User talk:BarrelProof

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Pisco and Pisco Sour[edit]

Barrel, you have a good deal of edits in drink-related articles and I would like to hear your advice on the Pisco Sour article (which I'd like to improve). While Pisco was created in the Viceroyalty of Peru, during the Spanish Empire, the Pisco Sour was created during the republican era of South America. Apparently two claims exist to the invention, one from Peru and the other from Chile. However, one thing doesn't add up:

  • Apparently, both stories attribute the invention of the drink in a period when the territories discussed where in Peru (Lima and Iquique).

While two versions of the drink certainly exist nowadays (one made with "Chilean Pisco" and the other with "Peruvian Pisco"), it seems to me perfectly logical to write in the article that the drink was invented in Peru. That is, considering both Lima and Iquique were Peruvian cities at the time (Nowadays Iquique is part of Chile). Of course, that does not mean the drink is solely Peruvian, but I think it is important to establish the drink's origin (considering both "theories" of invention technically do not contradict the country, but rather contrast cities). What is your opinion?--MarshalN20 | Talk 06:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. Sorry for the slow response – I sometimes grow tired of the Chile/Peru issues with that article. Assuming that the above information is correct, it seems like a bit of an oversimplification to say only that it was "invented in Peru". I would suggest to use some other phrasing that acknowledges that what was called Peru then may not be in what is called Peru now. For example, you could say that it "was first produced in the area that was known as Peru at the time (which had different borders than the modern country of Peru)". You may note that I did not use the word invention here. I also have a bit of a problem with the notion of invention, when (as far as I know) what we're talking about is basically brandy, which was already a well-established concept that required little real inventiveness for its production to begin in a new area. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I think you're misunderstanding my message. I am not commenting about Pisco; that drink is a whole mess of trouble (and I really don't want to get into that). My subject was the Pisco Sour, a cocktail.
I have recently done a massive improvement of the article, which you can read from the wikilink. I even wrote a bit on the "Pisco" debate, but only narrowly touched on it given the controversy. I would like to take this article into the GA-review, and would greatly appreciate any suggestions you may have towards improving it. I have done what best I could with the limited amount of sources, but surely it seems to be (at least) on par now with the Caesar (cocktail) article. What do you think?--MarshalN20 | Talk 06:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, yes, you're obviously right about that. Sorry about mixing up "Pisco Sour" and "Pisco". I should go back and look at that again. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Kentucky becoming a Commonwealth in 1850[edit]

Hello. I have had trouble finding a source for the reason that Kentucky changed to a Commonwealth in 1850. I would appreciate it if you could help me find something. Jay (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding to that comment. I don't think I even noticed that comment before now. I don't know the answer, but I'll try to remember to look into it. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
@Jaywubba1887: My understanding is that the idea of referring to Kentucky as a Commonwealth (U.S. state) is simply to say that it is a place governed for the benefit of the people – e.g., versus being a place governed for the benefit of a local aristocracy. I don't think it really indicates anything fundamentally different in the official form of the government or in its operating practices (e.g., relative to the other U.S. states that don't refer to themselves as a Commonwealth) – it probably just seemed like a nice thing to say at the time to emphasize having democratic principles – referring to the idea that the proper role of government should be for the benefit of the governed (as the Constitution of the United States says, to "promote the general Welfare", and as the Declaration of Independence says, "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"). It may also be worth noting that Virginia is a Commonwealth, and Kentucky was a spin-off of Virginia, and may have chosen to inherit the term from the tradition of its parent. If you have learned anything further on the subject, I would be interested in learning more about it. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just now noticing this thread, but I'm not sure where the idea that Kentucky only became a commonwealth in 1850 came from. It has been a commonwealth since it acheived statehood. The first state constitution (adopted 1792) refers to the state as a commonwealth. There is no functional difference between a state and a commonwealth, as far as I'm aware. It's just a stylistic thing. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

@Acdixon: Thanks so much for commenting and for that link. Yes, I see it referred to that way in the 1792 constitution (e.g., Article I, § 3 and Article II, § 16). Looking back at some of my editing history, I think Jaywubba1887's remark was prompted by this edit and this edit, and I see that I also did some other closely-related edits after that.
As to the association with 1850, I noticed that the Commonwealth (U.S. state) article says "The Constitution was changed as to the style for 'all process and mandates' to 'Commonwealth of Kentucky' in 1850; prior to that change 'State of Kentucky' was used." Looking back in the article history, I see that at 18:49, 22 May 2012, I noticed that the link in the reference citation for that statement was a dead link, and added a {{dead link}} tagging template to that sentence in that article. Maybe I did that while trying to respond to Jaywubba1887's remark – I don't remember.
I found a copy of the 1850 constitution online, but it still says "State of Kentucky" in the title, and – at a quick glance – I don't see any very obvious difference from the 1792 one in that regard. In the current constitution, the word 'Commonwealth' seems to appear in the preamble, but the title just says "Constitution of Kentucky" (assuming the title in the source I found is a direct quote of the original – on the page numbered 27, which is the 35th page in the PDF file – the Kentucky government's publication page has a different title and doesn't seem to assert that it is the exact title). As far as I can tell, none of those versions of the constitution has any special commentary about its use of the word 'Commonwealth'. An associated historical discussion that I found that looks pretty authoritative and extensive doesn't seem to discuss it either. Perhaps that statement in the Commonwealth (U.S. state) article should be revised or removed, since it seems misleading and the citation link is broken.
BarrelProof (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think it should be removed as inaccurate per this entry from The Kentucky Encyclopedia. (I know the web site doesn't look like much, but I have the print volume. They're identical.) It states: "'Commonwealth' is a part of the official name of Kentucky, as decided by the first General Assembly on June 4, 1792. ... The first use of the word commonwealth in official documents regarding Kentucky occurred in 1785, when the inhabitants of the Kentucky District petitioned Virginia to recognize Kentucky as a 'free and independent state, to be known by the name of the 'Commonwealth' of Kentucky.'" I think some of my other print sources have some commentary on the use of "commonwealth" vs. "state", but I don't have access to them at the moment, and that's tangetial to this issue, anyway. Kentucky has been a commonwealth from the very start. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
There is also a related phrase in Kentucky#Law and government that may need correction, since it seems to imply that there was something special about the use of 'Commonwealth' in the constitution of 1850. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Fixed both places. Thanks for pointing them out. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

To an awesome Wikipedian[edit]

Pappy Van Winkle.JPG Happy 2nd Anniversary
As a token of my appreciation for your delectable efforts, please enjoy with my compliments. 7&6=thirteen () 18:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much! —BarrelProof (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I would e-mail this suggestion to you, which is to open up the e-mail in your PREFERENCES, but of course, you don't have e-mail in Wikipedia. We seem to be a chicken and egg conundrum. You can e-mail me, however from my user or talk page. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen () 18:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Facepalm3.svg Facepalm 18:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I tend to try to keep my Wiki and off-Wiki lives separate. I suppose enabling incoming email through Wikipedia would not necessarily be inconsistent with that, but ... —BarrelProof (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Someday I'll have to buy a bottle of Pappy Van Winkle's Family Reserve! I've never tasted it. I once saw it on the shelf at a fancy restaurant and asked the price for a drink – it was very expensive. I don't mind paying for a good whiskey by the bottle, but the drink markup there was too much. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You could set up a totally individual e-mail account. I don't get much wikimail, but sometimes a back door for private exchanges has advantages. It has not been a problem, and your e-mail address is not revealed unless you send a wikimail. So if you get an annoying wikimail, it could just be ignored. If some Mellungen, hypothetically for example, were to write to you with an untoward message, you would just disregard it. Obviously its your call. I don't have any pressing business with you for now anyway. Apparently I didn't have anything better to do with my time than to try to connect with a kindred "spirit." Speaking of which Elijah Craig 16 year old I have purchased at Heaven Hill, and here it was like $36, and I thought a great value. I too have never had Pappy Van Winkle, and I think where I live the cost are very substantial (by that I mean eye-popping). 20:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Interesting products and potentially an article. 7&6=thirteen () 20:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I guess I'll give it a try – I have enabled email for my account. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis article[edit]

Well done. My fail was caused by the fact that someone included a wrong reference and, with all my good faith, I assumed it was verified and, therefore, correct. I'm foreign and in my country we haven't very much about Jefferson Davis. I hope these fails can be avoided in the future. Thanks.-- (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It is good that you brought attention to the issue. It is clear to me that just reversing your edits was not the right thing to do, since that did not resolve the conflict between the article and the cited source. You were also correct to discuss it with the other editor, and you did so in a polite and respectful way. Thank you for your good contribution to Wikipedia! —BarrelProof (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

re Garrett Morgan[edit]

