Jump to content

User talk:Barry Wom/Archive 1

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

Maine Coon

The photo of the silver tabby Maine Coon that you provided is beautiful. I actually never knew that such a color existed in the breed, let alone in the cat world. Thank you for finding it and putting it into the Maine Coon article! – Ms. Sarita Confer 10:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping an eye on the Maine Coon article. Between two jobs, part-time school, and a full-time boyfriend, I have not had ANY time to come in and keep an eye on it. So, thank you! – Ms. Sarita Confer 20:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

70mm films

Ok, sorry to add irrelevant stuff to List of 70 mm films; I was wikifying Around the World (1967 film) and wanted to make sure it didn't get lost if it belonged. Nice of you to tell me. :) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

February 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Apollo 13 (film), please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Citation Barnstar

The Citation Barnstar The Citation Barnstar
For quickly finding and adding a source for a quotation in the Pat Tillman article instead of just complaining that there wasn't any, like some folks were doing, including me. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Pat_Tillman#Clarifying_for_consensus

Re. Pat Tillman, and the quotation/censorship debate,

In order to clarify, I am asking users to briefly, clearly state which version of the quotation they support or oppose.

Please see Talk:Pat_Tillman#Clarifying_for_consensus

I am sending this message to everyone who has previously participated in the discussion; I do not wish to make any assumptions of the previous opinion.

I want to show clear consensus, so the issue can be resolved and edit-warring can be prevented.

Thanks,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Chzz (talk) at 00:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC).

MI 4

WP:FILMRELEASE says, "Release dates should be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film". For your kind information, the film was also produced in India. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That's right tough. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
For your kind information I did not added added anything about India other than the infobox. Just recently mentioned Indian box office collection info, but have mentioned it has overseas. So please don't warn me for anything, OK? -- Karthik Nadar 08:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Protip

Hello, and thank you for removing vandalism from John Carter (film). This is much appreciated, but unfortunately your repair was not successful in restoring the article to its pre-vandalised state. For future reference, it is better to deal with vandalism by checking the article's page history to determine how it appeared before it was vandalised. You can then restore the whole article, or the relevant part of it, to an appropriate earlier version. If you simply delete the visible vandalism then any content removed or overwritten by the vandal is lost. See How to deal with vandalism for details. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

List of 3D films

First of all thanks for appreciating my work on the article. :) Perhaps you could also vote against merging of the 2 lists: Talk:List_of_3D_films_till_2004. --Fluffystar (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Please move the pre-2005 list to the new name if you like. I have no problems with that. --Fluffystar (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists (film), makes articles harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Smjg (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

3RR warning

Your 13:16, 8 June 2012‎ revert at The Avengers (2012 film) was your third revert of on that page today. One more and you will have violated WP:3RR. This is the required warning. I have been a discussion on the talk page, which will be noted in an 3RR report and which I invited you to join. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Photo usage

Hi, I'm working an an educational videogame with which I'm trying to build a bridge between animal awareness and Pokemon fans among others. It started out as something small but it's getting bigger and more professional. I saw one of your pictures: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MaineCoonSilverTabby.jpg

And I would like your permission to use it under that license with the following attribution: Barry Wom

Also, because I want to make sure there's no misunderstanding, you are the original photographer correct? It sometimes happens that another person simply takes a picture from somebody else and uploads it to wikipedia with a license to distribute. That is why I'm asking.

There is more information on the game here, including a short video that tells a little bit about the background: https://www.redacted.com/projects/238178285/animalalbum

I also have a demo version of the game available so you can see for yourself in what way the pictures are presented: http://dromedarydreams.com/index/demo/0-8

Please let me know if I have your permission, if the picture is yours and if you want a different attribution.

With kind regards, Sjors Jansen (all.animalalbum@gmail.com) Garfunkel Jansen (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for The List of IMAX DMR films

Mr.Barry Wom I'm sorry for the List of IMAX DMR films page. Hal95kuro (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2018 (JST)

Pirates 5 Budget

The budget of Pirates 5 is only $230 milion, no $320 milion Jerry Bruchkeimer (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Staines–Windsor line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metropolitan Water Board (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for comments on the removal of digital DMR titles

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:List_of_IMAX_DMR_films#Request_for_comments_on_the_removal_of_digital_DMR_titles

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harris Seldon (talk • contribs) 10:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Tutankhamun Page Vandalism & Editing Disruption Accusation

