User talk:Barry Wom

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)

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 [1].

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.[2] 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)

Help needed

There is an abusive user constantly edit-warring on The Pandemic Special by inserting piped links to redirects. I’ve already got a complaint filed but I also need to stop my edit warring. Can you please review the edits and assist as needed? Thanks. - SanAnMan (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. Normally I'd report them for edit warring but I suspect in this case you might also get sanctioned. Let me know if I can be of further help. Barry Wom (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

If so it will be for fighting in what I believe is right. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Your recent editing history at South Park shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. QuestFour (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)