That's the understatement of the century! Thanks for your comment on the edit; made my day Clevelander96 (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Surf Stadium source[edit]

I just added the source to the Bernie Robbins Stadium page. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Good. I am glad to hear it. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


Why are you such a raging faggot ? U banned my friend for legit edits to wikipedia. U must have a stick so far up ur ass

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2013‎ (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand exactly what you're talking about. I actually don't think I have the ability to ban anyone from Wikipedia – I believe only people with administrative account privileges can block accounts. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Revisions to dental specialties[edit]

BarrelProof, my recent additions to various dental specialties were constructive in nature. I noted, from the perspective of a dental student, that while these pages were very informative on their individual specialties, they did not offer links to why I should choose said specialty. Each is inherently biased, additional information or links as to why one specialty is a better career option would help each page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by • contribs) 21:49, 14 March 2013‎(UTC)

Thank you for the note. I am glad to hear that you were not just doing this as a "drive-by spammer". In the future, I suggest to try to provide good explanations of what you are doing when you make edits. That would help others understand what has motivated your editing. I notice that you did not provide any edit summaries when you made those edits that I reverted. You can find some information about that topic in the article at WP:ES.
Personally, I think that if an article is about a particular dental specialty, any link included in the article should be about that specialty – or should at least prominently feature some remarks commenting about that specialty. But I respect your difference of opinion, and I would be happy to see what others may think if the topic comes up again in the future.
BarrelProof (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I'm new-ish to the world of wiki-editing and still learning the ropes.
-Dlililb (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Jack Daniel's rye[edit]

Just so you know, based on inquiries from concerned parties (including Chuck Cowdrey), the label for the unaged Jack rye no longer says "neutral spirits", as it isn't distilled to neutral proof. Check Cowdery's site for the entries regarding it. oknazevad (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting. Thanks. I was pretty surprised to see that label that clearly said "Neutral Spirit" on it. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

San Francisco burrito[edit]

I agree that the editor who added the Urban Food Log material was misguided and that it should remain deleted. I also agree that the term "Mission burrito" should appear in the first sentence. However, I disagree that the regional food classification should be moved to the third paragraph, and I've restored its placement. The lead is structured from the general to the particular, such that the regional food term is introduced in its general historical (1960s) context and classification (occurring between the simple and California burrito style), followed by a brief description of how to differentiate it from other burritos in this class, and finally, a summary of its availability, presentation, and legacy. Viriditas (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Then please use the talk page to explain why you've changed the order of the information. I've added the description. And FYI, it is "Mission burrito". The "Mission style" refers to the Mission burrito outside of its regional context, i.e this article. Viriditas (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, the description of the food appears in the appropriate place at the end of the first paragraph, from the general to the particular. This description of ingredients and size allows one to differentiate the burrito from the other two styles that are described just before it. Your changes remove this historical context and reverse it, placing the description outside the context of what it is comparing itself to in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments. I happened to save another edit just as you were putting your comments on my Talk page. I think you're somewhat misreading my motivations. At this point it is probably advisable to move the discussion to the article's Talk page (as you suggested) rather than continuing here. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
That's fine, but I haven't commented about your motivations in this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't mean to say that you had. I meant that I thought that if you better understood what I was trying to accomplish, you might have a different perspective on the appropriate path forward. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The appropriate path forward is for the article to be expanded. I still don't understand your complaint about the lead and I've explained mine up above. If you can preserve the context, you're free to write it any way you want. You'll find I'm extremely flexible about the composition when an effort is made to preserve the core ideas. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Merger/move proposal[edit]

I have proposed a "merger/move request" between List of U.S. state partition proposals and List of proposed states of the United States, because I feel there is considerable overlap. If you are interested participating in the discussion, please feel free to do so here. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Amanda Filipacchi ‎[edit]

Removing "She began writing at age thirteen." A cited source does say this, but it seems implausible. Most kids begin writing at about age five, and writing stories is a common schoolwork assignment much earlier than 13.

I think you misunderstand the source and the subject. In the future, please do not remove content because you personally feel it is "implausible". There is nothing wrong with this content and it is perfectly plausible. Viriditas (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. A discussion of the issue has started on the relevant Talk page, and that seems like the right place for it to be resolved. I encourage you to join that discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I see it now, thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you really think it is perfectly plausible that she didn't start writing until she was 13? —BarrelProof (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I think you are misreading it somehow. She started writing fiction stories at 13. It's not really for us to judge. Viriditas (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
It was a simple sentence. It said "She began writing at age thirteen." Most kids are certainly writing fiction stories by about age 9 or 10 (both as a school activity and as a self-motivated extracurricular activity), so I don't think restricting it to fiction stories helps much. To me it seems like just a passing comment that was not meant to be taken seriously or to be copied to other places (like Wikipedia), and is just better left out of the article. Probably it refers to when she began to take an especially serious interest in fiction writing, but that's not what it said. As stated, it seems to say that she was developmentally delayed in some way, which I doubt was the intent. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
That's very strange, as I don't read it that way at all, and I suspect, neither does anyone else. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Rebel Yell edit[edit]

The content states: "The original company that produced the brand was founded in 1849 by William Larue Weller ..." while the sidebar claims: "Introduced 1949."

Looks like a typing mistake to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the company was founded in 1849, but the brand was created in 1949. The company had been producing other brands already, but this particular brand was created in 1949. Please see where the article says "The 'Rebel Yell' name was created ... around the 100th anniversary of the company, with the idea to distill it in limited batches for exclusive distribution in the south." —BarrelProof (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The label says 1849. You're confusing marketing with product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the label says 1849. That doesn't mean the product has existed for that long. It just means the manufacturer wants you to think it has. Clearly, the product was not introduced until around 1958. Actually, when you think about it, the 1849 date doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense – because the name of the product alludes to the rebellion that didn't break out until 1861. There was no "rebel yell" in 1849, as there was no rebellion yet in 1849. Anyhow, the label doesn't say "we've been producing this product since 1849." It just says "1849", leaving you to figure out what the date refers to. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

T. Boone Pickens[edit]

Thanks for improving my contribution to T. Boone Pickens. I'm conditioned to shorter paragraphs, I think, as a lifelong newspaper reader. Out of curiosity, when do you think a paragraph becomes overly long?

Additionally, what do you think about the remainder of that personal life section? It's in pretty poor shape — really just a hodgepodge of atomized, disjointed factlets. How can we improve it? Woodshed (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you didn't mind that edit. The reason I merged those paragraphs was primarily that I thought the new topic was getting undue emphasis in the article by having its own boldface section heading and a multi-paragraph discussion. Merging it into one paragraph and removing the section heading seemed like a way to avoid the perceived undue emphasis without removing any of the information. It also seemed to help clarify that those sentences were sourced from the same references. I don't really know much about Pickens, and I don't plan on spending much time on that article – sorry not to volunteer to help more. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Pisco Sour[edit]

Thank you very much for the improvements in the article.--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Markov chain[edit]

Thanks for improving the explanation to accompany the new figure! Gareth Jones (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Additional references[edit]

Hello. I added the refimprove template to the article Elo rating system because I noticed that, although a top-importance article for WP:CHESS, it has a large percentage of unreferenced passages, and thought that I might thus draw that problem to the attention of others and help improve this important article more quickly than might have otherwise been the case. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

That is a perfectly good explanation of the perceived problem. I suggest saying something like that on the article's Talk page (or at least in an WP:Edit summary). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC on title of Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)[edit]

Hi, this is to let everyone who commented in the last RM know that there's another RM/RfC here, in case you'd like to comment again. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Fireball Whiskey[edit]

That was a typo I made in the Fireball Cinnamon Whisky article. Instead of coumadin it should have been coumarin, a compound toxic to the liver and which is carcinogenic. It is contained in inferior "cinnamon" bark, but probably not in Fireball, simply because of how the flavoring is likely made. Usually cinnamon flavor is created by distilling the bark of certain species of "cinnamon" trees and since the flavor (cinnamaldehyde) boils off maybe 60 degrees Celsius cooler than coumarin does, then the coumarin likely gets left behind during distillation. A couple of similar beverages to Fireball (unspecified) were tested in Europe and no coumarin was found in them. It would make more sense for me to add the info regarding coumarin and cinnamon flavored alcoholic beverages to the coumarin article, because there is really no specific info on Fireball as sold elswhere than in the European Union. Thanks for catching the typo!