Barry you have accused me of vandalism of the Tutankhamun page and threatened to ban me from editing. This is an unfair accusation. I have given sufficient argumentation for updating the Tutankhamun page image. Wikipedia does not say anywhere in any rules that the most famous image should be the wikipedia page image. The page image should be the image that is the best depiction of the person. Wikimedia Commons has a great image of his mannequin, which is a fully painted depiction of him. I linked the mannequin image to his page because it better represents his appearance than his gold mask.SmoovOpr8r (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I can't see any input from you on the change of image. You didn't even supply an edit summary.
Wikipedia does not specify that the lead image should be the most famous one. Neither does it specify that it should be "the image that is the best depiction of the person", as you claim. It does, however, state that it should give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page and the mask image clearly performs this function.
If you want to discuss this further, take it to the talk page. Barry Wom (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Barry Wom. After reviewing your request, I have rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism (intentional damage to the encyclopedia) only, and not good faith edits (including accidental damage to the encyclopedia).
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

For some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Bob Geldof at Rebellion 2015

If the mention of national headlines were removed, then Geldof's onstage remarks would at least be verifiable content in themselves.

The trouble with verifying the headlines, as with any wave of tabloid-related notoriety, is that since the headlines themselves appeared in banned sources such as [1] therefore the only means of verifying the existence of the headlines would be for a reliable source (such as a broadsheet newspaper) to comment on the tabloid coverage (as opposed to directly covering the story - which they might still do but in a more low-key fashion not constituting headline coverage in its own right). Highbrow roundups of tabloid ravings are sadly rare and hard to trace (Punch used to do a good such section back in the day.) Romomusicfan (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Have you got any further examples? I've been through the first half dozen pages of results in a Google search and the only one that comes up is the Irish Sun example you've supplied.
Thing is, I'm not convinced that the incident was either newsworthy or notable enought to include. I was in the audience that night and all that happened was some brief booing and a handful of walkouts. A friend of mine was at a previous gig on their tour and reported that Geldof did exactly the same shtick at that one too. Together with the Brentwood festival, that makes at least three gigs at which this happened. I strongly suspect that the setlist contained an item like "Bob behaves like a cunt to the audience".
(And if this is the most controversial moment in the 25-year history of Rebellion, maybe punk really is dead!) Barry Wom (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Ignore and warn

You are violating WP:BRD. You should read the article you mentioned again. There is a talk page discussion that explains this issue further. You should also learn what WP:STATUSQUO is. ภץאคгöร 18:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggest you report me and see how far you get. Prediction: not very far. Barry Wom (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Why would I bother to report your inability to read articles? I don't care, no one does. ภץאคгöร 18:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
You accused me of violating WP:BRD. Don't you want to report that?
Thought not. Barry Wom (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
You also don't know what warning (warn) is? And you like to report people you "warn"? It would be somewhat sad if someone actually cared. ภץאคгöร 19:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
So it's just a warning I got? Excellent. I think I might know what that is. No idea about the "ignore" part though. Barry Wom (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

American Dad! (season 18)

User:223.165.105.133 is disruptive editing again. Xeditboy (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Now blocked Barry Wom (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited South ParQ Vaccination Special, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBR. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

South Park

I’d like to extend a formal apology for recent edits. While I have been editing and contributing to what I felt was towards the consensus, I realize that it is not what others see and has resulted in a back and forth between other editors and myself. I’ve decided to refrain towards major edits towards the South Park related articles until a final decision be made on the film series page, and even then I will be doing my best to abide by the consensus in a more direct way. One again, my apologies for any trouble or hassle over the past few days. Zvig47 (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Types of chocolate

