imax is very popular with many audiences these days and many people are pleased to pay the extra prices to see this format. Nice going on your Dune 2 article edits. HenryRoan (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I may not always get it right, but I'm trying! It was good to have some dialog with someone who has an appreciation for the subject. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films) § Proposed allowance of PDABs for films. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon,

I am reaching out in reference to the conversation on Talk:Virginia Housing Development Authority about Virginia Housing's rebrand. In that conversation, you said the following:

"Press articles announcing the official change of name shouldn't count. What would count is independent reliable sources using the new name and not mentioning the old one."

The Virginia Secretary of Commerce and Trade's .gov website lists the agency as "Virginia Housing" with NO mention of the old name whatsoever: https://www.commerce.virginia.gov/agencies/

I am new to Wikipedia and saw that the discussion on Talk:Virginia Housing Development Authority is now closed and that you were the last user to comment, which is why I'm reaching out to you directly.

Thank you —Joshuabriere (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the word "independent" in my comment (see WP:IRS). A government website would not be considered independent of a government agency. A magazine or newspaper would be considered independent, but not the government itself. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Please review the following articles from independent, reliable publications that use the new name and do not mention the old one:

https://commercialobserver.com/2024/03/virginia-housing-freddie-mac-provide-67m-build-affordable-housing-complex/

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2024/03/19/virginia-housing-tammy-neale-ceo.html

— Joshuabriere (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are probably sufficient. I was not able to see the full article for the second one because of the publication's paywall, but the headline looks good. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great, there are also these...

Local news

Local news 2

VA Business

Inside NOVA

Local news 3

As I mentioned earlier, I am new to Wikipedia editing so what are the next steps for updating the title?

Thanks — Joshuabriere (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those seem like they are probably closely based on press releases, and the "VA Business" one mentions the former name (although not very prominently). But overall I think they are adequate evidence. I think this could be processed as an uncontroversial follow-up via WP:RMTR. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, BarrelProof. A couple months ago, when I resigned as an admin, I said something about Wikipedia making me less nice. Since then, I've tried to have a generally nicer editing style. The need to sometimes revert edits stands in fundamental tension with that, but I try my best to, well, at least not come off as a jerk when I revert people.

Today and yesterday haven't been great days for me. A friend died and everything's a bit numb. I worry that that's leading to me being less thoughtful in my tone—still above the painfully low bar of "civility", but falling short of my desire to be someone who's pleasant to edit alongside even in disagreement. I wouldn't want you to think that I don't appreciate you as an editor, or that I assume anything less than full good faith of you. I appreciate your work and look forward to working with you further. Sometimes it's just hard to remember to suffuse edit summaries and comments with that sentiment of collegiality, when there's other things on one's mind. I'll try to course-correct from here, but if I do seem curt in any interactions, please just know it's nothing about you.

Happy editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Thank you very much for your thoughtful and kind comment. I have not been offended by your edits or comments, although I wondered whether you might not be understanding the constructive nature of my intent. I knew that my edits of today could be sensitive, and it was not really a surprise to see the revert. I have followed up on the Talk page. I hope your upcoming days are better than the recent ones. I am sorry to hear of your resignation as an admin. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Democratic Labour Party (historical) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 17 § Democratic Labour Party (historical) until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your editing at Bourbon. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we did well in resolving that dispute. And then you really improved the article. Cheers! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on this issue is requested