WriterHound (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I see that there is some information about regulations in the coumarin article. To me, this seems like something that a person interested in Fireball Cinnamon Whisky would not understand. But perhaps the coumarin article could be improved with specific information about beverages. I notice that the coumarin article says that addition of some substances that include it in alcoholic beverages is allowed as an exception in the US. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
FYI, your discussion and the dichotomy between U.S. and European regulations of coumarin is relevant and addressed in Żubrówka. That was available in the U.S. in my youth, but disappeared for many years. Although the foolhardy amongst us can trek to Canada and still get it. 7&6=thirteen () 17:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Themiscyra (Pontus)[edit]

Since the city is no more mythological than any other city in Herodotus and Strabo I think the merge is justified. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no real objection. This is outside my expertise. I was only trying to figure out what was the situation behind this move request, which was originally submitted as a non-controversial technical move. To me, things looked sufficiently messy to warrant reviewing the situation. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV: quotation marks[edit]

BarrelProof, if we are going to use the phrase "some American style guides" in the quotation mark article, we should be able to cite more than one example. In a recent MOS talk page discussion, it was clearly demonstrated that the American Bar Association (ABA) no longer requires logical quotation in the ABA Journal, and the ABA in fact relies on The Chicago Manual of Style, including the CMOS' required use of American style quotation punctuation. The phrase some "some American style guides" implies more than one style guide; to date, I have found over thirty examples of major American style guides that require American style quotation punctuation, and only one that requires British style punctuation. The use of logical quotation/British style quotation punctuation is a distinctly minority practice in English-speaking North America. Unless you can cite a second American style guide that requires logical quotation/British style quotation punctuation the phrase needs to be changed to accurately reflect reality; as currently phrased it violates WP:V and WP:RS. And for the record, so-called American style quotation punctuation is the predominant practice in Canada, too. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I changed it from saying "many American style guides" to saying "some American style guides", and you're complaining? My edit moved the article in the direction you seem to want to go. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
BP, not so much "complaining" as "discussing." If there are one or more other American style guides, in addition to the American linguistics society, which advocate using logical quotation/British style quotation punctuation, I would genuinely like to know what those sources are. I am in the middle of a little research project on this exact point, and have not found anything that supports the use of "logical quotation" in American English other than the single source. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I see, thanks. Yes, I would like to know the answer to that question myself. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on the subject. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Pisco Sour FA & Topic Ban[edit]

Dear BarrelProof,
It was a great experience to finally get an article pass the FA review. There was a lot of "behind the scenes" work for the article, and you were a crucial part of the development. If Wikipedia articles could have some sort of "acknowledgements" section, a handful of editors should be mentioned in it.
My hope is that the Pisco Sour article serves as a strong model for other food & drink articles. I think most editors fear using sources of "cocktail historians" or "food and wine experts" because they are not from traditional academia; other editors are just unaware of their value. Hopefully Pisco Sour demonstrates that these sources can be reliable, and that many of these experts conduct quality research that (although does not generate them fame and fortune) does improve knowledge in the field.
The topic ban is a long story. My mistake was being pushy about a move request in the War of the Triple Alliance article (now called "Paraguayan War"), which happened over a year ago. I still think that "War of the Triple Alliance" is the common name. My view is that a WP:TROUT was enough, but the Arbitrators called my pushiness "battleground mentality" and my subsequent requests to change the title as "tendentious editing".
There was also no justification for my topic ban being so broad, and (from my perspective) reflects a general ignorance on the diversity of Latin America. I would have accepted a topic ban on Brazilian articles, but the current topic ban is too excessive. I plan to seek an amendment to narrow the topic ban in a month, and (in a year) hope to prove my case and receive apologies for the tarnishing of my status.
In the mean time, I would enjoy working with you in other articles. It's much more enjoyable to improve articles in a team.
Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | Talk 18:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

Hi. You commented on the RM. Please see 2nd section on merge at Talk:Themiscyra (Pontus). Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move of The Dark Knight (film)[edit]

Hi. I noticed that you recently posted that you would support closing the discussion about the requested move of The Dark Knight (film). I was wondering if you could reiterate your view on the subsection here: Talk:The_Dark_Knight_(film)#Survey_on_Closing_Discussion. I'm hoping we can aggregate the views on whether to close there and get a clear sense of whether we can move on from rehashing the same old substantive points. Thanks! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 00:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

References for biodiversity articles[edit]

Dear Barrelproof, when making changes to articles on southern African reptile species, please rather use up-to-date papers from the science bodies that work with these species. This information is quickly and easily available online from SANBI, the Homopus foundation, Cape Nature and other govt institutes. I also have many here in pdf so can email you any that you need. Please rather don't use 1980s pet-keeping books and magazines as references (though I think you're already aware of that particular book's limitations). Where there've been radical changes to species names and their taxonomy has finally been clarified, using an outdated terrarium book will only muddy the waters. Abu Shawka (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Despite the impression you might get from seeing the references, those books are not really pet-keeping books. I was primarily using those books as references for common names. Common names cannot be changed by declaration of an organization, and change more slowly than aspects that are the result of scientific study or government rule-making. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Dear BarrelProof,
Thank you very much for commenting at the AE board. I would have liked to send you a WikiLove message, but that seems to be a matter of issue at the moment.
I seem to have gotten myself into a Tarantino storyline, so hopefully the ending is good for all.
Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | Talk 02:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

No need for the thanks, but you're welcome anyhow. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Frederique Constant charity content[edit]

Dear BarrelProof,

You removed again entries on the Frederique Constant company pages. Some entries who have been there for years.

You removed charitable activities because in your opinion "it makes the company look nice". Please note I do not agree that these references are removed:

1) We have been involved in charitable activities for many years. We took a strategic decision to support heart related activities worldwide. We have donated to good activities and it is worthwhile for people to read about them. It will let people understand support. It will hopefully encourage others to do same.

2) Descriptions on charitable work were all referenced to original articles.

3) Other companies also describe their charitable activities and I am of the opinion that it is news worthy for all companies. I really hope you can see that it is not only to look nice, charities need support to do their good work.

Could you please consider above and undo your last removal? If you feel text should be adjusted, please let me know. I gladly collaborate with you on that. Believe it is anyhow necessary to create chapters for the page and a table of contents.

Awaiting your reaction. You may also reach me directly via

Thank you, Peter Stas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcstas (talkcontribs) 11:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you please react? How will we proceed?
Pcstas (talk) 10:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Please see Frédérique Constant, I have created sections for page and placed charitable activities at end. Also made text shorter.
If you feel not acceptable, please adjust and/or let me know.
Pcstas (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding. I was taking a "wikibreak". I see that you have done some restructuring. I might not mind including some remarks about charity activities, as long as such remarks are not all mixed together with the other content in the article in a confusing way or written using non-neutral language. —BarrelProof (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Good to see your response. Thank you also for adjustments headings, agree with these improvements.Pcstas (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Whyte and Mackay[edit]

Wikipedia should reflect up to date accurate and relevant information. As someone who apparently has an interest in whisky, you should be aware that the information you Insist on re posting in incorrect and misleading, tantamount to vandalism on your part. However please research your facts and update as only you appear to be capable of doing, since you disallow all other companies posts. Apology will be gratefully received once you understand the error of your ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I confirmed that Beard has departed (as reported at and and so I removed his name from the article. In the future, I suggest providing WP:Edit summaries to explain the motivations for your actions. Otherwise, unsourced edits can appear to be vandalism. I do not see a need to apologize, since you did not reference any sources or provide comments on the relevant Talk page or provide edit summaries when making your changes. If you had done that, it would have saved both of us some effort. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


Hi BarrelProof, I'm looking if there is a chance WP:SPIRITS can be re-vitalised. Do you have any interest in joining? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

That's an admirable goal. I'm not really so sure what that would entail. I'm supportive in spirit, of course. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
As I say on the talk there, I would like to see assessment kicked in to gear, and hope for some fun collaborations. Collaboration of the month articles for example, maybe creation drives too, and we are in dire need of cleanup too (I saw what you did with Balvenie, I've started editing it once, and looked at it at least half a dozen times afterwards, each time the courage to attempt to fix that sinking within seconds, so kudos on that, but as you probably know, there is far, far more cleanup required). I would also like to see each Scottish malt distillery that has been licensed to have an article, create some articles on whisky makers and some of the organisations that owned and managed distilleries, as well as some equipment. All that together is way too much for the current state of the wikiproject, but it is where I would like to go. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Whats up with Barrel proof?[edit]

