User talk:BarntToust

Welcome!
  Hello, BarntToust!  Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

  Getting Started

Tutorial Learn everything you need to know to get started. Introduction to contributing • Editing

• Referencing

• Images

• Tables

• Policies and guidelines

• Talk pages

• Navigating

• Manual of Style

The Teahouse Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips 
 * Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
 * It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
 * If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
 * Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
 * When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
 * If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
 * Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 21:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pedro Pascal on screen and stage has been accepted
 Pedro Pascal on screen and stage, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Pedro_Pascal_on_screen_and_stage help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 20:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

On my submission for peer review on Pedro Pascal on screen and stage
Somehow I made one request before the template on the talk page was published. I made another request from the template when it was finally published, so there is a first request floating around randomly alongside a second that is connected to the template on the talk page. Sorry about that. BarntToust (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Irritance
I assume this: [] was in reference to my edits that you deleted on The Lego Movie (franchise). It is extremely disrespectful to call someone an IP editor when their account is logged in at all times. I looked at your account, and it doesn't seem to be a month old, so that explains the confusion.

I understand I may have fluked when it came to Piece by Piece (2024 film) and I appreciate your enthusiasm and contributions for this site, but you can't just jump without a parachute. If you are unsure of how to value edits from people who are logged in and people who aren't, I would recommend Help desk, Teahouse, or IP editors are human too if you're looking for an answer to this specific situation. I understand your account is recent and I will give you some flack for your mistakes, but mislabeling other users, especially when they take good pride in their years of edits, is not something that will be tolerated. Thank you. Zucat (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh no, we all seem to be deeply confused here. There was another IP editor doing that before your contributions, you probably might have been confused by their edits. I am deeply sorry for the confusion in making it seem like I was attacking you here, I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me.
 * I have been watching this article and surrounding due to |several paid editors creating trouble, around this subject. If you will direct your attention towards the Piece by Piece article history, one intern created content without disclosing their paid contributions; the editor I linked to removed the paid content that they added on 7th June. I am again deeply sorry for you getting caught in the crossfire, and I must stipulate, your work here is much appreciated. BarntToust (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not about IP editors in the subject of them being IPs, but rather that there are COI edits being made which potentially disrupt the articles, and such information was recently causing problems. I want to further touch on that I never meant harm to you based on your contributions, but that we all seem to be catching the wrong ideas here. Check out Draft:Pure Imagination Studios here, you'll see they have been editing disruptive, blatant promotion, (and false information in trying to credit their company as a production co. in the Piece by Piece when it is not by any means of clear sources).
 * I really, truly mean no animosity towards you, it just seems that we have all fell victim to a massive misunderstanding. BarntToust (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * [] this should be the link where Theroadislong, an editor that seems pretty respectable on a first glance took the paid content out. I believe that you saw a (likely unrelated) IP account add vague and untrue information to the lego movie franchise article, which you expanded under the untrue (and very reasonable) understanding that it was true info. Hey, we all get confused sometimes, it's all not a very big deal in the long run. Much love to you, and good feelings for all! BarntToust (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: another IP editor has been | doing the same thing today regarding the disruptive promotion on the Piece by Piece article, which | was again reverted. Sorry for coming off as absolutely dismissive of IP editors, but there seem to be a few around this subject, connected or not, that are causing issues around this subject. One of which made edits that factually confused you, and which I unceremoniously, unrighteously caught you up in. I again apologize distinctly for that. BarntToust (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Ivy Road for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ivy Road is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ivy Road& 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. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Keanu Reeves, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dogstar. 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) 06:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Excessive Images
