Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than90 days may be auto-archived byClueBot III if there are more than 5.

Hello I’m wondering why you edited my name change for Meg griffin. People call her Megan but her legal name is Megatron due to Peter changing her certificate at the last second she confirmed it too “Meg is short for something else” it was in an episode I forgot the name.Astrawiki3203 (talk)20:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Astrawiki3203 Please see the article talk page.Barry Wom (talk)04:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I rememberThe Full Monty being a British film, however suprisingly the BFI considers it an American film and I added the US into the countries section and asked someone if it's really American and the guy told me Variety also says it's U.S., however you said that Kingsman 2 was American-financed only and that the BFI includes financing countries. the page itself says that it's notable distributor Fox Searchlight financed the film and Searchlight is an American film studio so does that count. what is stupid is that on more fallible sources such as Letterboxd and other film review sites non-American films aren't considered American even if a major American studio is listed as a production company but American if an independent American studio is involved.Editoman2 (talk)11:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out; I've amended the article.Barry Wom (talk)11:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you and I could pool our resources, huh? Maybe collaborate on this one. You add the UK stuff to that page and I’ll put in the American release date for it as well as include a reference to it’s financing countries from BFI. What do you say?WATT TV (talk)13:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Considering that the earliest release date should be added the country where a film was released earlier than in its country of origin should be included as well as in its country of origin the distributors should be restricted to its country of origin but Fox Searchlight distributed worldwide so that’s not a problem. There are some British films where I prefer the US distributor over the U.K. one such as Fox Searchlight with Slumdog MillionaireEditoman2 (talk)13:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated the US release date. The financing is already covered in the Production section and should not be added to the infobox.Barry Wom (talk)13:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the Damned United is solely a British film? and was Columbia the only American studio involved in financing I like to think that’s a solely British productionEditoman2 (talk)14:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can fix it.WATT TV (talk)14:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the US release date from the lede.Barry Wom (talk)14:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What’s a lede?Editoman2 (talk)14:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Journalistic term for the lead section.Barry Wom (talk)14:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: there’s no comma after August.WATT TV (talk)18:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huge thanks for the punctuation information.Barry Wom (talk)09:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What’s going on here, Barry? Why do you keep making these changes to my edits without my consent?WATT TV (talk)15:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate place to discuss changes with which you disagree would be the article talk page.Barry Wom (talk)09:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Defrenzel9 is the same IP user who vandalizedBeast Wars: Transformers. -FilmandTVFan28 (talk)04:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if Paramount co-producedBlue Story, when I first saw the film's wiki page it had Paramount listed as a production company I looked at behind the scenes footage and saw their logo on clapperboards which made me think that they co-produced it, I later dove deeper and learnt that they probably didn't because one article says that they acquired distribution rights whileBBC Films financed and DJ and Joi produced, while sources such as the Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Screen Daily and others list Paramount as a production company as well as WrushMedia but I'm at least glad whoever included Paramount as a production company didn't add them.Editoman2 (talk)17:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. The best place to discuss this would be at the article talk page.Barry Wom (talk)09:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barry Wom! I noticed that you recently made an edit and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixingtypos or reverting obviousvandalism. Any edit that changes themeaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you.IzzySwag (talk)15:56, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your recent edit[1] I thought we were supposed to use present continuous tense. --109.79.69.141 (talk)12:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It "is a film" because the film still exists. It "was directed" because the direction took place in the past.Barry Wom (talk)14:39, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barry Wom! I know this may be hard but I have a favor: can you help The Jester (2023) article I worked on? Some of the users put draft on it so mind if you fix it please? A sequel of it is coming tommorrow.Benjaminoben (talk)00:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can't be of any help.Barry Wom (talk)09:04, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen you do this to other wiki pages as well, and I'm trying to be as respectful as possible, but I am wondering why you write the gross as $146 million but the budget as $82M. I'm not reverting your edits out of spite, I just personally think that the way numbers are presented in a sentence should be consistent. Is there a precedent for presenting the first number as "$ million" and the second number as "$M"?Noahpeaslee11 (talk)07:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit too quick with those reverts and didn't notice it the same editor I was reverting each time. Apologies for that and I've self-reverted.