You have been tagged to this conversation because you may have previously participated in similar discussions and there has been a notable development. Please consider sharing your views.
𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 06:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BarrelProof. I've noticed you around and I also noticed that, in the last few months, you're one of the more active page movers without the perm (based on a quarry query I run). I see you're also quite active at WP:RM/TR based on having made over 1,100 edits there. I think the perm could be useful to you and I believe you're competent and capable enough to make good use of it. Would you be interested if I offered it to you? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thinking of this. Yes, I think that might come in handy, although I have not really been craving it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If perms may come in handy for competent users then I'm all for handing them out :) Hey man im josh (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to this. – robertsky (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BarrelProof. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ELMAYBE, external links do not need to be reliable - a big example of this is IMDB: WP:IMDB-EL. – 2804:F1...97:BFAC (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer to that. I'll think about it and look back at my recent edits. Feel free to revert some of my edits based on that if you think they were not appropriate. I think all related edits would have been within about the last 12 hours and there were about 6 of them, all of which (or at least most of which) should be apparent from edit summaries. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BarrelProof, I'm not trying to extend the discussion of moving the article. I can see why it probably won't be accepted. I kept on saying that it's best for it to not be accepted with no consequences, than to move it, have it reverted back, and get into trouble. 45BearsFan (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. You can withdraw your request if you are willing to do that, but you are under no obligation to do that. I would not take action to close the discussion myself unless you do that, since I have already expressed an opinion in the discussion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You spend a good chunk of time at MOS pages and have digested them pretty thoroughly, from what I've noticed. I can't tell exactly what side of this debate you are on. If you think my reading of the MOS guidance is out to lunch, I really need to know. That part of MOSBIO and JOBTITLES has always seemed so clear to me, and I can't recall anyone ever before having had this other take on it, which is close to the opposite of how I interpret it. Again, I'm not looking for support of my position, just of my grasp on reality. Primergrey (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agreeing with you. As I said, "I'm pro-caps on this one". I'm not an expert on this, and I think rephrasing to avoid the issue might be the right approach, but I'm agreeing with you. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think buddy and I are talking past each other? I can't tell if we're reading the guidance differently, or if he thinks it simply shouldn't be implemented like it normally is. Primergrey (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it just seems undesirable to the other editor and they think maybe the guidance is misguided or misinterpreted or should be modified/clarified in a different direction. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from just interpretation issues, I think it is also being asserted that common practice in sources differs from what the MoS appears to otherwise suggest in this case. There's often a struggle when sources appear to be differing from (other) MoS guidance. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July regarding a requested move in which you participated. The thread is Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_July#Srebrenica_massacre. Thank you. 122141510 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for assisting with satisfying the additional requirements to complete the move review properly. I was doing things out of order and then pulled aside, when I returned to finish you'd already taken care of them. Cheers. 122141510 (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't perceive any real problem with the ordering of steps. I was just feeling energetic at the moment and wanted to help make sure the Talk page included all the appropriate info. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would you like to know how you have evaluated my points in the closing of the move request to Srebrenica Genocide. I made a point that the term massacre is controversial because it is both used by objective sources and by sources which deny the genocide by accepting that killings took place, but denying that genocide happened. There was a discussion about this controversy [1] and majority of participants agreed that the term is controversial when used in the context to deny the genocide. I'm interested how you have evaluated that a term which is controversial is a better name for the article? Thank you. Trimpops2 (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I was not the one who closed that RM. I don't think I fully understand your remarks. Wikipedia article title policies and guidelines do not involve evaluating whether a term is controversial or not, as far as I know. I think there is some difficulty in communication here. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I though it was you who closed it. Trimpops2 (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previously on the talk page you mentioned the editor in question was not violating 3RR, but they're not stopping their editwarring, either [2]. This editor will occasionally ignore the project standard to participate in consensus building conversations to edit articles, and is now having the audacity to edit articles with stated rationale that has already been proven incorrect. I understand that for uninvolved editors or those less familiar that reading through ICTY judgements is not the easiest thing in the world, but if nothing else, when the editor continues to insist that a rationale to edit is 'dreadful English' even after I've taken the time to link him the relevant article and explain to him the syntax/grammar concerns as he is asserting is simply incorrect [3], he continues to assert it as rationale to edit. If this was a new member I'd cut them the benefit of the doubt here, but for an editor with the history and level of participation, I can't see what he's doing as anything other than trolling.

