This is a Wikipedia user 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 than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BarrelProof.

Archives

Archive 1 (2010–12) Archive 2 (2012–13) Archive 3 (2014) Archive 4 (2014–15) Archive 5 (2016) Archive 6 (2017) Archive 7 (2018) Archive 8 (2019) Archive 9 (2020) Archive 10 (2021) Archive 11 (2022) Archive 12 (2023) Archive 13 (2024)

Appreciated, thank you. Springnuts (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. (Apparently a response to this comment at Talk:Duke lacrosse case.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of not cluttering what is likely to be a long discussion I'm posting here. Regarding this comment, that RM was closed on procedural grounds less than 7 days (which is the minimum required). Instead of trying to take that to a WP:MR, asking it to be re-opened, its less WP:BUREAUCRATIC to just start a new RM. And in this case, the RM is only started after a WP:RFCBEFORE[1].VR _{(Please ping 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responded to my remark, pointing out the specific rationale for the previous discussion being rapidly closed, so I have withdrawn my remark.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]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kabaddi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Midlands, England.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching this. I didn't think to check for the form with dots. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. Yes, the dots make a difference. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect 2025 Kabaddi World Cup (World Kabaddi Federation) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia: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]

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]

@BarrelProof No worries, it happens to me whenever I comment. Rager7 (talk) 21:48, 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]

Hi, thank you for your contributions. I note your recent revert here.

Veny and Lioness Asuka are both standalone articles. Including Asuka in this section is misplaced. 162 etc. (talk) 16:26, 22 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. See WP:DAB, which says disambiguation is "because [a title] refers to more than one subject 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 of WP: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, which Lioness Asuka and Veny definitely are.

I stand by my original interpretation, which is that Asuka (wrestler) is not partial disambiguation. However, I won't argue about it. If it is to be included, though, it belongs at WP:PDAB#(cricketer), (footballer), other sports players, not its current placement. 162 etc. (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I mean, it's not that uncommon in wrestling, where ring names change often. Kane (wrestler) / Stevie Ray, Trinity (wrestler) / Naomi (wrestler), off the top of my head. The article titles however, are not in the form of Foo (wrestler) / Foo (bar wrestler), which is what PDAB is trying to address. 162 etc. (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a PDAB title is any title of the form Foo (bar) in a case where some other bar is (or has prominently been) called Foo. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:37, 23 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).

Mexico's Gulf coastline ends at the Cabo Catoche Lighthouse located approximately 21.604710, -87.103079) - https://web.archive.org/web/20161020064540/http://www.iho.int/iho_pubs/standard/S-23/S-23_Ed3_1953_EN.pdf

"It [Mexico] has a 9,330 kilometer coastline. Out of this length, 2,805 kilometers [1,743mi] face the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. The remaining kilometers face the Gulf of California and Pacific Ocean." - https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-longest-coastlines-in-north-america.html Sccarney (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sccarney: That would help explain my 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.

Meanwhile, current wiki numbers trace back to: https://www.scrippsnews.com/politics/can-trump-rename-the-gulf-of-mexico-to-the-gulf-of-america

Written by: Digital Content Creator: Taylor O'Bier Sccarney (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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"

O'Bier, Taylor (January 7, 2025). "Can Trump rename the Gulf of Mexico to the 'Gulf of America?'". ABC10. Associated Press.

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.

I just did a little looking, and found Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 286#worldatlas.com, which seems to indicate no problem. It looked a little spammy to me at first glance.

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.

—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Philippe Ouédraogo (cardinal), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burkinabè.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Terrorist tactics, techniques, and procedures 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 Wikipedia: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.

Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you've said that The Axis Club is undiscussed, however, on Talk:The Axis Club it is requested. How do I go about completing the task at reverting the article name to the Mod Club? Cltjames (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. This is to do with conduct by user Dicklyon in moving - I am informing you as you were involved in the move discussion at 1925 Tri-State tornado or 2021 Tri-State tornado. Thank you. Departure– (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Departure–: Thank you for the notification. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BarrelProof. You have new messages at LakesideMiners's talk page.
Message added 01:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 01:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help in cleaning up an outrageous article name (2009 Shopian rape and murder case → 2009 Shopian rape and murder hoax). 65.88.88.56 (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries – I didn't do much. Thanks very much for the nice note. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any idea it would be great if you could comment at Talk:Electronic cigarette#What info should be in what articles? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just want to knw why's the content of article Andy 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]

It looks like an IP editor made a WP:CUTPASTE move, as shown by the article histories found here and here. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was deleted by unregistered user... You can see the history here 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will submit a WP:REPAIR request. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the history 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]

I created Andy ByronAndy Byron as a redirect at 14:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC). I think you created Andy Byron (Tech founder) at 17:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC) and moved it to Andy Byron (tech founder) at 17:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC). An IP editor did a cut-paste move at 17:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC). GorillaWarfare did a cut-paste repair and history merge at 18:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC). The article history shows that the article content was added by you after I created the redirect. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:14, 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]

It was an administrator WarfareGorilla who suggested the deletion... 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note the email address topic in the first link. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled upon your move discussions regarding the titles of Wisconsin municipalities. I would look at Administrative divisions of Wisconsin, which will hopefully help explain things some. -- Dolotta (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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—recognize Russia as the successor of the USSR's results and medals, just as Serbia 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 this information, 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 that SamWinchester2025 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 is FIVB 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]

I noticed your previous improvement of the article, which was substantial. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at UPS Airlines Flight 2976, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. Electricmemory (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Electricmemory: Please don't template the regulars. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 10:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funny – now I see you have Don't template me at the top of your own User talk page! —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps add it to your own then. I wouldn't have templated you if you did have it. That said, I am able to template the regulars if it seems fit. It's a matter of simple and effective communication. Electricmemory (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day, BarrelProof, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @BarrelProof. Your wiki edit anniversary was 1 day ago, marking 15 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 08:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BarrelProof, for your info, there's a further request Here for a page move. It looks like we have consensus so far around a move to SIM swap attack - but this would likely benefit from your opinion, too. Chumpih ^t 02:38, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! If you withdraw your move request, I am prepared to split the article to Twelve Angry Men (1955 play) and Twelve Angry Men (1964 play), which I hope will adequately disambiguate in addition to clearing up all the factual problems and lack of clarity. I have a draft of the former prepared and have been cleaning up the existing article. - BrechtBro (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, according to the rules for closing requested move discussions, a person should not withdraw an RM if some other people involved in the discussion have supported the proposal. The proposal currently has two supporters. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@BrechtBro: I've been working on disambiguation of these, which has proven to be annoying busywork distracting me from more important priorities, with around 100 of these to go, I'm worn out. Nobody is conflating these with the television play. What I see are lots of theater groups, including everything down to several high schools, performing this play. Good luck figuring out whether some high school was performing the 1955 play, the 1964 play, or some mix of those that they forged up for their mixed cast of boys and girls. We already have one broad-concept article about the topic Twelve Angry Men and I'm wondering if it might be overkill to create a sub-broad-concept article about the various versions of the play. Maybe if you do split these, then redirect Twelve Angry Men (stage play) back to Twelve Angry Men and let the top-level article disambiguate between the versions of the (stage) play. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, I had a look at Thorcon's homepage, and it seems that at some point (in the last year or so?) they renamed their reactor from "TMSR 500" to "Thorcon 500", so I added that (w/refs) to the lede of ThorCon nuclear reactor, and reworded the entry on TMSR -- Limulus (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Limulus: That's interesting. We should check independent sources too. I noticed their website also appears to currently be saying "Thorcon" instead of "ThorCon", although I believe the cited sources mostly say "ThorCon". For Wikipedia purposes, we'd want to see what independent sources are doing about that. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see you already added a citation. That's helpful. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Illegal immigration § Requested move 25 February 2026. Edittttor (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, BarrelProof. Really enjoying the discussion over at Talk:Mais qui ?#Requested move 11 March 2026, I suspect (hope?) you are, too. I totally don't care how it comes out, other than however P&G say it ought to. In the meantime, here we are spending time discussing a single blank space. If that isn't a symptom of Wikiholism, I don't know what is. Keep doing your twelve steps, and see you at the next meeting. 😬 Mathglot (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping to maintain a friendly tone in that discussion. Yes, I think we might both need some therapy. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@BarrelProof: The reason why I am sending you this message is because User:ScrubbedFalcon closed the discussion as merge, I 100% disagree with it. I have created an against the merge section on the page Talk:Ferrero SpA, with multiple reasons of why I am against it. Catfurball (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

