This is aWikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other thanWikipedia, you are viewing amirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other thanWikipedia. The original talk page is located athttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BarrelProof.
In the interest of not cluttering what is likely to be a long discussion I'm posting here. Regardingthis comment, that RM wasclosed on procedural grounds less than 7 days (which is the minimum required). Instead of trying to take that to aWP:MR, asking it to be re-opened, its lessWP:BUREAUCRATIC to just start a new RM. And in this case, the RM is only started after aWP:RFCBEFORE[1].VR(Pleaseping on reply)22:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: Someone responded to my remark, pointing out the specific rationale for the previous discussion being rapidly closed, so I have withdrawn my remark. I was off-base. I should study the background more carefully before making such a remark. I think it is fine for this to proceed as an RM, although I still haven't studied the history very carefully. — BarrelProof (talk)05:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
News and notes:Let's talk! The WMF executive team delivers a new update; plus, the latest EU policy report, good-bye to the German Wikipedia's Café, and other news from the Wikimedia world.
Community view:24th Wikipedia Day in New York City Wikimedians and newbies celebrate 24 years of Wikipedia in the Brooklyn Central Library. Special guests Stephen Harrison and Clay Shirky joined in conversation.
Traffic report:A wild drive The start of the year was filled with a few unfortunate losses, tragic disasters, emerging tech forces and A LOT of politics.
Technology report:Hear that? The wikis go silent twice a year From patrolling new edits to uploading photos or joining a campaign, you can count on the Wikimedia platform to be up and running — in your language, anywhere in the world. That is, except for a couple of minutes during the equinoctes.
Opinion:Sennecaster's RfA debriefing User Sennecaster shares her thoughts on her recent RfA and the aspects that might have played a role in making it successful.
Hey, I just wanted to let you that I didn't set my comment at the top. When I replied, it defaulted to being at the top rather than actual me placing the reply there.Rager7 (talk)21:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks for responding. I didn't realize the reply function operated that way. I generally don't use it (but I'm trying it now!). — BarrelProof (talk)21:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We edit-conflicting on updating the top-of-page mini-noticeboard. As your most recent changes were more or less duplicated by some of mine, I didn't bother with nitpicky edit-conflict merging. If that ends up being flagged as a "revert" please ignore it. There wasn't anything wrong with your edit, I'm just late for something and didn't want to bother tweaking it precisely. :-) — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 06:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Whether topics have standalone articles or similar-looking titles or not makes no difference. The question is not whether articles have similar names, but whether the topics discussed in the articles have similar names, including alternative names and other considerations. SeeWP:DAB, which says disambiguation is "because [a title] refers to more than onesubject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article,or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic". The topic's identifier does not need to be identical to the article's title. For albums and songs, there is a special agreement about articles being stand-alone, but even in that case the stand-alone title does not need to be identical in order for a topic name to be considered ambiguous. If a topic has (or has had) an alternative name, that needs to be considered as well. While the other articles have been renamed to unambiguous titles, the term "Asuka (wrestler)" remains ambiguous with their subjects. Having observed your editing for quite a while and your very-apparent level of experience and familiarity with the Wikipedia norms, I am surprised to see you taking this view. — BarrelProof (talk)17:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily agree with your definition ofWP:PDAB, but my specific concern is the placement of this entry. "Other articles with no other standalone article" should mean that there is no actual article, whichLioness Asuka andVeny definitely are.
I think I agree with that last sentence. I don't know how it got put into that section. There are clearly other articles that have, as their main subject, a wrestler who has been called Asuka. — BarrelProof (talk)20:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Articles suggesting that Mexico's Gulf Coastline is 1,743 miles all trace back to a flawed 'Scripps News' article from early January, 2025. In that article, the author mistakenly credits Mexico's entire east coastline to the Gulf when more than 250miles of the 1,723 is actually on the Caribean Sea (leaving Mexico with less than 1,500 miles of Gulf Coastline).
@Sccarney: That would help explainmy remark that said "It's funny – when I look at it on a map, it looks like the US portion of the gulf coastline is longer than the Mexican one. Is that just me?" — BarrelProof (talk)17:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to message directly, but as an infrequent editor, I lack permission to join the talk. In any case, the links I provided predate the January chaos.Sccarney (talk)17:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"worldatlas.com does not seem like a high-quality source"?