I make legitimate and well referenced edits, made comment to the talk page and you disregarded and obliterated my work. Even the section about the Japanese Kentucky Colonel that came to help after the tornadoes has been eliminated which adds a great deal of character today's Kentucky Colonels, the reference is good WHAS TV recored and on YouTube among other places. You just bombed my addition of Famous Colonels completely stating that the NNDB was an unreliable reference, I challenged you to go to it using my reference yourself. You are not a wiki God nor an authority on this matter, other people do research, write. It is irresponsible and outrageous to simply discredit and revert all my edits in a prejudicial manner. is an excellent resource and credible. For you to say it is not credible is wrong, prejudiced and ignorant. I will simply have to take my edits and work to the next level and get others involved like my professors. I was just doing this for fun, but considering that I value my time and enjoyed making the edits, for you to take that away from me is annoying and is a form of bullying against me, so it will not go unchallenged or unreported. Shamansfriend (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't "disregard" or "obliterate" or "bomb" anything. I don't consider myself a "wiki God". I just did one revert, which you were then able to undo with two mouse clicks. You're using lots of colorful attack words like "wrong, prejudiced and ignorant" and "irresponsible" and "outrageous". I don't think that is warranted. We simply disagree about whether some material is appropriate for the article. I suggest to stop interpreting my revert edit as a personal attack and to calm down and avoid using such inflammatory language.
Your edit was touching on multiple subjects, as are your comments above. There are several issues raised here. Regarding the list of notable KCs, in addition to my edit summary, please also see the prior discussion at Talk:Kentucky colonel#Removing the list of famous Colonels from the article. Regarding the news story about what some particular KC did, I do not see how that is appropriately interpreted as important to explain what KCs are in general.
I also plan to continue this discussion at Talk:Kentucky colonel. Thank you for commenting there.
BarrelProof (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Undiscussed move contrary to recent RM consensus[edit]

Hello - apologies for not replying to you sooner. My rationale for moving the pages you mentioned was that the suffix "(professional wrestling)" doesn't allow for disambiguation where there are two articles with the same title, e.g. "Team Canada" or "The New Breed". I appreciate that this wasn't agreed in advance, though, so I have no objection to the moves being reverted if others disagree. McPhail (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Good for Me (song)[edit]

Any comments regarding this closure? I moved to Good for Me (Amy Grant song), only to see it reverted. What's the point of a discussion if somebody else's POV is more important than consensus. And I am accused of pulling a trick! --Richhoncho (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries[edit]

It was kind of you and gracious to say so. Individuals can reasonably disagree over interpretations of guidelines, and discussions may become protracted. For me the important thing is working with editors of integrity and collegiality, which you seem to be, and I'm grateful for that. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Garrett Morgan[edit]

Hi BarrelProof! (Hmmm, bourbon!)Face-grin.svg

I happened upon Morgans' page and BOLDly deleted the un-encyclopaedic, un-cited/poorly sourced, very POV, "This guy didn't invent the traffic signal and here's the TRUTH" 'attack' section here. I think you noted the tone of this section? Yes, here at 21:00, 26 September 2012‎, 'highly-biased "Original research" ' . (and all the CN's you added were what struck me!)

Here is where it was added by (talk · contribs) at 03:45, 24 January 2012‎.

My removal was reverted by (talk · contribs) within ≈30 hours, here with no explanation. They also did this at Traffic light. I have now reverted back again, and in an edit summary invited discussion on the talk page. See: The 'Traffic Light' section.

Who'd have thought this was such a controversial issue! I also note that this page has seen frequent vandalism.

Where to from here? Confused-tpvgames.gif -Ҧ-220 of Borg 07:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. That article could really benefit from some solid work. It seems to attract vandals, people who seem to think it's very important convey the idea that Morgan did nothing of importance, and a few other people who want to say that he was the greatest guy ever. I'm not an expert on the subject, but my personal view is that probably the truth is somewhere in between and that some sources that we would ordinarily consider reliable sometimes don't really do any serious checking and simplistically overstate his accomplishments. But some people seem to want to really attack this guy's reputation, to a degree that seems really uncalled for. There is some web site referred to in old Talk page discussions that's devoted to attacking him. I don't really understand what has been going on, but I hope someone will give the article the attention it needs to become objective, well sourced, readable, and complete – and I thank you for noticing the situation and trying to help improve it. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
We went through the SOS on Elijah McCoy. To those who have pareidolia, there seems to be a common pattern. 7&6=thirteen () 20:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


This is not about the dislike of Old Pogue. Alas, the latter is not available in my state. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen () 19:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the giggle. I'm glad you noticed the addition! —BarrelProof (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Of course, the antonym is Pogonophilia, which could mean the like of something? Keep up the good work. 7&6=thirteen () 20:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Upstairs, Downstairs[edit]

Per your suggestion, I have retargeted this redirect to the disambiguation page. This leaves a large number of links to be fixed. Please do so when you can. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I notice that some of those links were previously incorrect, as they are referring to periods of time when the '70s television show didn't exist. I have corrected about ten of them. I'll try to do more. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems cleaned up now. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


My apologies for the comment edit on the Kentucky Colonels talk page. Thank you for returning it to the way it was originally. No harm intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocoaberpop (talkcontribs) 14:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Pappy Van Winkle's Family Reserve[edit]

'Oh the humanity.' Given the recent interest and reporting, is there anything else we should be adding? 7&6=thirteen () 16:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a tragedy of major proportions, striking right in the heart of America – is nothing sacred in this world? —BarrelProof (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
A friend thinks that it is a conspiracy to screw the 'federal revenooers' -- he has no evidence, of course. Be that as it may, it sure got them a tremendous amount of publicity and enhance their cachet, even as the formula, the product and branding may be changing. You couldn't hardly buy what they have obtained, and the loss of $26,000 in product is a pittance by comparison. 7&6=thirteen () 03:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I have to admit that after reading about it, I decided I wanted some, and checked out the inventory of my local mega-beverage shop. Alas, no Pappy. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal video puts your quest into perspective. You could score a ride in the latest Ferrari easier, I think. 7&6=thirteen () 12:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
This has a lot to do with time (20 or 23 years is a long way out) and Angel's share. And finally, Van Winkel uses wheat for an atypical formulation. We aren't going to get any. 7&6=thirteen () 13:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
For the adventurous, I recall reading somewhere the idea of mixing Kentucky Vintage and Maker's Mark to create a self-mixed imitation Pappy. The Vintage adds oakiness and the impression of extreme aging (said to otherwise make the Vintage too woody by itself) and the Maker's provides the wheat and softens the flavor. I've got a bottle of Vintage (not yet opened), but no Maker's at the moment... Incidentally, thanks for the email. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Alas, Kentucky Vintage is not available in my home state. In any event, Pappy Van Winkle is now the subject of a clothing line, which was announced in October, 2013. Schuman, Alex (October 19, 2013). "Popular bourbon Pappy Van Winkle announces clothing line". Crestwoood, Kentucky: WHAS-TV. Retrieved October 20, 2013.  One of the Van Winkels says that the publicity from the theft doesn't help much, as they are already more popular and better known than supplies can keep up with. 7&6=thirteen () 19:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a new article that was just published: Colin Spoelman and David Haskell, "The Bourbon Family Tree", GQ Magazine, Nov. 13, 2013. It has a section entitled "Can't find Pappy? Go for Weller". That sounds worth a try. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Great article. Thanks for sharing. 7&6=thirteen () 11:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of interest[edit]

A discussion you may be interested in is this RFC, a proposal to make the second comma in a date/place optional. United States Man (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Epstein–Barr virus[edit]

Thank you for your input on the EBV naming discussion. Your comments were really informative and helped turn me around on the en dash issue. I'm sorry if I was abrasive...I never imagined getting so passionate about punctuation. I feel pretty embarrassed in fact. I've proposed making revisions to the name changes to uniformly use en dashes and to make the names uniform and consistent with published work. If you have time, it would be nice to have more of your input. Thank you again. Walternmoss (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Living for the Weekend[edit]

Hi BarrelProof

You recently participated in a move request for the albums/songs titled "Living for the Weekend". This move has been partially carried out, but due to lack of consensus over the album versions, I have started a new request for those specifically, at Talk:Livin' for the Weekend: The Anthology. Please feel free to comment there if you so desire. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


Thanks. Re comments on various RMs, WP:DAB really needs improving to deal with the "no article of that title" argument. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for comment on my Talk page. I'm quite in favour of following consistent MOS where it really is spelled out. Thanks also for keeping WP:PDAB up to date, Gene Vincent may get deleted though - perhaps I'm not being objective, but it looked as notable as any other major rock star's single to me. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks[edit]

Hello BP. Thanks for your reverts of the IP who was vandalizing various article relating to race horses. This has been going on for years now, especially in relation to the Man 'o War - Secretariat stuff. Unfortunately attempts to get page protection for the Blood Horse magazine list bump up against Wikip's open nature. I reported this last IP to AIV and we got a three month block. No doubt this person (can I say bozo without violating civility rules?) will return. It is nice to know that you will be keeping an eye on things. Thanks for your vigilance. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 02:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. Do you happen to know whether the user warning templates generate some kind of notification to admins to consider generating a block, or is it necessary for someone to go create a report manually like you apparently did? —BarrelProof (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't "know" if use of the templates communicates with administrators. I don't think so. I usually go to WP:AIV, and report it. I basically use the formulae "warned, persistent, hot" and if it is applicable "school short block?" As long as you've got the warnings in place on the talk page, this always works in my experience. 7&6=thirteen () 14:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The warning templates do not automatically notify admins and 7&6=thirteen is correct about reporting vandal editors to AIV. OTOH some admins will watchlist the talk page of the problematic editor and, when they see new warnings being added they will block the person without a report having been filed at AIV. This does not happen very often so it is usually a good idea to file the report anyway. Cheers again and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 22:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Counting Stars RM reopened as multi-move[edit]