I did mention the MOS entry inthis edit summary.MOS:MILLION saysM (unspaced, capitalized) or bn (unspaced), respectively, may be used for "million" or "billion" after a number, when the word has been spelled out at the first occurrence.Barry Wom (talk)09:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t vandalize or violate the article without any profitable explanation or evidence. Thank you.Bryangul2020 (talk)18:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided an explanation of my editshere at the talk page. Can you please discuss your concerns there before reverting again?Barry Wom (talk)14:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barry, what you are doing (trying to edit various articles without any further explanation) is resource violation, which is not allowed. The information has to come from a few reputable sources -- one example would be from a book or newspaper article reporting that some movies have their own info about their cast, reception or others. Individual Wikipedia contributors are not necessarily reliable sources. Please stop trying to edit articles without any profitable or further explanation and evidence. Thank you.Bryangul2020 (talk)04:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of my changes were to the lede, which is supposed to provide a concise summary of the article contents. As far as I can tell, all the information currently in the lede is properly sourced in the body, including the Production and Release sections. There is no requirement for these sources to be repeated in the lede, perWP:LEADCITE.

I've also provided explanations for the changes in my edit summary and at the article talk page. Again, I would suggest that if you have any further concerns, you should discuss them at the latter.Barry Wom (talk)09:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that reverting block evasion is one of theexemptions to 3RR, but could you tone it done a bit, please?SarekOfVulcan (talk)16:21, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're dealing with a LTA here,Jaszen (talk ·contribs). While I agree that the removal of the sentence is possibly valid, I'm going by the policy atWP:BMB: "The measure of a ban is that even if the editor were to make good or good-faith edits, permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, to the page or to the project, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good.".Barry Wom (talk)16:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The changes I made on the Renfield movie and Bounty Hunter game pages aren’t vandalism, but just me saying that the game and movie were really good, at least (despite the former being a box office bomb, of course).Badeauxch (talk)13:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using "mixed to positive". It's one or the other.Barry Wom (talk)15:13, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can you point me to the SPI/LTA you're referring to with your "block evasion" edit summaries in your recent reverts on the above page? Thanks!A09|(talk)13:16, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest SPI case is here:[2], although they've been traced back as far asthis user in 2017.Barry Wom (talk)14:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPI case for the oldest known user is here:[3]Barry Wom (talk)15:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!A09|(talk)15:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Depp,Geoffrey Rush,Bill Nighy, andIan McShane all lent their performances into theme park attractions. If sources are required, there are plenty. If the sections were unneeded, I recommend updatingDaisy Ridley's article and removing the "Theme park attractions" section, as that is where I thought it worked.2601:902:C002:D4D0:9AAC:8611:6C35:2A2B (talk)08:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sources are required.Barry Wom (talk)08:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. And otherwise, the edits are correct? Just making sure beforehand.2601:902:C002:D4D0:9AAC:8611:6C35:2A2B (talk)08:33, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fine.Barry Wom (talk)08:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are Bullshitworthless118.67.205.247 (talk)09:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UnsourcedBarry Wom (talk)11:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my addition toList of films featuring time loops? It's not unsourced: I mentionedThe Tunnel Under the World (film) in the edit summary and in the article, and I linked the plot of the originalshort story, too. Why not consult the sources there? --Thüringer ☼ (talk)12:38, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't supply a source. Therefore it's unsourced.Barry Wom (talk)12:43, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now you reverted again because you don't believe that there is an actual time loop in theoriginal story. Do you know that story at all? Please pay attention to the end of the summary. If you are still in doubt, the full text is online. --Thüringer ☼ (talk)18:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you've read the original story, are there any errors in the plot summary in the Wiki article? If not, it would appear that there is no actual time loop involved. The story would appear to take place entirely in linear time, with robots being reprogrammed every day?Barry Wom (talk)10:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Barry Wom, can I put "widespread critical acclaim" in Wolfwalkers?Benjaminoben (talk)00:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did atThe Wrong Paris. Your edits appear to bedisruptive and have been or will bereverted.

