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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

(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. By the way, you're supposed to "safesubst:" the {{uw2}} template; see the instruction for that template. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, this is RGCanimation. @109.79.171.34 has indeed reverted one of my edits, and yeah, it was my fault, I didn't read that part of the guidelines and I shouldn't have added user RT or IMDb scores. I always found it weird how other movie articles didn't include user scores, since I guess I've always trusted the scores of the average audience more than big critics articles who were paid to review as much media as possible, and I've never bothered to check why. I know this isn't the place to debate these kinds of things, but I thought I would explain why I made those edits. RGCanimation (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I just read MOS:TVAUDIENCE, which says "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database, Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes (including its "Audience Says" feature), as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." I'm not 100% sure whether that's only referring to individual reviews or also applies to aggregated average user scores, but at this point I'm inclined to think it should also apply to averages. I didn't actually find anything called "Audience Says" on Rotten Tomatoes. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I started a follow-up discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#"Audience Says"?. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see. Forgive me. I'm still learning the better practices of Wikipedia editing. I honestly thought I was helping out with my edit. (Thought I don't recall what edit exactly it was.) Huxly (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

There are many rules and I understand that it might be difficult to be familiar with all of them but user voted scores and other web polls are fundamentally unreliable source WP:RS this is nothing new. There is the guideline WP:UGC warning against using these types of scores. Furthermore the style guides of both project film (MOS:FILMCRITICS) and project televisions (WP:TVRECEPTION) specifically warn not to include those audience scores. If you have been editing long enough to know the minutiae of substation templates then it is surprising that you have not noticed that good articles don't include user voted audience scores. I do not think it is unfair to use a strong wording when an editor add unreliable sources, but perhaps I could have used a less strongly worded warning. -- 109.79.167.27 (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

No worries. The reason WP:TVRECEPTION contains those specific warnings is that I just started the above-referenced discussion and added those warnings there. As far as I can tell, the commentary at MOS:FILMCRITICS is about something different. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

You said "WP:RSPSS has a green row for Metacritic". Please note where it also says "There is consensus that user reviews on Metacritic are generally unreliable". -- 109.79.167.27 (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

A user review is not the same thing as an average rating. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I saw your update[5] to the explanatory text within the parentheses but it merely reiterated and clarified the old text "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database, Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes".

I jumped backed to a random older version of the guidelines from 2015, the wording was different then "This means that IMDb, TV.com, and the other similar websites that give "fan polls" are not reliable sources of information" but the sentiment was the same, user voted web polls are not acceptable. I understand how you might wish the Wikipedia guidelines were clearer (I know I do) but it isn't about the specific wording of one site or another, it is a long standing project specific reminder that this particular type of unreliable source should be avoided, not the exact mechanism by which such user scores are expressed. -- 109.79.167.27 (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, a user rating could be interpreted as a rating submitted by an individual user. The "fan poll" term that you quoted seems more clear. I suggest for the conversation to continue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#"Audience Says"? rather than here. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I made another comment at the Project TV Talk page. I will try to check back eventually and reply there if I can, but I was surprised it even needed discussion and hope further comment from me will not be necessary and instead the expert editors of WP:TV will be able to discuss with you or point to some of the many past discussion on the topic. -- 109.79.167.27 (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Goodevening BarrelProof, I just created an article about the upcoming documentary The Menendez Brothers (documentary). But normally I mainly create articles on the Dutch Wikipedia because that is my native language. If it's not too much to ask, could you check the article as the rules and formatting in the English and Dutch Wikipedia can sometimes differ. Greetings RuedNL2 (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I performed a couple of cleanup edits. I couldn't figure out what was meant by "audio interviews from prison, where they are still in ten times of the documentary". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! It was just a bad translation, I meant to say that to this day (the day the documentary came out), the brothers are still in prison. So thank you for the cleanups. I added the Forbes-source back in before I saw it was added by a contributor. I have replaced it with a new source from Variety; which tells about the journalists and jury members in the documentary. RuedNL2 (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello BarrelProof! I noticed you responded to my requested move on the quaker state 400 about how many people viewed the 2 QS400's, as someone who rarely post requested moves is that supposed to help me with my request or what? Thanks! 45BearsFan (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not an expression of opinion; it is just information. People considering similar move requests often consider information like that. It could help indicate which of the topics is more of interest to readers. In this case, it shows the Atlanta topic getting about 77% of the pageviews of the total for the two topics. That probably supports your suggestion, but I did not express an opinion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

ohhh okay, thanks man! 45BearsFan (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi BarrelProof, I'm glad someone seems to agree with my interpretation of this case. Do you have any objection to naming the article: The wrongful connvictions of Gail Maney and Stephen Stone? Kiwimanic (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, all four convictions were overturned. "Wrongful convictions of Gail and Colin Maney, Stephen Stone, and Mark Henriksen" or "Overturned convictions of Gail and Colin Maney, Stephen Stone, and Mark Henriksen" would be a long title. I don't necessarily object to "Deaths of Deane Fuller-Sandys and Leah Stephens". I was mostly just objecting to Traumnovelle's assertion that no one agreed with your perspective on what the article is about. I think Muzilon also made good points, including pointing out that Colin Maney and Mark Henriksen were also convicted. And apparently there could be retrials, at least in theory. I really know very little about the case. I was very surprised to see you point out that Stone is still in prison after having his conviction overturned. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi BarrelProof, Stone has now been released from prison on bail. I wonder if I could persuade you chip in on this discussion again.

Under Requested move 2 October 2024 I presented Muzilon (and any other editors) with precise quotations from WP:Article titles which says "The title indicates what the article is about". Muzilon has not responded and seems unable to accept that.

Unfortuntely, the discussion then migrated to Where was Leah Stevens murdered?. I presented even more detail from WP:Article titles outling some exceptions described under that policy. Once again Muzilon does not respond. He seems reluctant to accept Wiki policy on this issue. Any chance you could chip in please? You seem to be more open minded on this issue than any of the other editors who are involved. Kiwimanic (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This edit is perhaps not quite up to a barnstar but deserves more than just a "thank" link. So this is it. Very well said. Andrewa (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Splashtop 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/Splashtop 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.

•Cyberwolf•talk? 20:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I suppose this is related to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § 15.ai behavioral issues. and the notice to me was triggered by my past tense question at Talk:15.ai. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I just notified as many people as I could who were recently involved at the article. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I've seen you tell people to use sentence case several times in the middle of discussions as if its a serious critique that invalidates their argument. Don't do that. That type of thing can be trivially fixed when edits are eventually made. Don't say things like titles are "a clear violation of WP:SENTENCECASE, so it's a non-starter", as such a statement is solidly incorrect. Ergzay (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. In that instance, I had previously made the same suggestion more politely to the same editor in the same RM discussion, and my comment seemed to be ignored. Perhaps I was a little more irked by that than I should have been. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fine to ignore that as it's just casual conversation. People aren't going to have that level of precision with word choice on a talk page. I would ignore it too. Ergzay (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)