This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles
post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people
governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues
gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them
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 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.
Welcome to the moment I realised Wikipedia could be anything, including, but not limited to, well, whatever in the h-e-double-hockey-sticks this is?
A Portugal-based IP editor got flaming mad at me for nominating a D-list actress's Wikipedia page for deletion, and my talk page turned into this rant-y insanity, and the IP, among other things, attacked my femininity and cast aside my adoration for Nine Inch Nails, Noah "Panda Bear" Lennox, and my interest in Shrek 5 as if it were dust atop a shelf. I think it's funny. I'll keep it because of its humorous quality. BarntToust (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The subject is not notable beyond one Variety article, and a few corporate profiles don't make someone worthy. A brief mention in a Fact Magazine article doesn't count or show notability.
I have to ask you before you do go, without making undue implications, whether or not you are affiliated with Ivy Wolk? Since you saw fit to yap on here so disparagingly about this, I'd say it's justified to ask someone with such a vehement, salty take that solely constitutes insulting another person in relation to the (clearly not notable) subject. BarntToust (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope just hate when jealouse people act jealouse. Just becuz your a Wiki editor doesnt mean you control whose famous and whos not. Disparageing me becuz English isnt my first language? Do u hate Portuguese to like you hate Ivy Wolk? She is incredibly famous in Brooklyn. Especially at rooftop lesbian parties. 2601:643:8500:AF00:BC6C:5FB:C206:925F (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't despise you. If you can't speak English properly on my talk page, and use FUCKING LESBIAN ROOFTOP PARTIES as justification for inclusion of an article, I'm gonna be a bit chiding towards you.
You insulted me when you chose to get smug and ask if I was jealous of someone who may or may not be relevant in a particular city and, Lesbian Rooftop parties.
Jealouse* wikipedia geniuse. Geniunely wondering if u speak English properly. This is zenophobic towards ppl learning language for the first time. I am from Portugal. WHo is wolverin
Pardon my profanity above, but using Lesbian rooftop parties as justification is too funny.
Maybe you should get on with your language studies instead of defending someone who owns a twitter account and had one article written about her? BarntToust (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find this interaction to be insanely funny. If you are to contribute to the English Wikipedia, you have to be competent enough to properly communicate on it. And knowing the language well enough to conduct yourself properly is of chief importance. BarntToust (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find you to be someone who spends their time upset about movie posters online. Meanwhile Ivy and her fans at parties, at pool, getting strong men, getting cigarette, getting life. I dont know why u have all this hate in ur heart girl. U must be unsatisfied by life girl 2601:643:8500:AF00:BC6C:5FB:C206:925F (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH that is hilarious how you are hyping up this social media person! I like to clean up wikipedia when something that doesn't have a meaningful case for existence pops up.
Nice, you know how to scroll up wikipedia user talk pages.
There is no way you are cute or else u would have more attention then this and u wouldnt have to get mad about shrek to get attention girl. But here u are. Mad about shrek and ivy wolk WHO DOSNT KNOW U EXIST girl and they talking about her at parties in Buswick and not you girl. 2601:643:8500:AF00:BC6C:5FB:C206:925F (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributing to the English Wikipedia. [[1]] here's the portuguese wikipedia [[2]] and Spanish for your pleasure, where you'll be more familiar with the language there. Again, I want to make sure you're acquainted with wherever you're to go. BarntToust (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, hah, hahahahah. This is honestly hilarious and I've enjoyed all of it, Portugal, but I've gotta hop away from your acute silliness and grab a bite to eat.
Im gonna report u and then no wikipedia for u. Wikipedia is ur life so that must be sad girl. Nice job saying cussing words to me girl. Misstake. Maybe on of the cartoons will come to life to sleep with u? ANd then u will be happy 2601:643:8500:AF00:BC6C:5FB:C206:925F (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yo, Portugal who is currently in California, stop switching words around on my page. Real mature. Thanks for enriching me in the slang of Portuguese. Buzz off now. BarntToust (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have just given up by now, but seeing as you have been given a Final Warning by an administrator for your churlish behavior and you continue to pester me, I find it necessary to (quite bluntly, and with evident justification) tell you: get the hell off of my talk page. You clearly want the exact opposite of meaningfully engaging with this site, and any further disparaging comments and silly rants, at this point, can constitute being promptly blocked from editing. BarntToust (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
Speedy deletion nomination of And the universe said I love you
Hello BarntToust,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged And the universe said I love you for deletion, because it's a redirect that seems implausible or is an unlikely search term.