Wikipedia editors are supposed to assume good faith (at all times), this is something our civil society thrives on and so do I, but apparently not yourself. This article is a mix between general information, international law and technical knowledge. Why you insist on UK and EU unity is beyond me, their laws are distinct and the directive you so kindly found does not any longer include the UK, legally. It says "Addressee: The fifteen Member States: Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom" so keep your edit, if you were focused on "Good Faith" or if you assumed it, you would have edited it to make it ring true or be an authoritative section. EU laws simply no longer apply to any members of the Commonwealth of Nations. Right now the way it stands people doing research will be forced to closely examine the law to decide if they are in the UK or in the EU which laws apply to them. France, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Italy, Spain and the UK all have their own laws and regulations regarding chocolate as well as exceed the directive you so kindly found which I did not. So thanks for finding that, just keep your roll-back reversion, leave people without additional information and be extra happy with your great accomplishment of doing nothing except wasting my time and effort trying to collaborate at Wikipedia as a volunteer. Arbitrators are not judges, they are mediators their opinions force the entities to come to a resolution, you did neither and pulled a Donald Trump move with no apparent benefit to anyone except your own ego. Problemsmith (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Problemsmith: You appear to be missing the point. By moving the United Kingdom to its own section, you made it appear that the definitions given in the European Union table do not apply in the UK. But the two supplied references give details of the law in both the EU and the UK. They are identical, therefore there is no requirement to list the UK separately. Barry Wom (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
ETA: Strictly speaking, they are not absolutely identical, but the issue of the use of "Family Milk Chocolate" is covered in the introduction to the section. Barry Wom (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I see you were there butchering the whole article including edits that have been there a long time. Swiss chocolate and Belgian chocolate are types of chocolate that are made by them; encyclopedias and databases including the Library of Congress recognize Dutch cocoa, Belgian and Swiss chocolate as chocolate types but not Barry Wom. You are a Wikipedia spoiler, there is no international authority on chocolate except the WIPO and UNCITRAL, you are certainly not the expert on this nor would they even let you in the room; chocolate is defined by many characteristics who, what, when and where. Who told you that a cup of hot Dutch cocoa is not called chocolate, it is and your edits are destructive, one sided and based on common logic not the market or the law. None of your edits were made in "Good Faith" or to provide additional reliable information. I strongly suggest reverting all the deletions from the article because they are insulting to the chocolate industry and defeat the very idea of operating in good faith against me and three other editors I do not know. Your conduct is alienating and frustrating to good Wikipedia editors. Problemsmith (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Problemsmith I removed three sections which were added no later than two days ago, so hardly "edits that have been there a long time".
Belgian chocolate is simply chocolate made in Belgium. Swiss chocolate is chocolate made in Switzerland. Both countries manufacture different types of chocolate. Dutch process cocoa is a type of cocoa, not a type of chocolate. These surely aren't difficult concepts to grasp. Barry Wom (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry if removing this edit proved offensive to you, I was out of line and too hasty to defend my good-faith edits on the Types of chocolate the way I did on your talk page, I should have applied the rules that were pointed out to me after the fact or perhaps should have known them before undoing your reverts. I though by removing the offensive and disruptive content would help considering I have already been discipline for it by admin ToBeFree I do apologize and defer. Sorry again. Peace Problemsmith (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Barry Wom/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by casualdejekyll 17:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi Barry Wom! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Where do I express concerns about a draft Article for Creation?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.


See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

3D films list

The reason why I reverted your edits is because they completely destroyed the bottom part of the article, with references and such. Please make sure you preview the whole page before making changes. --Caciulacdlac (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough! Now fixed. Barry Wom (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

That Wasn't Unsourced Changes On First Union

Wachovia Actually Bought First Union It was not the Other Way Around So can you please revert that 107.77.224.86 (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You need to supply a source for the change. Barry Wom (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Removing storyboard edits

Why did you remove my storyboard edits for multiple shows (such as Futurama, American Dad, The Cleveland Show, even children's shows like Ben 10)? I worked very hard to improve those pages but now since you removed them, the writers and directors (specifically co-directors or co-writers) are a bit of a jumbled mess. I already the discussions that storyboard artists are only allowed for children's shows (Nick, CN, Disney) but why you are removing the storyboards from almost all adult/primetime shows? I know they were credited in the credits and only the writer and director were credited in the opening titles, but why you are taking away my hard work on adding the storyboard artists. I promise I will not add composers, overseas studios, supervising directors, etc. because it can overclog the page and it will become unreadble. Most people can only find the storyboard artists on IMDB but the problem with that is that it is always vandalized. Take a look on the SpongeBob episodes "Squirrel Jelly/The String" (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8260950/?ref_=fn_ep_tt_1) and "Plankton's Intern/Patrick's Tantrum" (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10084374/?ref_=fn_ep_tt_1). Even if the writers and voice actors were correct, the animation department section was totally vandalized. They claim that the crew from The Simpsons Movie and The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie have involvement in these episodes but that's is not true! How Rich Moore, Gregg Vanzo, Steven Dean Moore and Lauren MacMullan are involved in these episodes?! They didn't even work on SpongeBob, they worked on The Simpsons! But you see, IMDB is not always a reliable source. Can you please restore all of my storyboard edits for most of the shows I mentioned (same applies to The Simpsons and Family Guy)? I worked so hard on adding those pages, but you are taking it all away! Thank you. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