Hello BarrelProof

You recently participated in and initiated a WP:RM debate at Talk:Counting Stars (song)#Requested Move 2. This message is to inform you that I have closed that debate as no move, but I have reopened it as a potential multi-move request, after a majority of those participating in the discussion appeared to support that alternative. Please participate in the new debate at Talk:Counting Stars (song)#Requested Move 3 if you wish to do so. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A Boy was Born[edit]

You said that we are discussing a minor capitalisation. I disagree that it is minor. We have the version of the title that is published, known, common and used by the sources for the article, vs. a version that follows our MOS. I believe that the article should at least mention the fact of this difference. Do you have a solution? I asked twice on the talk and don't want to add there, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that say it's important in this particular case? For most titles, I think it would not be considered important. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Page heading from the score, published by Oxford University Press
I said I would unwatch my article but sometimes look how the Boy is doing. I am puzzled by the term OR for the observation that the piece was published as shown and named like that in all sources that I used. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd rather not repeat the whole conversation here. It's already partly above and also being discussed on the article's Talk page. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Fireball Cinnamon Whisky[edit]

I've seen lots of editors who dislike various lyric sites. Sometimes it is WP:RS and sometimes it is WP:copyright and sometimes it is WP:linkspam objections. All of those exist. Notwithstanding this being the wikipedia equivalent of How many angels can dance on the head of a pin, trying to find a source of any kind that details the wording of a lyric is always problematical. And it doesn't change the factual accuracy at all. So I understand your concerns, but note that we actually do have a source, albeit perhaps not the best. If you eliminate those kinds of references, then you are left with references to the liner notes (which probably aren't on line) or to the record itself. And then someone says that it is WP:OR, and that it needs a WP:RS. You get the idea. I actually thought I've made a number of substantial contributions to this article, and that the whole cinnamon liquor phenomena should be developed. In passing, the group we are talking about also referenced Goldschlagger in their lyrics, so it is part of the culture. 7&6=thirteen () 17:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I actually appreciate your efforts at improving the article, and wasn't trying to reverse those. I think you might not have noticed that I didn't actually remove that material or the reference to the lyric site – I merely moved it from the lead paragraph to a later section about popular culture references, since I didn't think it was important enough to put in the lead section (and ordinarily the lead section mostly just summarizes what is elsewhere in an article – this was only mentioned in the lead). I also slightly reworded it since it does not seem entirely clear that the song is talking about that particular branded beverage. The lyrics site just quotes the lyrics – it doesn't interpret them or say whether the song is discussing the brand. The phrase "that fireball whiskey" might (hypothetically) refer generally to any whiskey that seems like a fireball when drinking it, which could basically be any whiskey – with or without cinnamon flavoring – or any brand of cinnamon-flavored whiskey. Note also that the phrase is written in lowercase, which may imply that it is a generic term rather than a proper noun, so it may not be brand-specific. Note also that the brand name is "Fireball Cinnamon Whiskey", which is not exactly the same phrase, because it includes the extra word "cinnamon" that is not found in the song lyric. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
My WP:Edit summary may have been confusing. I wasn't saying that the lyrics site might not be reliable. I was saying that the other ( site that I tagged as a dead link might not be reliable and that the other site referenced in the next sentence,, might not be reliable. I think it's actually pretty clear that neither one of those two sites is reliable. For example, it looks like anyone can get an account on and create a description of a new cocktail there. So there is really no evidence that the cocktail recipes listed on that site are notable. The other site ( may have been even less reliable, but I can't check it because it doesn't even seem to exist anymore. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I did notice your light touch. Thanks for the clarification. There are other lyric sites, and we could cite to one of them. And unless you have the sheet music, because they are a homonym, it is unlikely that one could say for sure that it is an upper or lower case "F" in Fireball. As I mentioned, the Goldschlagger article mentions the band's affinity for that gold flecked beverage. As I recall, I only got involved with this article because some idiot wanted to delete it. As to recipes and reviews, a lot of the liquor stuff is blogs, and I agree that re3liability is nonexistent. But it is often the best available evidence. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen () 17:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
In drink articles, the closest thing you can find to a reliable on line source is the manufacturer, and a lot of our esteemed editors get their pantie in a bunch about those because they are not third party. Trying to find straight up articles from real newspapers or magazines is difficult. 7&6=thirteen () 17:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
That's true. But it's also clear that manufacturers sometimes basically lie (or deliberately mislead people, or at least selectively choose what to say in a way that suits their own purposes). And I find it annoying that someone could hypothetically sign up for an account on some random drink forum site, provide a description of the cocktail recipe they just whipped together during a drunken party earlier that evening (and name it with a silly name they came up with at the time), and then reference the recipe in a Wikipedia article. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I feel your pain and share your concern. Of course, if someone has a mixology book they can find more or less reliable sources for silly-named but real drinks like Sex on the beach. And that articles states: "Sex on Fire" is Sex on the Beach with Fireball Cinnamon Whisky in place of the vodka.7&6=thirteen () 17:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Often, I suppose, the silliness can be part of the charm. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Did you ever look at the page view statistics for this article? 7&6=thirteen () 23:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Wow – "viewed 40756 times in the last 60 days" – that's a lot. I wonder why? That's more than Jim Beam, which has got to have a much much larger market share. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I can't figure that one out, although one of the Huffington articles talks about the effective use of social media. I know that our local Costcos brought it in, which is a rough measure of how au courant it may be. I gave a bottle to a friend of mine, and he took it to a party and was given high 'style points' by everybody there — it (the contents of the bottle) didn't last long. 7&6=thirteen () 13:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Russell Welch[edit]

I've had a look at this, and once you take away all of the fringe conspiracy-theorist type sources, there's not much left on Welch. I don't think he meets WP:BIO. I want to take it to AFD, but since you also seem familiar with the article I figured I'd run it by you first for an opinion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC).

Thank you for the note. I am glad someone is trying to study that article and figure out what to do with it. Yes, the sourcing in that article is weak. You may have noticed my previous remarks at Talk:Russell Welch. I don't really think I know enough about the issue to have a strong opinion about the AFD at this point. I would be tempted to dismiss the article entirely except for the connection to Barry Seal, which seems to be a more well-documented subject, and the one referenced article by the well-known journalists Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair. I suppose they are not really mainstream objective journalists, but they are (or were, in the case of Mr. Cockburn) at least notable and relatively widely read. Several of the sources seem to be basically self-published, or seem to be simply documenting what Russell Welch himself has said without providing any indication that they have tried to verify the veracity of his claims. Several of the factual assertions that are made would be highly notable news if they are verified, but it is clear that mainstream press has not been saying those things. The mainstream press seems to have mostly just ignored Mr. Welch as far as I know – without even bothering to publish something to debunk his claims, much less verifying them. It might be nice to find a copy of the referenced article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, since that appears to be a mainstream publication, but I have been unable to find that article using the search tool on the newspaper's web site. Note that there was a proposed deletion of the article two years ago (just after the article was created on 15 March 2012), which I endorsed at the time. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Tennessee Whiskey in the news[edit]

On a state level, the State of Tennessee has imposed stringent requirements. It is not enough under state law that the whiskey be produced in Tennessee; it must meet quality and production standards.Esterl, Mike (March 18, 2014). "Jack Daniels Faces Whiskey Rebellion". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved March 18, 2014.  7&6=thirteen () 16:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. To me it seems like there are a couple of things that WSJ article is failing to mention. One of them is that although the federal "standards of identity" do not include a definition of "Tennessee whisky", there are international trade agreements that do, and the federal government has actively pushed for adoption of those trade agreements (and, of course, has signed them itself), which include the requirement that "Tennessee whisky" must be bourbon (although there may be some wiggle room on what qualifies as "bourbon" for export versus internal consumption – wiggle room that Canada has not allowed but others may allow). Another is that there is a special exception in the new Tennessee law that was obviously tailored as to exempt Benjamin Prichard's from the requirements. Presumably that's just a grandfather clause, but I think it's worth mentioning in an article about requirements that are imposed on all producers except one. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I added the citation and some content to Tennessee Whiskey and to Lincoln County Process. Take a look. 7&6=thirteen () 17:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Jim Beam[edit]