• If you are engaged in an articlecontent dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or thearticle's talk page, and seekconsensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia'sdispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of therelevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia'sAdministrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia'spolicies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result inloss of editing privileges. Thank you.— Precedingunsigned comment added by146.200.134.71 (talk)22:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upset the article has been protected are we?Barry Wom (talk)17:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit but the movie was so good that I really want to put it thereBenjaminoben (talk)23:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you remove this information On July 8, 2025, Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions Inc. Acquired new distribution rights to this movie which the document has been executed on July 8, 2025 and it has been recorded on July 10, 2025. They are probably doing this to bring back the movie on digital you know its a violation of Wikipedia policy to remove accurate information you know just review this website and you will see its accuratehttps://publicrecords.copyright.gov/detailed-record/rmm_voyager_V01503642600000 please no reverting to the previous edit2605:4A80:7804:2320:587A:1579:1640:9F24 (talk)19:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barry Wom If you keep doing this I will report you on Wikipedia2605:4A80:7804:2320:587A:1579:1640:9F24 (talk)19:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations can be confusing.

I noticed someone had abbreviated the word million to M. Looking at the article edit history I was surprised to see that it seemed to have been you.[4][[5]

While it is standard practice forfilm industry journals to make this abbreviation it seems inappropriate to use unnecessary unexplained abbreviations in this encyclopedia for everyone, and especially not in the lead section.

I read plenty about the film industry and I find this kind of abbreviations confusing and unhelpful, and I expect it is even more confusing for readers not already interested in the film industry or reading Wikipedia with English as a second language, or any other challenges.

If you believe this kind of abbreviation is an improvement then I would suggest you bring it toWP:FILM for discussion, and gain consensus before applying it to any more articles. --109.79.166.128 (talk)17:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing to do with "film industry journals".

Have a read ofMOS:MILLION and get back to me. If you can get down from your high horse long enough.Barry Wom (talk)13:12, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:MILLION"M (unspaced, capitalized) or bn (unspaced), respectively,may be used for "million" or "billion" after a number, when the word has been spelled out at the first occurrence" added emphasis on the "may", that is a long way from "should" be used. The example given is a sentence where the word million is repeated 5 times.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations saysAlways consider whether it is better to write a word or phrase out in full, thus avoiding potential confusion for those not familiar with its abbreviation. Remember that Wikipedia does not have the same space constraints as paper. The lead section is not constrained for space and million is only being repeated twice, clarity is more important than brevity in this encyclopedia, in particular theMOS:LEAD says it should be"It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.". If you discuss this withWP:FILM I expect there will probably be several people who would want to use the M abbreviation for the box office section where word million is repeated over and over again, ad nauseam. I would be very surprised if the consensus was to encourage the use of this abbreviation, but if you can convince people to do it that way then I will follow the consensus.

Despite the existence ofMOS:MILLION allowing you the option to write M instead of million, abbreviations in general should be avoided, and I do not think you should do so in the lead section of film articles. I would still recommend you bring this toWP:FILM for discussion before doing it to any more film articles. --109.79.70.202 (talk)14:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming that my changes were in accordance with the Wikipedia manual of style.Barry Wom (talk)09:49, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't seethis until I looked at the page history (which is why I've dont the same edit again). Why did you revert my edit? --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester)19:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWP:SDLIST.Barry Wom (talk)16:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester)17:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The pageList of 1932 box office number-one films in the United States has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done undersection R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from thearticle namespace to a differentnamespace except theCategory,Template,Wikipedia,Help, orPortal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line withWikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact thedeleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion atWikipedia:Deletion review.Liz^Read!Talk!17:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The pageList of 1933 box office number-one films in the United States has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done undersection R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from thearticle namespace to a differentnamespace except theCategory,Template,Wikipedia,Help, orPortal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line withWikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact thedeleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion atWikipedia:Deletion review.Liz^Read!Talk!17:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain to me how the information added onThe Curious Case of Benjamin Button is "unsourced"? It's listedin the credits of the movie that the visual effects companies are there. In plain sight. That, and the digital optical companies, the sound service company, and the editors are there too.Multiplivision (talk)18:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This bit: "the process ofmetamorphosis for Brad Pitt's character" is unsourced.Barry Wom (talk)18:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that mentioned in the lead secondary paragraph of the article?Multiplivision (talk)18:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you've reinserted the material without the above statement included. If you want to put it back, may I suggest a repeat of the reference from earlier in the article?Barry Wom (talk)12:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey can’t you see that I’m fixing and adding theList of animated television series of 2024 and this is the right order. And it is sourced so stop removing them and make it "unsourced" please.2605:A601:A628:5A00:E562:46E9:B0D1:E064 (talk)17:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry about this. I get now how some of my articles could be interpreted as hoaxes. Everyone warned me so many times and I never took any time to notice or acknowlenge. If I can be granted one more chance I'll be a more civilized user, you'll see. I won't make other pages unless I know my sources are legit and I'll stop using bare URLs. I promise!

