User talk:BarrelProof/Archive 12

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

@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)

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

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)

@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)

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)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)

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)

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)

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)