Appreciate the tweaks you made. I had the regular Signature Craft in front of me but was going from various blogs/reviews for the other one. The bottles have such a distinctive look, I probably should take a picture of the bottle (with a sample poured, of course!) to go in that section. Ravensfire (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. That Signature Craft sounds well worth a try (although I probably wouldn't personally go for the Spanish brandy variant). –BarrelProof (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The brandy variant is interesting. I'd have a pour if offered. I'd take a bottle as a gift but it's not likely to end up on my bar otherwise. Between the 12-year small batch and the single barrel is pretty tough. If you like the regular Jim Beam's, you'd like either of these. I've got the 12-year and sampled the single barrel. I didn't think there was that much of a difference between them. I think the bottle is extremely well done with pretty good juice inside so it's a nice touch on the bar (especially with some nice LED backlights). Ravensfire (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Jack Daniel's[edit]

Does the Krass book say anything the distillery being seized by the feds in February 1898? I found it mentioned in several old newspapers (e.g., [1], top-middle column). It may have been a false report. Bms4880 (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't yet have a copy of the Krass book. I only know what's in it by looking at excerpts in Google books online and by viewing the C-SPAN video of the author lecturing about the book. I will probably be getting a copy of the book in a couple of weeks. I have not heard about that incident before. It would also be interesting to hear what happened during World War II when beverage distilling was generally prohibited in the U.S. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Homopus names[edit]

Barrelproof, when are we going to be allowed to clean up that mess of the Homopus article names? You've gone very quiet since it was pointed out that even the IUCN is beginning to update its records and phase out the old system you have in your terrarium book. I understand how strongly you don't want to move on from the old names, but they're indisputably incorrect, misleading and (for that reason) now outdated. I don't need to go into all the many reasons why they're no longer accepted, it's explained on the talk page of Homopus boulengeri and Homopus (genus). Please rename the Homopus articles to their correct common names - or to their neutral scientific names.Abu Shawka (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've gone quiet. Sorry for that – I've been busy. Also, after seeing "padloper" show up in a source article that looks like a reasonable and reliable international source, I feel more willing to believe that what you've been saying has some validity. But I really don't expect to be able to spend time on it within the next few weeks. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I just added a comment in that thread at Talk:Homopus. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay thanks. A good tip to remember is that corrections to naming systems tend to originate in the relevant national and international scientific bodies that specifically study the species in question (hence my parroting off the names of Homopus research foundation and SANBI). Only very much later do the corrections filter down into the IUCN, and only later still will such corrections show in the IUCN website. I'd like Wikipedia be up-to-date on these things, rather than the laggard behind the IUCN website. Please do try to focus on the change though, as soon as you have time. You were the leading person blocking my prior attempt to correct these names, so I would appreciate it if you could help me complete this changeover. As I said, whether you choose the neutral scientific names, or the (correct!!) common names, I leave the choice up to you. Abu Shawka (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
By the way, if you would like to consult the highest authority on the Homopus naming system, Prof Margaretha Hofmeyr (UWC) is by far the best authority on South African tortoises. It's her papers that inform both the IUCN and national policy here. On padlopers specifically, Dr Victor Loehr is the highest international authority in their study (he's also international, a NON-South African, which I think you'd appreciate!) Dr Ernst Baard is the highest authority on them in Cape Nature. Let me know if you want the contact details of any of these people. Otherwise Steven Molteno, who runs the "Cape Tortoise Group" on facebook, is easily contactable, and he has all the necessary links to these sources. He's also a Wikipedian, who's commented on this topic before. (By the way, the name "Cape Tortoise Group" you will see does NOT refer to Homopus species specifically, which are not known by that name, but to ALL tortoise genera that occur around the Cape). Good luck and let me know if you need a hand with the change-over. Abu Shawka (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson's Ocean Bourbon[edit]

Lampard, Andrew (April 2, 2014). "Boats Make Better Tasting Whiskey or Do They?". Retrieved April 3, 2014.  7&6=thirteen () 02:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

tq vs xt[edit]

I hope you'll forgive the intrusion, but I spotted something that relates to an ongoing issue that I'd appreciate your feedback on.

In this comment at Talk:John Gielgud, roles and awards, you used the {{tq}} template to mark examples of acceptable titles:

List of roles and awards of John Gielgud or List of roles and awards for John Gielgud

I think you meant to use {{xt}} which is meant for good examples (as opposed to {{!xt}} for bad examples):

List of roles and awards of John Gielgud or List of roles and awards for John Gielgud

Those templates look very similar and are sometimes used interchangeably. I am hoping to overcome this by adopting a different format for the tq template to distinguish it from xt better. Please see Template talk:Tq#RfC: Change the TQ template font colour. If you would like to comment there, it would be appreciated.

Cheers! sroc 💬 05:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I was wondering myself yesterday why they both existed and what the difference between them was. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence thank you for unscrambling and tidying up the complex history of move requests at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton. MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! (I'm not 100% sure my renumbering was a good idea, but I think it's helpful to have the history properly catalogued.) —BarrelProof (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Speyer wine bottle[edit]

Please take a look. 7&6=thirteen () 17:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi, saw you trying to help clean up that mess another editor made of the California Chrome article. I managed to get it all fixed, but wanted to thank you for your valiant effort even though you were pushing against the tide. Just wanted to let you know that I brought that article to GA status, so if you ever need to revert to a "last clean" version, you can always go back to one of mine and then work forward to fix anything I screwed up! I anticipate needing a lot of eyes on that article, as the horse's profile is now getting very high and he has a very devoted fan base. Thanks again. Montanabw(talk) 01:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I wasn't paying attention to all the recent ebbs and flows on that article – I just jumped in and noticed that the beginning of the article really wasn't telling the average reader what they ought to know right away. I was a little shocked by your big revert, but was willing to wait a while to see what you did next. –BarrelProof (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, when you saw what a total mess that one editor made of the article, I had no choice but to go back to the last known-clean version and rebuild. - it was already GA prior to the Derby, we have been real careful since, I had just asked User:Eric Corbett to do one of his thorough copyedits and it was all set up as of this morning to need nothing more than to have the results added and the stats updated. Than that other user went in, tossed out whole paragraphs, tossed out sourced material, lost references, just thrashed it. I was petty pissed. (I've been having issues with that editor on some other articles too. Sigh...) I appreciate your patience and continued eyes on the article. Montanabw(talk) 03:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


In case you're interested, there is an AfD on Nu Flavor that was set up since one user objected to the PROD. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me about that. My impression is that notability has not been established – either for the band or the album – and I have just recorded my opinion in the deletion discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I also PROD'd their albums for the same reasons. Definitely do not meet notability criteria as neither have received reliable secondary coverage and are both unreferenced. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Just a heads up, the above user has withdrawn the subject AfD and yours is the only outstanding delete !vote. I don't know how the article looked when you !voted for deletion compared to now, but I was wondering if you would mind taking another look at the article and consider withdrawing your delete !vote so that the discussion can be closed. You are under no obligation to do so, and you are absolutely welcome to stand behind your delete !vote and let the AfD run its course. I have no opinion one way or the other on the merits of deletion and am only interested in this matter from an AfD process perspective. Thank you. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the note. I have struck through my prior comment, as the sourcing in that article is much improved. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


I reverted your edit because it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts, and also because I do not believe that it is true that both the wild and occelated turkey species are described with those terms, rather than just the domesticated turkey. I also don't believe that the young of any turkeys are called "babies" rather than chicks. You said that you can verify all these supposed facts in 30 seconds, so please add a reference. If no reference is forthcoming in the near future, I'll remove the edit again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if the above seems a bit abrupt, but I think you have got it wrong here, so please discuss rather than re-adding unsourced material that has been challenged Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
You make an interesting point. In your first removal of this content (which wasn't added by me) you didn't mention that you were concerned about whether those terms are applied to non-domesticated turkeys. I hadn't thought about that. When I said it was easily verifiable that those terms were used, I was just referring to the terms being used for turkeys of some sort – not thinking about whether they apply to non-domestic turkeys. I'll self-revert. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I think part of the problem is that the vast majority of people (understandably) don't know that there is a second species of turkey. There is a similar problem with a few other pages, like starling, where people make GF edits adding stuff about the one species they know, the Common Starling, that doesn't necessarily apply to all the others. Cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Kentucky Kingdom.[edit]

Trophy.png Kentucky Kingdom.
Hello I work at Kentucky Kingdom and all the stuff that was said about T2 and Kentucky Kingdom is true. You do not tell me can't change stuff because all the stuff is have really happen. Trust me I know way more about the place then you. Thank you Coastershelby14 (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but "Trust me I know way more about the place then you" doesn't seem like adequately reliable sourcing for Wikipedia articles. Please see WP:RS, for example. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Edmond post office shooting[edit]