As has now been explained to you by multiple editors, there is no consensus to include storyboard artists in animation lists. Should you disagree with this, I'd advise you to make your case at the discussion pages to which you have been directed. Adding this information again will likely lead to you being blocked. Barry Wom (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Do you mean talking in the discussion boards about this topic on ALL of the shows that I edited? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I'd start at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#"Storyboard_artists/animation_directors"_in_episode_lists if I were you. Barry Wom (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Do you mean explain this again via the discussion board? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Contribute to the discussion and make your case for the inclusion of storyboard artists. Barry Wom (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Well I tried to do that but the editors disagreed with me because the text was too long and they say that the debate is over. So how can I let the editors agree to my reasons and actually put it back? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the other editors you mention. Barry Wom (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I tried everything but nothing worked! I really want to storyboard artists back! Not to mention, anytime I add them back or add missing storyboard artists for some animated shows, you and your other contributors reverted all my edits. So basically you are saying that my edits suck. >:( 69.255.225.138 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I keep arguing you, Magnatyrannus, Alex_21, TenTonParasol 2 and especially YoungForever about this topic and you all refused me to add them back. I'm not a robot, I'm a human. I wasn't vandalizing, I was adding the storyboard artists for the primetime shows. But you guys refused to add them back. I read how to do a consensus but I don't what exactly what to do. I just want you guys to actually agree with me to add them back but the only word you keep saying is NO. I already explained some reasons but you guys don't get the point. I don't want to give up just yet, even if you guys reply to me, you going to say that I'm beating a dead horse (debate is over, move on). I'm not moving on, okay. I spend these couple months adding these people for these shows, you guys are just saying that you can't trust me anymore! I get your reasons, but please. I need a solution now! If there is no solution, then I'LL QUIT! 69.255.225.138 (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Reverted edit: prequel

Hello Barry. I saw you reverted my edit. You are right, I was hasty. I keep reading on the web (the last two times, yesterday on Wikipedia and right now on another site) people that use "prequel" as if it means "prologue" or "precursor" or "previous episode". I just wanted to emphasize the fact that a prequel has to be released AFTER the original. Do you see my point? Shall we work together towards a reformulation that makes that apparent even to the "hasty-reader-who-stops-after-less-than-one-line"? --Abacos (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the current wording is just fine. It mentions in the first line that the story of a prequel "precedes that of a previous work", making it quite clear that the previous work was released earlier. It doesn't have to be spelled out.
The current short description is also quite adequate. Barry Wom (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
hey uhh why did you remove my page, because it's my page and you have no right editing it 168.184.83.145 (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Barry I don’t mean to argue or get in a editing war but I feel my sources are accurate. On the dark knights page it uses similar ones and people seem to find them ok. Could we maybe find a third person to rule on this ? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaszen (talk • contribs) 18:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The Dark Knight article has multiple reliable sources mentioning it as one of the greatest films of all time, including Time Out, The Hollywood Reporter and Screen Rant. You'll need to find similar for The Dark Knight Rises. If you disagree I suggest you take it to the article talk page. Barry Wom (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi you reverted my edit for being poorly worded. Is that the only problem with it? I would like to know so I can fix it. Thank you Jaszen (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I've reverted your changes twice now for being badly written. I have a problem with the content too, but that's a matter for the article's talk page. Barry Wom (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
What is wrong it and the content Jaszen (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
The content is literal sources what more does it need Jaszen (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Why can’t these critics lists and polls be added to the receptions Jaszen (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Green Eggs and Ham Tv Series

If you check the edit history of the page, you will see that up till when Anonymous user 2607:FEA8:AA42:EB00:A87B:17DF:B91B:D024 made an edit, the dates were released at the same time. Hence they provide no proof on the dates needed to be change. 97.125.165.179 (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Potter Schweppes

The citation is the link to the Stephen Potter article itself, where the Schweppes thing is clearly mentioned. The Potter/Schweppes connection is very well known and requires no special reference beyone that. - Metalello talk 15:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I've reinstated the content with the reference from the Stephen Potter article. Barry Wom (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Not bad for two hairdressers. - Metalello talk 05:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Candyfloss (Loefah remix)

The Knowledge (Untold remix) Epigrammed (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

You are going to pay! Don't touch that Wikipedia!!!! Do not edit it, do not block it or you are grounded forever!!!!! It's not vandalism, you fool! You are terrible man!!!!! You're gonna feel sorry!!!!! This is my life!!!!! Okay????? Forget about Wikipedia!!!!!!! Forget it!!!!!! I'm super serious!!!!! I mean it!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.67.12.121 (talk) 09:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Cadbury Creme Egg

Why did you revert my edit to Cadbury Creme Egg without leaving me a message on my talk page? 2600:6C52:4C40:E77:A835:C774:B81B:925A (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Why?