If you don't want And the universe said I love you to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
If you don't want And the universe said I love you because you are love to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Hey, @BarntToust. Just coming over to tell you that your signature colors break color accessibility. Only the first word's, "Barnt", color: fails color contrast on the cornsilk, , background. However, the second word's, "Toust", color: is dark enough to pass a color contrast check on the cornsilk background. Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥20:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I intended to go back and turn the quote into my own analysis of the IGN review, I write Wikinews so I know we shouldn't use direct quotes unless we need to. Hence, I have corrected the potential copyright violations in my most recent edit to the Sonic article (though I've seen way worse violations be left in place on here, but that's irrelevant). Lofi Gurl (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
YO. I know you have been busy with the Sonic 3 film page, but it would be cool if you checked out the soundtrack article too. I have been making additions to it as of late and I hope they align with your work. Zingo156 (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right-o. I knew that was a draft up until this point and I'll definitely take a gander at that especially since it's got a single release and a song by One Ok Rock going to be a part of it, so enough stuff's out now. Thanks for letting me know, @Zingo156! BarntToust14:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, You have been paired at good article review circles to review 2024 Tour Championship. At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.
To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #19.
I wondered if you could help. On my talk page is a message from a new user. I am based in the UK and sometime have problems opening links from other countries. Can you check the Instagram link for me please? Thanks in advance! Knitsey (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the section on the ANI report was probably no bueno
Wanted to cordon it off, but that actually can be misleading. Mainly, I wanted to do so such that Intrepid could be notified of a separate discussion involving them, but if a section is improper, then that does not need to happen. BarntToust16:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, as one of the editors whose comments would have been slightly refactored, I didn't mind. But I also don't mind greatly about the revert either. Simonm223 (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that since the discussion had a fine line between the part where "Intrepid's aspersions going haywire against them" turned into !votes for a boomerang, I'd wanted to refactor them sort of early in the game because refactoring would, IMO, support policy that says when ANI reports are filed against editors, tp notifications are mandatory, but yeah, I get that was probs misleading. If that would cause any problems, Apaugasma's rv took care of them. Thank you for that. BarntToust16:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello BarntToust!
You can always notify Intrepid on their talk, there is need for there to be a new subsection for that. But yes, doing it in the way that you did can be misleading. You should always be very careful with changing comments after the fact. Perhaps having a read of Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages may be helpful here?
What I wanted to contact you about though is the following. I'm a little bit puzzled by your change of heart here. You opened this thread and proposed a 1 month block. I'm glad you're convinced that this not a good idea after all, but it's a bit strange you're now opposing any type of sanction on the basis that the worst problem here should be that Hob used the word bullshit. Have you read the diffs? Perhaps also check my comment here.
In any case, if you really feel the thread you created shouldn't have been there at all in the first place, perhaps it's a good idea to be a little bit more reluctant in creating threads at ANI or commenting there in general? Perhaps Wikipedia:ANI advice can also be of some help.
@Apaugasma, Hob looks like Bob Ross or Mister Rogers or Keanu Reeves compared to, uh, Lardlegwarmers and IntrepidContributor and their situations. After looking at things from a lense of "it could be a hell of a lot worse", and then by looking at it from an objective standpoint, I realised that Hob ultimately tends to get profane about viewpoints of editors, not editors themselves, and none of the profanity comes off to me as vulgar. I don't think their use of such words keeps other editors from having meaningful discourse, nor do I believe their words directly hurt editors who hold the opinions Hob disparages with passion. And, as I've said, Hob looks like a saint and I'm kind of sorry I opened a thread because of conflating Hob's use of profanity about loony FRINGE content with vulgarity targeted directly towards other editors.
Other editors' testimonies of Hob undertaking a lot of shit concerning fringe content caused me to personally take another angle at the situation, and frankly I think the next fellow needs to close that section with consensus against ramifications. I mean, I still wish Hob would act a few shades closer to just providing rebuttal against content clearly and without profanity, but then again that's just a slippery slope concerning "casual profanity in casual interactions is not bad, but casual profanity in active discussions is not", and that's just a squabble over what the meaning of the word "is" is. BarntToust16:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion nomination of The definition of is
Hello BarntToust,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged The definition of is for deletion, because it's a redirect that seems implausible or is an unlikely search term.