Seriously? Wikipedia already cites WorldAtlas.com 682 other times, and their page on the topic predates the controversy by over 6 years.
That could be an incorrect impression. I'm thinking that we need a very high quality source if we choose to believe such a source in preference to sources that seem to be mainstream reliable sources such as"
I guess that's the same article you're talking about. That says "Approximately 1,743 miles of Mexico's coastline borders the gulf". Obviously, the Associated Press is considered a good source.
Unfortunately, that worldatlas.com article does not break down how much of the coast is considered to be on the gulf and how much is on the Caribbean Sea.
Unfortunately, the only thing the AP did was reprint the scrippsnews article. By indicating as such in the byline, they abdicated responsibility for its content.
As for the Caribbean shoreline, the straight-line distance from the Cabo Catoche Lighthouse to the Belize border is over 240 miles. A 3-segment distance (Cabo Catoche-Cancun-Playa-del Carmen-Belize) pushes the distance over 250 miles. Any claim that suggests Mexico's Gulf Coast exceeds 1,500 miles is without basis in fact.Sccarney (talk)20:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
News from the WMF:Product & Tech Progress on the Annual Plan A look at some product and tech highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation's Annual Plan (July–December 2024).
An automated process has detected that when you recently editedPhilippe Ouédraogo (cardinal), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageBurkinabè.
The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorist tactics, techniques, and procedures 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.
You're not interpreting what I said correctly. I said "I find no record of a recent undiscussed move in the other direction", not "I find no record of a discussion". The request is still active; it was just moved to a different section. — BarrelProof (talk)22:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just want to knw why's the content of articleAndy Byron was my format and the content was exactly my edit and its very identical but your the author? Are stealing my page article?🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk)17:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can see thehistory here before I was changing and first edit the name from Andy Byron (Tech founder) to Andy Byron (tech founder) and now the final Andy Byron was credited by "you" how come?🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk)18:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that someone (not me) has suggested deleting the article. I put a notification on your user talk page about that. — BarrelProof (talk)18:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Traffic report:One click after another Serial-killer miniseries, deceased scientist, government shutdowns and Sandalwood hit "Kantara" crowd the tubes.
Hello BarrelProof. I wouldn’t want to make the change myself in order to avoid causing any issues, especially since I see that the page is currently locked for editing. Specifically, in the World Championship medal table, the medals of Russia are listed separately from those of the USSR, and Serbia's are listed separately from Yugoslavia’s, even though both the FIVB and CEV—as well as other sports organizations—recognizeRussia as the successor of the USSR's results and medals, just asSerbia is considered the successor of Yugoslavia's results. Could you correct this? I have additional sources from official websites if you need them to verify thisinformation,CEV,Official site of Russian volleyball federation, etc.Also, I wrote from my own account and got blocked (I didn’t commit any vandalism) because it’s an IP address shared across the entire company, where one user was already blocked — and that person doesn’t even try to edit the English Wikipedia. My username is SamWinchester2025. I followed the instructions for the registration, but no one has sent me anything — no code, even though I regularly check my email (samuelwinchester2025 is with gmail put I can't put on it)79.140.146.90 (talk)16:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see thatSamWinchester2025 is a blocked account. I don't believe account setup ordinarily involves receiving anything by email, as providing an email address is optional. I don't know what the usual practice is on Wikipedia for dealing with successor nations in competitions. You didn't say clearly what article you're talking about. I believe it isFIVB Men's Volleyball World Championship. If I understand correctly, adding Russia to the Soviet Union wins and Serbia to Yugoslavia wins would not make any difference to the number of times the competition was won by those nations, since Russia and Serbia (and Yugoslavia) have not won it – only the Soviet Union. I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting to do. — BarrelProof (talk)18:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can be quite daunting to overhaul an article, but the article really needed it as it was previously written as a biography of the shooter for some reason and was not properly sourced. I tried my hand at fixing the article so that it would be presentable, but errors still slipped in.Raskuly (talk)20:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The redirect2025 Kabaddi World Cup (World Kabaddi Federation) has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 26 § 2025 Kabaddi World Cup (World Kabaddi Federation) until a consensus is reached.—CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})12:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add or change content, as you did atUPS Airlines Flight 2976, without citing areliable source. Please review the guidelines atWikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you.Electricmemory (talk)09:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