why did you remove what i had put that has to do in the plot of monty python and the holy grail!? the animator was Terry Gilliam himself but with a joke he had a heart attack making the monster of the cave no longer exists, it's monty python. LeronJomes (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It's the plot section and unsuitable for including cast members. Gilliam's part as the animator is mentioned in the Cast section below. Barry Wom (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 05:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know you were in the right policywise ... the source CMJ2 kept providing was not reliable. But that's only an exception to 3RR when it involves a BLP. It takes two to edit war, and unfortunately you were the other person (I haven't blocked you for as long). You could have explained it in detail on their talk page instead of continuing to revert, or requested protection. Daniel Case (talk) 05:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Harsh but fair. In my defence, I was very, very drunk at the time. Barry Wom (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Bruh💀 LeronJomes (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect comma in Morgana Robinson article

Hi. Your edit is fine; but, just to be clear, the reason I'd removed that comma was that it is incorrect to precede a restrictive appositive with a comma. Moreover, a comma before an appositive, even where that's correct (i.e., with a nonrestrictive appositive), would need to be paired with a second comma after the appositive. People often add gratuitous commas before titles of books, movies, albums, TV shows, etc., perhaps because they make an erroneous analogy with the correct practice of putting a comma before a quotation (i.e., an actual quotation, not a short-story or song title with its conventional quotation marks, which do not automatically call for introductory commas). In any event, your edit stands, but I wanted to explain why that comma was indeed incorrect in the version I addressed. Jcejhay (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It needed the comma to indicate that they were two distinct programmes. Without the comma ("The TNT Show House of Fools") it appears that "House of Fools" is a programme broadcast on a TV channel called TNT. Barry Wom (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Oh! So The TNT Show was the title of a show! I see now. Sorry for the confusion. (And shame on me for not noticing that "Show" was capitalized, which should have clued me in.) Thanks. Jcejhay (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
No worries! I too was initially confused, having never heard of The TNT Show either. Barry Wom (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)


Astros-Cardinals Rivalry

I have some links that showed the significance of the rivalry. If I add these links to these articles, will that be enough of a citation to keep the articles?

https://www.seattlepi.com/sports/astros/article/Old-rivals-Astros-Cardinals-face-off-with-new-8108239.php https://www.overtimeheroics.net/2022/03/25/top-five-astros-rivalries/

Thepatrick01 (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I can't check the first source as it's geolocked, but the second seems fine. Barry Wom (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Demi Lovato

Although she has some non-white ancestry, Demetria seems like a common name in English-speaking nations. How is Demi not an obvious diminutive of it? Not as distinct as Bob from Robert or Becky from Rebecca? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

None of the other notable people listed at Demetria have abbreviated their name to "Demi" though. Similarly, from the list of well-known people named Demi, only Levato has shortened it from Demetria. As for Demetria being a "common name", it barely scrapes into the current ranking of the top 10,000 baby names (cf Demi, which is in the top 1,000).
I think it's an obscure enough name and contraction to warrant mention. That said, I'm not going to argue further if you really feel it's unnecessary and wish to revert. Barry Wom (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

List of IMAX venues

Hello, I saw that you reverted my edit. The reason for the edit is IMAX GT 3D LASER because I saw the description for IMAX GT 3D LASER in the contract. It is not an unfounded addition.ArvinTing (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

There's a line (in bold) at the head of the list which states "All cinemas feature IMAX with Laser and 3D projection [...] unless noted otherwise". There's no need to specify 3D as only a handful of cinemas in the list have only 2D projection. Barry Wom (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

My edits

Hey, what's your problem?, why are you constantly harassing me and why do you keep on looking at what I do and don't do here on Wikipedia? Leave me alone. Guys like you are like Lope de Vega's story The dog in the manger; you don't eat but you don't let them eat either. I reiterate, LEAVE ME ALONE. I am not doing anything to you and your attitude leaves much to be desired. JeanCastì (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Barry Wom. Thank you. Woodroar (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Skull Island is produced by Warner Bros. Animation

Skull Island is produced by Warner Bros. Animation, dude!!!! 187.255.222.128 (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

You need to provide a reliable source to support this claim. Barry Wom (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Kingsman: The Golden Circle

How do you know that Kingsman: The Golden Circle is based off a story in the comics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScratJitZu (talk • contribs) 21:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't, but if you want to insert this information you'll need to find a reliable source. Barry Wom (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Made more posts on the talk page for the film.