My apologies, I missed the section that you quoted, "Use boldface To identify terms in the first couple of paragraphs of an article, or at the beginning of a section of an article, which are the targets of redirects to the article or section (e.g. sub-topics ..". I appreciate the edification... Regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Bernie Robbins Stadium[edit]

Your concern is appreciated but I have reverted to the page move I made. There is a citation of an article from the Atlantic City Press within the first paragraph of the introduction that states the name was changed to Surf Stadium. If more recent info exists to say that it reverted to its previous name since the 2012 renaming, then I will gladly undo, but I moved the page based on what the venue is currently known as according to cited info already on the page. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

A change of WP:OFFICIALNAME does not imply a change of Wikipedia title. Please stop the back and forth. It is not appropriate. There is a process for proposing a move and determining consensus. Please follow it. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC (Yank Barry)[edit]

In case you were unaware of it, there is an ongoing RfC on the talk page of the Yank Barry article related to his tenuous association with the Kingsmen.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. There's so much on the Talk page, it's hard to follow. I don't know whether I'll stick around on that page in the longer term or not. But if I do, I'll try to come up to speed. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Yank Barry for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yank Barry 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/Yank Barry until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Black awamori[edit]

Hi BarrelProof,

Thanks for your addition to Aspergillus oryzae. I was wondering, are we certain that black awamori really is A. oryzae? I ask because I know there's a species called A. awamori, which is a domesticated derivative of A. niger and so presumably has black spores, and I've never seen a black-spored strain of A. orzyae. I realise this page does imply black awamori is A. orzyae, but do you know of any other sources that could corroborate? I can imagine how there could be confusion, as "Koji mold" is often used as a synonym for A. orzyae, even though I'm pretty sure it's not the only species used in making koji. Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 03:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. The answer is basically no! I wondered myself whether all three of those variants are really A. orzyae when I found those descriptions in the Shōchū article. I also noticed that the A. orzyae article seemed to say that A. orzyae is synonymous with kōji, which I thought might or might not really be accurate. I thought it was undesirable to have an independent and duplicate description of kōji in the Shōchū article (accurate or not), so I added a {{Main article}} template into the Shōchū article and pushed the undesirably-duplicate description of kōji in to the A. orzyae article to see what would happen. One way or another, I thought some improvement would ultimately result from that WP:BOLD action – either the A. orzyae article would benefit from the extra information or some factual errors would become apparent to someone and force a correction. Possibly both things could happen. I have no personal expertise on the subject. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

May wish to see my recent note at Alcohol (drug) page[edit]

...and see also my earlier comment to this editor at his Talk page. He asked that I edit the article for the chemistry, but I have declined, for he does not seem committed to either well-sourced science writing, or respect for article structures. He appears on a mission to express a POV (that while I may agree with it in large part personally, it misses the point of WP). Sooner we can persuade him of this, the less mess we will have to clean up. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I'm still trying to make up my mind about that topic. I notice that the editor is replacing a lot of references to ethanol in alcoholic beverage articles with references to alcohol (drug) and also modified the definition of alcohol proof. There is some interesting information in the alcohol (drug) article, but I am also wondering whether it is correct and widely accepted information. For now, I'm taking a "wait and see" attitude. —BarrelProof (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Three Bs[edit]

Hi! Two things:

  • 1. It's a community nickname as it's seen as one of the three major "rich" neighborhoods. If something is known by a nickname locally, Wikipedia should cover it
  • 2. I don't mind if it isn't in the lead, but I want it to stay in the article

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Is that a term that is commonly used, or just something made up for that particular publication? —BarrelProof (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Here's one more:
  • Melton, Mary. "The Stars of Star Maps." Los Angeles Times. August 25, 1996.
  • "Each map tends to cover the "three Bs": Brentwood, Bel-Air and Beverly Hills. A few toss in a Malibu sidebar." - Based on this, you know the answer is the former.
Remember that you can ease the burden off of other Wikipedia editors by checking by yourself for additional sources. Even though technically the burden on keeping content is on the person adding it, it is good to go above and beyond. Now, I am an experienced editor, but some other editors may be less experienced and Wikipedia has a problem keeping editors, so you need to go above and beyond to make sure that they have a good experience so they can stay and contribute. Reverting over and over again can frustrate these new editors and make them leave. We don't want that, so please understand my feelings about this. Please just revert once before discussing, even though the rule is technically three times, because the second revert made me upset especially since I had taken the time to move it out of the lead as a compromise.
People are interested in knowing local nicknames of cities, so if there is a local nickname of three cities, it is assumed that the reader will care about this.
Thank you,
WhisperToMe (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Understood, and thank you for remaining polite through this. I was not previously aware that this was a common term. To explain the relevance of the term, it would be nice to add some explanation of why these three neighborhoods have a grouping nickname – I suppose it is because they are the most affluent and attractive neighborhoods in the area? —BarrelProof (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't either, because I'm from Houston and not Los Angeles. I was doing research on the Iranians in Los Angeles when I encountered the name in a passage about Iranians moving to Los Angeles. Anyway, what I'll do is do a google books search and see if I can find more info about the "Three B"s name. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this can provide an explanation of the grouping (I'm still looking for new info!):

In my experience sometimes taking the time to investigate a new edit has allowed me to find some more interesting things to write about. When someone added this information I could have removed it due to a lack of citations, but instead I decided into investigate it. It turned out to be true and I started a new article: Our Mother of Mercy Catholic Church WhisperToMe (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Siddharth Mallya to Sid Mallya[edit]


We have been trying to change the name of the article to Sid Mallya as it his actual name. Can you please help us out with the same?

Richa101091 (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Who is 'we'? Please see Talk:Siddharth Mallya. Apparently, his birth name is Siddartha. As far as I can tell, Sid is just a recently promoted nickname. What source of information are you using to determine that he should be called Sid on Wikipedia? —BarrelProof (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


I wasn't aware of the contentiousness of that article's title—thanks for pointing that out. I won't change the capitalization again. I do want to point out, though, that the capitalization of the page title does not currently match the capitalization used in the text of the page and in the infobox, which seems like an odd state of affairs to me. It might be worth editing the article to make the capitalization consistent. Just a thought. Cheers! —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Frederique Constant[edit]

Saw you removed line. Propose following more neutral:

In 2014, Frederique Constant celebrated ten years of manufacturing the Heart Beat. Company developed and produced 15 calibers since 2004. <ref>{{cite web| url =| title = A Celebration of Accessible Luxury | accessdate = June 15, 2014}}</ref>

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcstas (talkcontribs) 08:56, 19 July 2014‎ (UTC)

It's better, although it still has a somewhat non-neutral tone. A better thing to say would be "As of 2014, the company has brought 15 distinct movements to the market, starting with the introduction of its original Heart Beat in 2004." Incidentally, you may notice that I had to go look up 'caliber' to figure out what it means. Like 'silicium', it seems to be another choice of a fancier, more obscure word being chosen for something that has a more well-known term in plain English – in this case, 'caliber' seems to be an obscure synonym for 'movement'. Perhaps in the Geneva watch-making community, these terms (and others such as 'manufacture') that are used in the French-influenced watch-making community are well accepted and common, but the article is written for a wider audience of English-speaking people world-wide, so we should strive to use plain English. But if you find 'movement' absolutely unacceptable as a replacement for 'caliber', I'm willing to listen. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, I notice that the accents in "Frédérique" appear only in the article title – there are none within the article itself. This seems like an undesirable inconsistency. Should we remove the accents from the title, or add them within the article? —BarrelProof (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I am fine with: As of 2014, the company has brought 15 distinct movements to the market, starting with the introduction of its original Heart Beat in 2004.<ref>{{cite web| url =| title = A Celebration of Accessible Luxury | accessdate = June 15, 2014}}</ref>

Please note that silicium and calibers are typical "watch industry" words, no intention to be fancy. Especially on silicium/silicon, there have been plenty debates within industry. Good to use silicon and movements.

With regards the accents, probably best is to remove as language=English.