new section ~2026-17364-07 (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Outline of stage illusion, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of stage illusion until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to close the Baseball Rubbing Mud RM as a move to Baseball rubbing mud, and somehow both messed up the close and forgot to do the move myself. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 21:11, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I can take care of the page moving for the revised closure. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And currently the article itself is MIA and all we have is a bunch of circular redirects. oknazevad (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Almost finished. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the process, my last reply got lost completely. It may have affected the closure, being it includes links to sources. oknazevad (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look now. I think your comment was after the closure declaration, so I put it at the bottom. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I originally typed it up a couple of days ago and it didn't save properly. I wanted to make sure it was included because I think it speaks to the idea that the article is about a specific, distinctly notable product, not the generic concept. Frankly, there really isn't a generic concept. There's been attempts to make alternate products, but they have no significant market presence. oknazevad (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do see other brands offered for sale, and I want to avoid giving readers the misimpression that using a specific brand of mud is required by some official rule, but I don't have a strong opinion about whether the article should be written as a general topic or not. I just didn't like the old title, which was neither a brand name nor a generic concept. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I thought the proposal to add the Lena Blackburn name to the title was the right call. I feel trying to make it generic will result in loss of material about the Lena Blackburn brand's distinct properties, unusual production process (secret harvesting location, especially) and unique position as the industry standard used universally across MLB & MiLB. Even if it's placed into a section, I can foresee someone coming along and taking it out saying it sounds promotional and undue focus on one brand. oknazevad (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend stopping replying to that user as they don't have a grasp on Wikipedia guidelines and policies yet. Any good closer will understand that. Raskuly (🐰) 21:56, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can sometimes have trouble dropping the stick. It has crossed my mind to wonder if their replies are intentionally self-sabotaging. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have infact read Wikipedia:RMNOMIN, however because one person commented I believed that they were neutral. I will happily correct it if necessary. Robloxguest3 (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Robloxguest3, only commenting because I had your userpage watchlisted and saw it. You changed the close to merge, but that was a move discussion, not a merge discussion, and it was only BarrelProof that said Merging the content into Peter Kember would make sense. HurricaneZeta^C 18:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Robloxguest3, thank you for the revision of the closing statement. In my opinion, merging was also basically suggested by 162 etc. I have seen other RMs that were closed with decisions to merge, and I don't have a problem with that outcome. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm I read over that entirely. My bad, that was a good close. HurricaneZeta^C 19:10, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for taking the time to go through the sourcing and clearing out rubbish. I'm not particularly interested in the subject, only ending up on the page after discussions at WP:BLP/N. TarnishedPath^talk 09:05, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. As you said, the article contains a significant amount of rubbish, and I don't really have the energy to thoroughly clean it up. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I completely relate to your lack of energy. TarnishedPath^talk 09:17, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you've looked at quite a bit of the sourcing for the article by this stage. Have you as yet seen SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, independent sources? What was presented as having SIGCOV in the last AFD, didn't by my assessment. TarnishedPath^talk 09:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't given that a lot of thought, although I think I lean toward a keep. There is definitely a significant quantity of sources that discuss her, although some of the sourcing is trivial or unreliable and more of the nature of celebrity gossip and "puff pieces" than serious journalism. The Epstein connection has received some real attention, and seems to have been substantial – not to say she was directly involved in his wrongdoing, but she seems to have had an unusually personal relationship with him. Few candidates for deletion have 40 citations. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across Et alors ! if you're still going after these. 162 etc. (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@162 etc.: Thanks! It looks like there's about 30 of those. I'll try to follow up on that. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]