go read it and stop refusing to acknowledge the things I've pointed out. 72.135.248.71 (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure which points you want me to acknowledge, but if you're referring to the fact that I removed content which had been in situ for several months, there's no time limit involved. Many articles have errors or incorrectly sourced material which have been in place for several years. Barry Wom (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello Barry. This is me. 72. Look I apologize for spamming plenty of things about you and ad. This isn't a insult attempt. All I am asking for is help from you or someone else. Ok? Please I don't want to cause any further drama. 2603:6000:9546:4F00:DC37:4ED:11CA:B4D7 (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
I swear to god Barry. Even after I apologized and promised to you I wouldn't spam about any of you. Why are you still taking off stuff I am trying to say? I'm not intending what's coming next as a attack but it is as if you are taking off stuff to try and make yourself look like you've won the debate when in reality it's still going on. And so other people don't see what I've said so they can agree with what you've said when they would probably agree with me. 2603:6000:9546:4F00:DC37:4ED:11CA:B4D7 (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Read my initial reply above about how Wikipedia works. That's the end of the debate right there. Barry Wom (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
No its not. If it has been on there for "several years" as how you described then why is it whenever I edit pages it gets taken off almost immediately? 2603:6000:9546:4F00:DC37:4ED:11CA:B4D7 (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
(Not spam attempt.) This is the truth. It stayed on there for a long time it would have been taken off quickly. 2603:6000:9546:4F00:DC37:4ED:11CA:B4D7 (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
(Once again not a spam attempt.) Also if Wikipedia is about "teamwork." Then why has nobody tried to help me improve what I have tried to put onto the page? I have asked them several times to try and help me and no one has tried to help once. 2603:6000:9546:4F00:DC37:4ED:11CA:B4D7 (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
and why do you even keep taking off stuff I'm trying to put into the films talk page? 2603:6000:9546:4F00:DC37:4ED:11CA:B4D7 (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Why were my changes to Prometheus (2012 film) reverted?

I had described the deaths of 2 individuals (Millburn and Fifield) starring in Prometheus. The changes were instantly reverted. May I know why? AlAzhar 14:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The additions resulted in the plot section breaking the recommended limit of 700 words. Barry Wom (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

You!

Why did you revert my edit? 2600:4040:9B07:AD00:2D81:14E7:12A3:73B6 (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

There was no justification.

If the edits cannot be used because it's a quote unquote "sockpuppet edit" Then why are the "Megamind memes dominate the internet" and the "Ahead of its time" sources allowed but the extended and objectively better version isn't? I'm the one who put both the "memes dominate the internet 12 years after the release." And "ahead of its time" sources there in the first place. So why are you allowing those but not the other one? 2603:6000:B800:EB4:D508:179B:1BEF:736E (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it's probably about time you gave it a rest. You've been attempting to add your "cult following" section to the article for nearly four months now. You don't have consensus for this; in fact, not a single other editor has agreed with its inclusion. Barry Wom (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Copying/moving text within Wikipedia requires attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Types of chocolate into Milk chocolate. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Movie Billing Block

Look, when it comes to films that haven't come out yet, then yes. We can use the poster and/or the website of the film. HOWEVER, when a film comes out, that is when we have to use the single screen billing block in either the opening credits or the ending credits, because it's a part of the movie itself and not promotional material. 173.53.35.177 (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Where did this consensus come from? You? Who just "started" editing this month. Mike Allen 03:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
If you don't mind telling me what the original consensus is, that would be great. 173.53.35.177 (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Template:Infobox film (see “Starring”) and WP:FILMCAST Mike Allen 03:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey

And who are you to decide whether it is worth mentioning or not? AMCKen (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that a single of Also Sprach Zarathustra (which is a different recording to that featured in the film) reached number 74 in the Canadian charts in 1970 is worth mentioning. But if you disagree, I'd advise raising the matter at the article talk page. Barry Wom (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Are we not here to spread knowledge? And here you are taking knowledge out of an article. AMCKen (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Spreading knowledge or inserting utterly trivial information? I believe this falls in the latter camp. As I say, start a discussion at the talk page if you feel strongly about it. Barry Wom (talk) 12:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters - revision undone due to limit of 700 words exceeded

Hi Barry, Looking at the text of your undo message:

Undid revision 1197096256 by Szagory (talk) Unfortunately the plot additions break the upper word count limit of 700. Please reword to stay below this.