Hi Barry Wom! I noticed that you've made several edits in order to restore your preferred version ofTim Draxl. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you're aware of Wikipedia'sedit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you're doing is justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on articletalk pages in order to try to reach aconsensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement atTalk:Tim Draxl, please use one of thedispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors' changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. Thank you. RBarr-12@wiki:~/user/talk/contribs$ 14:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. We're dealing with a LTA case here. They've been making the same edits to multiple articles for several months and are continually changing IP address. You're right about the edit warring though, so I've reported this latest IP for disruption.Barry Wom (talk)14:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP now blocked for three years.Barry Wom (talk)16:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Barry Wom. Per your request, your account has beengrantedtemporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals usingtemporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that isonly to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to reviewWikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed atFoundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Accessmust not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or moreIP addresses (using theCIDR notation format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visitingSpecial:Preferences. Happy editing!Sohom (talk)12:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note, please read-and-re-read our policies surrounding the privacy of TAs.Sohom (talk)12:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~2025-32348-96 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) IP-hopping LTA who has been disrupting the same pages for several months. See also80.235.139.234 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log). (If mentioning this IP address is against the new rules surrounding temporary accounts, please let me know and I'll avoid doing it in the future.)Barry Wom (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

If you didn't obtain the old IP using TAIV tools (which as far as I can tell you did not?), then it's categorically okay to say underWP:TAIVDISCLOSE. As noted there, it can be helpful to throw in a "This is not based on TAIV data" to avoid any confusion, but it's not required either. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)15:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know which part of my edit to the plot summary was not acceptable; I'd noticed some emotional concepts linked and thought to complete the linking following that example, and additionally felt that links to some scientific concepts would be useful. Thus, I'd appreciate if you could explain your manual revert on that page.Anthropophoca (talk)06:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I really should have offered an edit summary. Your changes introduced a number ofinapppropriate links, such as [[Terminal illness|dying]] and [[Undead|reanimating corpses]]. There was also someWP:OVERLINKING of common terms such as [[drowning]] and [[farmhouse]].Barry Wom (talk)11:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then you could've removed the links instead of reverting completely. I also believe some of those "inappropriate" links are appropriate; those examples you gave were in a passage talking about terminal syphilis ("dying of syphilis") and the whole premise of this story being about reanimating corpses through scientific means, though perhapsTechnological resurrection would've been more appropriate. I was on mobile, so i wasn't able to edit properly.Anthropophoca (talk)01:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have neither the time nor the inclination to correct your edits to the article. I also don't think you've quite understood my objection to your links. Please readWP:EASTEREGG.Barry Wom (talk)16:26, 16 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have ignored my post about the incorrect labelling of a Video Slot Machine, which is in fact a Video Poker Machine - why do you refuse to fix it?Spektah (talk)10:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now removedBarry Wom (talk)10:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, thank you.Spektah (talk)10:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered that Home on the Range had an early limited release on October 5, 2003 at Pleasure Island in Disney World. So it also counts as a 2003 film.Nathaniel13Schmitz (talk)01:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't "an early limited release", it was a private screening. The appropriate place to discuss the matter is at the article talk page.Barry Wom (talk)10:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, new to Wikipedia, so apologies in advance.I noticed you undid my edit setting the location of origin of The Living Tombstone.I detailed my thoughts about thishere, and would appreciate it if you could please go over it.

Thanks in advance!~2025-34191-84 (talk)22:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Noindexed pages