IMO it should be considered mostly discretely from any past conflict, as any developing group should anticipate such conflict, but this is at least the third instance in which they are continuing to prefer to be combative with editors than to work with other editors. I'd actually rather it doesn't just automatically escalate to ANI, because that would feed into a mindset that they don't need to work to build consensus with any one other editor, but can selectively participate or ignore conversations where they're unsuccessful in wearing down others to get the result they want, which is in effect what they did with me in a conversation regarding another section of the article (which itself already followed extended conflict on the move request). 122141510 (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The recent article edit history does look like edit warring at first glance. But I don't think I have time to study it closely. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am curious, how you did you come across Joanna of Austria (1573-1630)? I de-orphaned it recently, but that may be a coincidence. TSventon (talk) 08:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: I was looking for date ranges in titles that have hyphens in them instead of dashes, trying to change them to better titles. If you look at WP:RMCD, and search for my username, you'll find a bunch of them. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious if you have some kind of script to find bio articles disambiguated by date, but I guess not. I am glad to have more eyes on the article, anyway. TSventon (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using Jarry1250's tool, which searches for regular expressions in article titles. Here is a link that finds all article titles that have a date range with a hyphen in it that starts in the 15th century: https://grep.toolforge.org/index.php?lang=en&project=wikipedia&namespace=0&pattern=14%5B0-9%5D%5B0-9%5D- (6 articles). And here is one for similar date ranges that use a dash: https://grep.toolforge.org/index.php?lang=en&project=wikipedia&namespace=0&pattern=14%5B0-9%5D%5B0-9%5D– (about 200 articles). It finds some false positives (things that look like date ranges but aren't really), but not many. I have focused on the ones with hyphens, because the Wikipedia MOS:DATERANGE convention says not to use hyphens. I started looking for recent hyphenated date ranges, but I have eliminated virtually all of them covering the last 500 years at this point. (The remainders all have open RM discussions.) Going back one century at a time, each century has fewer, so the numbers are getting pretty small now. I have previously used the tool for other things like Category:Articles titled with a question and Category:Articles with quotation marks in the title. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be harmful and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated harm may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Please note that user generated content such as from other wikis or from online polls is not allowed WP:UGC. This includes user generated scores from sites such as Rotten Tomatoes Metacritic and WP:IMDB. Please do not add them to Wikipedia articles again.[4] -- 109.79.171.34 (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting, although it was a good-faith edit and characterizing it as unconstructive seems dubious. See also WP:Don't template the regulars. WP:IMDB is not about Metacritic, and in fact WP:RSPSS has a green row for Metacritic. Note that MOS:TVRECEPTION (which you referred to in your revert edit summary) says "Review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for data pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews". While user-generated reviews would not be considered reliable, I thought that aggregated polling results would be acceptable, but I don't plan to edit war over it. Is there something else in WP:TVRECEPTION that you think is relevant here? (It's a bit lengthy and I only skimmed it when replying to this.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Generally, I don't like to include the user-generated scores from anywhere - IMDB, Metacritic, RottenTomatoes in part because they are largely fed by either fans or haters of shows and are easily manipulated. If the only source for a user generated rating is IMDB/Metacritic/RT, I would 100% leave it out. If a secondary sources calls out the score and highlights something unusual about it, that's worth a second glance to see if it should be included with the full context - show XYZ was review-bombed and the user rating on DEF went from 9.5 to 2.3 in a month. That's notable and worth mentioning. Ravensfire (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a reasonable perspective to me. I don't remember why I made that edit six months ago. Maybe it was just because I noticed that the audience rating was so different from the critic rating. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @109.79.171.34: I see that you said similar things to other editors, such as RGCanimation, Ariadne000, and Huxly, but they have not yet replied to your comments. (Those comments were all made today.) Since you are an IP editor, I wonder if you have also made edits from other IP addresses that said similar things. B