I'm just curious where that limit of 700 words comes from - and since what time is it in effect? I've never heard about anything like that... Also, under what circumstances is that limit supposed to be enforced, does it apply to every single edit (in which it would be conceivably very easy to break, when new material is added to previously empty section)? Szagory (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It comes from WP:FILMPLOT, it's been in effect for some time and it's supposed to be enforced in all cases unless there's special circumstances involved. Barry Wom (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Yep, true - I can read in WP:FILMPLOT: "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words."
But in that case, what should be done when original text of the plot is already over 700 words?
And in the case of a film's plot being non-trivial or requiring explanation, shouldn't there be leniency in enforcing that limit? I'm just going through my changes right now and it's not easy to find anything to chuck away...
🙄
P.S. Is there a quick way of finding out the current word count in the section being edited? Szagory (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
If the plot section in an article is too long it should have the {{Long plot summary}} template added to indicate that it requires attention.
I'm afraid I can't see any good reason for allowing the plot to extend beyond 700 words in this case, especially as it has "Good Article" status.
There might well be a way of determining word count within Wikipedia, but I'm not aware of it. I copy and paste into a WP app or use this. Barry Wom (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, currently the word count is 911 words - although that's with "Extended cut" subsection included (which in actuality probably shouldn't be included in the count, it's more like extension to "Plot").
I'm pretty sure though that my changes increased the count by no more than 100.
OK, hold on a sec, mate - let me take a look what else could be trimmed in that text... Szagory (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
With my changes reverted, word count in "Plot" section has gone down to 670 words + plus 80 words in "Extended cut" sub-section.
And with just 30 words remaining before the limit of 800 words is hit, it's practically impossible for me to make the necessary corrections in the wording and in sequence of events. So there's a small portion of untruth and/or inaccuracy in the article now...
😒 Szagory (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I've moved the extended cut details to the home release section which leaves a word count of 676 in the plot section, if that helps at all. Having never seen the film I'm afraid I'm not in a position to help out in editing it! Barry Wom (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding edit to Over The Hedge plot summary

Hi, I noticed that you reverted my edit to the plot summary of Over the Hedge (film) with the edit summary "The plot needs trimming, not added to." I agree that the plot could be trimmed, but the small amount I added was a sentence explaining the core conflict of the film, which was a very necessary addition. I also made some necessary changes to improve cohesion that didn't effect the length, please be cognizant of reverting entire edits due to an objection with just one element of the edit. I'm writing you here with an explanation because I don't want to start an edit war, but for now I will be undoing your undo due to the importance of the line I added. I will also try to pare down the summary a bit as a good will gesture. I hope this addresses your concerns over the length of the plot summary. pluma♫ ♯ 21:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough; thanks for the explanation. Barry Wom (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2

Argylle poster

Hey. You might want to discuss Talk:Argylle#Billing_block -- 109.79.74.142 (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

IMAX GT at Puente Hills Mall

Hey, I'm not a Wiki person but I frequent that location and can vouch it's been upgraded to GT aka Dual-Laser on a 1.9:0 canvas. 47.147.230.147 (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to take your word for it! Don't be surprised if someone else reverts this though, unless you can find a source. Barry Wom (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing Warner Bros. Pictures for a period of one week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Oh go on then, I'll submit an appeal. Not out of any particular desire to edit the Warner Bros. Pictures article within the next week, just to make a couple of points.

Firstly, mea culpa. I did indeed perform three reverts in 24 hours and five within 48 hours.

As a glance at my user contributions will show, 90% of my time on Wikipedia is spent patrolling for disruptive editing. On reverting, I'll normally check the other edits made by the disruptive user, revert any troublesome ones and leave a talk page warning if necessary.

In my experience, in the vast majority of cases (particularly where an IP user is involved) the disruptive editor doesn't return. In this particular instance this obviously didn't happen. When I checked the user's talk page I spotted that they had been warned for edit warning three days previously, indicating that this was obviously someone with a very recent history of disruption.

The note from the admin at the 3RR noticeboard states "This was an issue that could have been resolved through discussion." I'm firmly of the belief that attempting to discuss the insertion of this material would have been fruitless. In any case, the reason for my reversions was included in my edit summaries:
"poorly worded"
"Restoring last good version"
"Your edit summary is unintelligible and your edit is still poorly worded"

Contrast with the IP's edit summaries, when they even bothered to provide one:
"now it’s well written" (it wasn't)
"First unless we shorted this information, we should keep it and second who said that the WIZARDING WORLD is over?"
"unless you shorted this info, it should stay here and the Wizarding World doesn’t sound over yet"

Does this sound like someone who would have engaged in discussion? And what could I add to a talk page discussion other than "this edit is poorly worded", i.e. parroting what I'd already pointed out in the edit summaries? At least one established editor agreed that this IP was being disruptive in this particular case [2].