Hello. I just wanted to thank your for your dedication to uploading images to Wikimedia. However, I wanted to explain why I removed many of them from the Superman (2025 film) article. These articles are not supposed to become overloaded with excessive images as it can actually disrupt the display and readability of the text on different platforms (such as mobile). Per the image manual of style detailed at MOS:SANDWHICH, paragraphs should not be bundled (or "sandwiched") in-between two or more sets of images, and an image gallery of nine images all of the same set area is considered excessive and overkill by many. This Wikipedia article is not meant to be a repository for housing all images available, that is what WP:COMMONS is for. I created a category for this film there, which you can view here, though please be mindful of what images you add as not all of them are necessary to include in this encyclopedia, especially considering we are likely to have other images become available as filming continues or even in years to come that may be more relevant than some random set photos that are likely not of interest to the general public. Thank you for your understanding, and I encourage you to keep uploading images but to just refrain from adding far too many into a single article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Trailblazer101 Hey, thanks for taking that time. I was intent on a gallery, but yeah, that may not have been so good in practice. I do encourage you to check out Erik Drost on Flickr, in case you should find any of those other images helpful to illustrating the film, not just that section (one of his photos of James Gunn is used in his article, as well as the one we are talking about). There will indeed likely be many more from there, and that specific photographer is one who should be watched. I think one of his many images of the daily planet might be useful somewhere? I'm unsure about how, but it's central to the film's plot.
 * I really appreciate the time you've taken in explaining this all, with much love, BarntToust (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:IVY-ROAD-LOGO-2021.png
Thanks for uploading File:IVY-ROAD-LOGO-2021.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Link archiving
Hello. Thank you for some of your recent additions across various MCU articles. I just wanted to bring to your attention about archiving the sources you add. Archiving is a vital way to prevent WP:LINKROT and to ensure the URLs we are adding are still available to check the cited material in the event URLs change, alter article content, or go offline completely (see what happened recently with MTV News as an example). Adding archives generally consists of three additional citation parameters: url-status (set to "live" when adding), archive-url (the url of the archive), and archive-date (the date the archive was created), in that order between url and access-date. It takes only a few extra moments to either create the archive or pull one from the Wayback Machine. Link rot has handy code for you, if you choose, to create a bookmarklet in your browser to make it even easier, as you can simply click that bookmark on the page you wish to archive, and it will check the Wayback Machine for an archive, or then allow you to save it right then and there. I hope you will consider doing this just as a general editing habit to get into, but it also saves regular editors of the MCU articles like myself from going in afterwards to add archives as needed. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Favre1fan93 Duly noted, I'll look into arranging for a bot to do this work for all of us automatically, when I've got time. Also, I will look into the internet archive as well to do small stuff manually. I think a bot running is something we all need in those articles running every once in a while to do that part so editors can worry about content foremost. With much love, BarntToust (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Bots do currently exist for archive maintenance, and I do believe there is one that may go around very infrequently to add missing archives. But as noted, if you can add them yourselves right when you are adding info in, that is the best practice. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Can do! take care. BarntToust (talk) 04:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Superman 2025 logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Superman 2025 logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
— Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 15:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yep, the citation system on that article was HORRIBLE, broken horridly. I went off to edit some French touch articles instead. No edit conflicts and broken systems there. Thanks for the template. BarntToust (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Music Sounds Better With You, you may be blocked from editing. Popcornfud (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Can't really call it disruptive. Adding important details is not causing anyone problems, and frankly, you are overreacting based on a like of minimalism. I added, at the end, small details, and your preferences for minimalism are not policy, and therefore not covered under being called "disruptive", as they are factual, and non-contested. @Popcornfud BarntToust (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * When you make an edit and it's contested, you need to discuss and get consensus for the change before you make further changes. That's the rule on Wikipedia. Popcornfud (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll drop this right now. What I added is not contemptible, and since I added it first, you reverted it, we discussed that keeping things trimmed down is the way to go, and I edited based on that decision, there is no contention here.