Pcstas (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Amazing work! WellsWiggins (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, thank you so much! —BarrelProof (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
You deserve some Pappy Van Winkle's Family Reserve, as you exemplified patience and civility in the face of provocation, while tweaking the subject and the references. Well done! Of course, the aforesaid (at least in its 23 year iteration) is currently out of stock in most bars and liquor stores, so you will have to settle for something else. You can't always get what you want. 7&6=thirteen () 01:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! It's good to see you jumping in there as well. I think Kendall's comments have actually resulted in improvement of the article – and possibly may result in further improvement yet to come. And things are looking up for me in some ways – I've had Pappy by the glass twice since we last discussed it here in 2012! I was more impressed the second time than the first. (Maybe the first place was refilling an old bottle with an imitation, or maybe my taste buds just weren't fully tuned up that evening.) Anyhow, I want to savor a full bottle or two someday to get a really good feel for it. —BarrelProof (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten (06) by Ron.jpg

I just went to recent changes and picked a user but you probably deserve it anyway. haah WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope it's house-trained. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Jack Daniels a "Sour Mash"[edit]

You removed the term "Sour Mash" from Jack Daniel's saying it is unnecessary because all Tennessee Whiskeys are sour mashes. Fact of the matter is, it IS a sour mash. The Sour mash article is interesting and relevant, and now, NOTHING about Jack Daniels links to that article. And how is the reader supposed to know all Tennessee Whiskeys are sour mashes? Even the Tennessee Whiskey article does not link to the sour mash article! I do not follow the logic of removing sour mash completely from the article, given that it is indeed a sour mash. Just because all Tennessee bourbons are sour mashes does not mean we should not mention the sour mash process somewhere in the article. Marteau (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The article opens by saying it is a Tennessee whiskey and that it is generally made according to the practices of making straight bourbon (except for the Lincoln County process, which is a process allowed but not required for bourbon generally), and it links those articles for details. The Tennessee whiskey article also mentions the close relationship to bourbon. The bourbon article, which is also linked directly and discussed in the lead section, says that all straight bourbon on the market today uses the sour mash process. There are also various other miscellaneous details about what it takes to make a straight bourbon (the type of grain mash that must be used, prohibiting of artificial coloring and flavoring, prohibiting adding other types of whiskey or neutral grain spirits, distillation purity limits, aging term limits, using new oak barrels, using charred barrels), and they all apply.
Another option is to talk about it somewhere else in the article. I primarily just thought it was unnecessary and redundant to discuss it in the first sentence, and that doing so gave that topic undue emphasis in the lead – as if sour mash Tennessee whiskey is something much different than ordinary Tennessee whiskey. So I just added a paragraph about that to the "Production process" section of the article. I think it's much more informative than having that phrase in the lead section. I'd be interested in hearing what you think about it.
BarrelProof (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Bluegrass Barnstar[edit]

KY Barnstar.png The Bluegrass Barnstar
For your excellent work in adding clarifying material to List of cities in Kentucky, you are very much deserving of this award. Cheers! Stevie is the man! TalkWork 13:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! And thanks for your own high degree of dedication and diligence in improving Kentucky-related articles. Your own editing for Kentucky is more deserving of praise than mine. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Cities, countries, etc.[edit]

Well, we lost on the complaint about the IP but in the end salvaged a draw, which under the circumstances is sufficient for me. It would be nice to know though where discussions like this have taken place, because there is certainly enough good faith disagreement among intelligent and experienced editors for there either to be a definitive policy, or a definitive statement that there is no policy! Thanks for the discussion - JohnInDC (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It was an educational experience, I suppose. Clearly, I was under the impression that this was more of a settled matter than it is. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Yup. Appreciated your thoughts - they were helpful. Until next time - JohnInDC (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed page move request[edit]

You undid my adding of a listing to the page move requests for technical reasons section for the following reason: "(Undid revision 621433788 by WikiWinters (talk) Removing, since the user edited the article Talk page to say it is contested." Why is this wrong? I thought it would simply serve as a notice for those who were frequent editors to the page. Also, I was only following the template. I did not intend to say it was contested. That was just part of the default template. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this. WikiWinters (talk) 05:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Normally, people either enter a "technical request" or a normal Move Request. You seemed to do both, and you said, on the article Talk page, that the move was "contested". That causes a somewhat confusing situation. It seemed to me that the thing to do was to let the normal request proceed and cancel the other one. Also, you may note that I responded on the article Talk page. -BarrelProof (talk) 07:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

my driv3r contribute[edit]

hello,i typed this: The game sold rather well despite poor reviews not because i'm a troll,but because i have seen this on the page Driver (video game series)

You're right that the other article says that, but no source is cited in the other article either. Some reliable source is needed for such information to be included. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible spamming of whiskey reviews[edit]

A new user, Kalexander11 (talk · contribs) just popped up on several articles on my watch list. They are adding an "Expert Reviews" section to quite a few Bourbon articles, all sourced to a book by Morgan Murphy. I've reverted the Jim Beam one in particular as the article covers all Beam products. I'm not really comfortable with any of the others but thought I'd check with someone else on it first. Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm sniffing some possible paid editing here. The Murphy article was created by Thinkwell Creative (talk · contribs) who was blocked for a promotional name. WellsWiggins (talk · contribs) then took over. Murphy just released a new book and WellsWiggins has added links to that book to several other articles (and an "Expert Reviews" section) plus Kalexander11 adding the reviews sections to lots of bourbon articles. Something's fishy here. Ravensfire (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I notice that WellsWiggins has since removed some references to the book from articles. I recall not long ago that someone had created a template for citing some particular book and added it to a number of articles, and I was wondering at the time whether it was desirable or promotional, but I think I didn't revert the additions. I think that was a different book, but I'm not sure. It might not necessarily be a bad idea to have some review commentary in some of those articles, although it does look suspicious if one particular book seems to be getting promoted across many articles. I'll keep my eyes open for the possibility of promotional editing. Thanks again. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

A Boy was Born II[edit]

Page heading from the score for A Boy Was Born, published by Oxford University Press. Text includes "To my Father – A Boy was Born – Benjamin Britten – Op. 3"., - you reverted it. The piece was published "A Boy was Born", as the image shows and the caption has to follow, if it is supposed to make sense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC) ps: What we have now looks to me as if under the image of a yellow flower you read a caption about a red flower. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, although as before I think it may be best for the discussion of this issue to be centrally located on the Talk page for the article. Personally, I continue to look to MOS:CT and MOS:QUOTE for guidance. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:All Things Are Possible[edit]

Barrel, in response to your post on my talk page, I've re-opened this discussion. I think that your creation of a dab page changes the discussion, so it is worthwhile inviting the discussants to reconsider, and another administrator to close the debate. Regards, Ground Zero | t 12:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! —BarrelProof (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Edits being made in Siddharth Mallya's page[edit]


This is in regards to the changes that you have making in the content that we have been editing on Siddharth Mallya's page. Can you please let us know what is going wrong that you are re-editing all our changes. We also wanted to change his Wiki page name to Sid Mallya, as he is known by this name and it is confusing his fans and other people in the industry as it appears as Siddharth Mallya on his Wiki page. He has changed his name long back. Sharing reference links with you for this. Kindly advise me on how can i change his name to Sid Mallya again as it is not even allowing us to move his existing page to Sid Mallya. Please help us out with this.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] Sabsssy (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^
  9. ^
  10. ^
  11. ^
  12. ^
  13. ^
  14. ^
  15. ^
  16. ^
  17. ^
  18. ^
  19. ^
  20. ^
  21. ^
  22. ^
  23. ^
  24. ^
  25. ^
  26. ^
  27. ^
  28. ^
  29. ^
  30. ^
  31. ^
  32. ^
Thank you for the note. I have been using edit summaries to explain the motivations for all of my edits (please see WP:Edit summary). I invite you to review those comments – they appear in the history listing for the article. I notice that you and the other recent editors of that article are never explaining your edits anywhere – you are just always leaving the edit summary blank – please stop doing that. Another place where edits can be discussed and explained is on the Talk page of the article (Talk:Siddharth Mallya). And finally, I notice that you and the other editors have not been responding to comments that I (and others) have placed on your own User talk pages. I am glad that you have finally made some comment somewhere rather than just continuing to edit the article without discussion.
Regarding the name of the article, there was previous consideration of that suggestion. The discussion comments can be found at Talk:Siddharth Mallya. There was no consensus reached to change the name of the page in that discussion. If you think a new consensus can be reached, the process for how to suggest renaming the article is described at WP:RM and you can follow those instructions to start a new move request. However, I caution you to carefully read the prior discussion comments and think carefully before doing that, because you're suggesting the same thing that was recently suggested in the other request and it is generally considered bad behavior to refile a move request soon after one has completed. Personally, I usually suggest a one-year wait before a repeated request, unless something fundamental about the situation has changed. And I don't really see how it is a problem to have the page use his longer name rather than his nickname. The purposes of a Wikipedia article is to serve as an encyclopedic reference, not to advertise the person being discussed, and it is common for formal biographies to avoid nicknames that may be used in more casual settings. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

closing an RM[edit]


may you tell me how you did this? Thank you, PigeonIP (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. There are instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions (a.k.a. WP:RMCI). The page starts with a lot of blah-blah and then gets to the point in the section entitled "Step-by-step formal closing procedure". You just change the things that look like what's in the "Before closing" column of the table so they look like what's in the "After closing" column and hit 'save' (after previewing to make sure you haven't messed anything up). —BarrelProof (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)