Finally, while I do realise that the disputed content is largely irrelevant in 3RR cases, did any admin check out what this user was actually inserting (and which, of course, remains on the current version)? Have a game of grammatical error bingo.

In 1918, during WW1, to kickstarted their business, the four Warner Brothers chose to produced an adaptation of the book My Four Years in Germany by James W. Gerard to be their first full-scale picture, as they were considered by the sensitivity of both the content and the war for their very first production at the time.

I've seen enough block appeals to know that I now need to do a contrite summary of "what have I learned?" and "what I would do differently in the future?".

I've certainly learned to be much more wary of submitting a 3RR report without triple checking that I've not fallen foul of the rule myself. That was an idiotic move that I won't be repeating again.

In retrospect, instead of reporting 3RR I should have requested semi-protection on the article, which would almost certainly have been implemented. That way we wouldn't have the current situation where a badly worded edit is allowed to stand. For another week, at least. Barry Wom (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As noted below, this not exactly a persuasive request. A partial block from one article is not a big deal. You can establish consensus on the talk page for your preferred version. PhilKnight (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I don't think reporting at WP:EWN was the problem, and I don't think requesting semi protection would have been an improvement. Deciding that not engaging the other user was part of the answer is concerning. (No edit warrior thinks they are wrong.) And there are other steps to take when the other user is unresponsive to your concerns. What is the single most important thing you should have done?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Note from blocking admin: This request has removed whatever doubt was left on my part that a block of this length from just the article was correct. Daniel Case (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Just a partial block. So, 6,000,000 other articles to choose from. @Daniel Case: Sweet and meet t hat you did so. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I should have thought that was obvious. Be very careful when making multiple reverts that I do not make more than three reverts in 24 hours. By my calculations I broke this rule by 62 minutes on one occastion and 16 minutes on another. Barry Wom (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
You can still be blocked for edit warring even if you don't go over 3RR. Making reverts just outside of 3RR is considered gaming the system, and often results in a block. PhilKnight (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of that. "Gaming" implies intentionality though and that wouldn't have been the case. Barry Wom (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Transformers: The Last Knight

I'd appreciate if you'd take a look at Transformers: The Last Knight. I notice in your previous edits on that article you have also tried to cut back the bloat and make sure the WP:LEAD section summarizes succinctly.

I have attempted to reduce the paragraph long premise summary in the lead section down to just one sentence.(diff) I'd appreciate a second opinion, but I really don't think very much detail is needed in the lead. -- 109.255.172.169 (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't comment on your trimmed down plot summary as I haven't seen the film, but I've further trimmed the lede to remove some of the overlong cast list. Barry Wom (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Personally I feel it is redundant to write "In the film," (where else would we be talking about) and I fear that having the premise in a separate paragraph will only encourage the type of person who will bloat it back up again (not that they need much encouragement), but I will check back again in a few months and see how it goes. Not having seen the film is better actually, the single line of premise in the lead section should more or less make sense with little or no prior knowledge (you know like in an encyclopedia). The lead section shouldn't be inflicting trivia like "the order of the Wittwicans" on normal readers.[3] The film itself is spectacularly bad, it is a bad film and a spectacular noisy mess full of Bayhem.. If you've seen film 2, 3, or 4, you should be able to guess what film 5 TLK is like, and it is more absurd than that even. -- 109.255.172.169 (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've made the amendment.
I've only seen the first installment and that was more than sufficient for a lifetime. Barry Wom (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice ...
I watched the first one and foolishly thought the second film might get better, but instead all the bad bits got worse. I waited years before eventually watching the rest of the series. Bumblebee is actually quite good, albeit basically a E.T. knock-off. Which is a long way of saying you're right and not missing much. -- 109.255.172.169 (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey now, the third one is a maximalist masterpiece. ...I'll get back to editing. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol

Hello Barry Wom!

  • The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
  • We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
  • Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
  • If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Please review it as a edit.

Ok look I know I was objectively wrong beforehand trying to force sources onto the article that couldn't be used but trust me this time there's nothing wrong with anything on the edit. Please do not take it off. 2603:6000:B800:EB4:E4D1:7F1F:141F:1EB3 (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

At the very least, I have to admire your persistence. Barry Wom (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Please do not block me,

This is the Wikipedia page, I always edit this one. It should be used to fix stuff, not to disrupt edit., by the way it’s a holiday. Exteahans71 (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

You will not be blocked if you refrain from inserting unsourced or badly sourced material into articles. You have already been warned multiple times about this. Barry Wom (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barry_Wom/Archive_1&oldid=1244109233"