If you don't want The definition of is to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Regarding our exchange over on that ANI discussion, I simply wanted to be clear that while consensus might have formed around profanity is like not a violation of civility, and I certainly wouldn't fault someone for getting to the point of being profane, especially when dealing with NOTHERE, WIKILAYWER, FT, etc... I personally chose not to go there, and would continue to suggest it might not be civil, but would agree that for otherwise constructive contributors, it absolutely not sanctionable or anything. Cuss away, I just choose not to open that Pandora's box. Cheers! TiggerJay(talk)16:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, do I think people like Hob write things with direct hate in their hearts when they call out things for being bullshit, with those exact words? Lol, no. But other people may be less able to gauge intent when they use bold wording like that. BarntToust16:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sooo... When are you going to write that essay? I'm eager to read it more thoroughy! Haha! And yes, I think you have people frustrated at the situation and not necessarily hatred towards the person.
What is really unfortunate regarding some of these FN discussions is that I might, myself, be somewhat on the fence about the topics at hand, and in some cases agree with some of these people that some topics are less fringe or conspiracy than otherwise publicly perceived, but the problem is they go about it entirely the wrong way, and then double or triple down, which does precious little for their cause. For example, while I haven't looked into it extensively, I thought the US government did confirmed the lab leak? But I honestly have not looked extensively into the topic. The problem is most of these POVPUSHERS simply presume that if we're against what they're doing (or more specifically how they're doing it) that we disagree with their viewpoints or their topic. While many of us might appear to CABAL against them, often it is for something like for introduction of primary or unreliable sources, that has nothing to do with our personal views on the information being presented. TiggerJay(talk)16:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, @Tiggerjay, let me tell you a secret I've learned in my 5 or so years of editing on Wikipedia: in order to always (with maybe a 1% margin of error) be successful in introducing contentious yet pertinent content into any article that is associated with contentious subjects—one must have a steady grasp on not what it is you write, but how to write it. It must be written in a way that proves no bias by the writer, presented in deadened factual tone, and it must be placed in the most comfortable spot, not just anywhere. So many editors who introduce contentious content into articles do so in ways that stick out like a sore thumb, don't flow with the rest of the content, don't discuss the claims they make in any depth: if they edited with more thoroughness, the content would pass. As they are POV-pushing, they simply only care about getting "the truth" out there and don't concern themselves with anything else. Also, when you are not an IP editor, and don't have a blank, redlinked user page, that 1% margin of error becomes once in a blue moon. BarntToust22:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i.e. Imagine an editor writes "There have been allegations of Bias in the court system because of the ruling against John Doe": this could have been written as "Allegations of bias by popular figures emerged following the ruling in the John Doe case; the circuit court rebuffed these allegations, claiming their judgement was enacted in legal buzzword here." and it could get by like a stick of butter on a skating rink. Of course, the editor who hypothetically wrote the first sentence just wants to POV push for the claim there is bias, and not really provide the holistic views on the subject of what they write. BarntToust23:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73, I want the unblocking Admin and whom it may concern to know that they are a net negative to the project in my experiences. This message falls under "take it from somebody who has met this case in the wild, they ammount to a general annoyance atbest". BarntToust21:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Had this editor not gone and opened their "introduction" I would have forgotten about their existence as if they were a person I saw at Starbucks in 2018. But no, they show more ignorance and pestering for no reason to no end. Thus, I commented that they are a nuisance and that I wish to see none of them further. If you call me a gravedancer, what do you call them? BarntToust21:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're already indeffed. Take their talk page off your watchlist and you won't see any of their edits. Its also a pretty open and shut case, there's no reason to think any input was necessary. And if it was, you could have said it in a far more constructive manner. That was just a drive-by cheapshot. Do better. Sergecross73msg me21:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't see how my two cents would harm the natural course of "CIR is not let back on Wikipedia", but I can see how my two cents was redundant, as they have proven to be an annoyance besides me being Captain Obvious and saying what they clearly show. Expressing general annoyance at problems that anyone with a good head on their shoulders can see? Yeah, I've probably got better things to do. BarntToust21:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not appropriate or helpful to go to a blocked users talk page and say "Gee, I hope you don't get unblocked." I can't be any more clear than that. Sergecross73msg me22:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it helps for an unblocking Admin to have testimony right there about the editor's standing from informed editors as to how the blocked editor deserves or doesn't to be unblocked. Or maybe it doesn't. That fellow probably had enough rope that they could hang themselves without me cheering them on. Who knows. They'll be off my watchlist. BarntToust22:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