 * Have a good one, @Popcornfud, and take care. BarntToust (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that I only added vital details, and did not over-do things, as we agreed upon which must be done, and really, the disagreement was more your preferred MOS than content. Which we both agreed, several, large, over-done paragraphs aren't the way to go. BarntToust (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We have ascertained the info is good, when you said; The info you added is good, it was just poorly written. I kept the relevant additional info and rewrote the prose. yes, I re-wrote the relevant details into the sections, which is not a subject of contempt, rather just rewording in the sense of flow, and relevant specifics. I invite you to strike these disruptive editing claims, @Popcornfud, or I'll simply remove them from my talk page. BarntToust (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem was, in its essence, that the paragraphs were saying something in a hundred silly words, when they could have been said in 20 more punctual ones. We agreed on that. There cannot be a "war" here. BarntToust (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Shrek 5 poster
Are you certain that the current poster listed is the correct one? The 5 looks different than the official Dreamworks. Maybe imp awards got it incorrect. If you have a source where this originally came from besides impawards, show it to me. Because right now, I'm doubtful. 1ArcticDude (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey, @1ArcticDude, I know what's going on here. If you look on Instagram at the thumbnail for the trailer, you'll be able to see the same image as the one Imp Awards has listed. The motion poster, and its screenshots look different. On that note, either works? Not sure. BarntToust (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know why that is, but I know that it is what's going on here. Strange things, right?
 * by the way, | here is the Instagram link, for your viewing. BarntToust (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well I didn't notice it when I saw it for the first time. I saw it on twitter for the first time. 1ArcticDude (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * User:1ArcticDude, your upload source is literally the announcement video, which is a video and not a teaser poster release, so I'm not sure on what basis you made the decision to take a screenshot from a Twitter video and try to show it as a poster. ภץאคгöร  14:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @User:Nyxaros, it is understandable that he could look at a motion poster and believe it would work. It was a misconception, anyways, and it was nearly indistinguishable from the imp awards's poster. But we looked closely at it, and figured out the small details which made it the proper one. We all understand this now. Back down please, Nyxaros. BarntToust (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have explained the situation (again) as I see that two distinguishable uploads were still generating discussions. There is nothing to "back down" about the situation and take offense at. ภץאคгöร  18:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, 1ArcticDude seems to understand the situation and left it at that, so fast-forward 20-some hours later, and no more comment on my talk page about it. They seem to had understood that they were two distinct things when I explained them. I just don't see any value in your comment other than a plot summary of our discussion, and a not-so-soft one at that. BarntToust (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We, as editors, are not on this website all the time. There's nothing wrong with my reply, which is definitely not a summary of what you discussed. Should you wish to assign responsibility to me for any matter, I kindly request that you provide full disclosure or refrain from further commentary regarding my involvement. This should be as formal as it gets for you. ภץאคгöร  19:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, the editor clearly doesn't have a crystal-clear understanding of the finer details of the difference between a motion poster and a sheet release, but that doesn't mean you need to type out words here that instantly question why this editor screenshotted the end of a motion poster. We don't need to rhetorically (which I understand you may not have meant for things to sound with a tinge of sarcasm, but just be aware that is what I perceived) ask them why they chose to do it, we just need to inform them of the proper source, and that there is indeed understandable potential confusion as to why that is. (and, I mean, the black lines on the screenshots, wow, they were poorly cropped). They simply did not understand that the poster was different from the motion video, and, frankly, if you had only seen the video and not looked at other sources, you'd doubt the inconsistency too! It turns out that the inconsistency was just about the only thing that was under discussion here, had there just been a poster from the social media accounts, there would be no confusion. It's all understandable, but the differences between a motion poster and something that, at that point, was barely viewable on a thumbnail, but released by a generally not-popularly recognizable source. There had to be more digging done. I'm sure more sources with the sheet poster exist, but yeah, the two are really similar. We had to take this case on a by-basis sentiment, as not every day does one see a motion poster, much less coupled with a really similar sheet. I mean, they get it. Whoa. BarntToust (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * OK wow I didn't realize my mistake would cause an argument. Calm down guys. I made a mistake. I was unaware of the REAL poster, but I now am. Let's move on. 1ArcticDude (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)