User talk:BarrelProof

References

Please have a look at WP:RS to see the sort of references I'm calling for. Own sites can be used for extra info, but outside reliable refs are needed. Peridon (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I kind of tend to work incrementally. I think I do a pretty good job of adding good references eventually, but my initial focus may sometimes just be getting something decent written as a best current understanding. –BarrelProof (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia

Best to you. Welcome. You might want to consider adding something (anything) to your WP:User page. It gets the red out of your name in edit summaries. If I can be of assistance, feel free to call. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Stan

Done. Thanks. –BarrelProof (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

New Bourbon or Whiskey Pages

Hi BarrelProof,
As I mentioned two weeks ago and since you have done such great work both ORGANIZING and adding to articles, I wanted to help contribute in some way to make the Bourbon section better. Well yesterday I started contributing. I started whiskey stubs for the following 7 brands and included Photos of the bottles, they are: Kentucky Gentleman, Bernheim, Elijah Craig, Fighting Cock, Old Taylor and Hancock's President's Reserve.
I also added Photos of whiskey bottles on some existing pages such as Basil Hayden, Woodford Reserve, Maker's Mark, Evan Williams Single Barrel, Ezra Brooks, Old Ezra 101, Four Roses Small Batch, Elijah Craig 18 yr-old, Heaven Hill, Old Fitzgerald, Old Grand Dad, Virginia Gentleman and George Dickel.
Please feel free to add any information you know or can find out on the 7 New Pages above. Right now they are only stubs and desperately need to be expanded. I hope this is too much at once. I have even more to contribute.

I will be starting pages for the following as whiskey stubs (a few by Tuesday and a few more next week): Old Forester, Rock Hill Farms Single-Barrel, Old Heaven Hill, Henry McKenna, Very Old Barton, J. W. Dant, Johnny Drum, Willett Pot Still Reserve, Old Rip Van Winkle, Russell's Reserve, Old Weller, Jim Beam Rye and Benjamin Prichard's.
I will also be adding the following Photos to existing pages: Jim Beam Black, Jim Beam White, Jim Beam Red Stag, Wild Turkey Rare Breed and McAfee's Benchmark. --Craiglduncan (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks – and, by the way, I like the photos. –BarrelProof (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Master of Malt page

Hi there!

One of my first wikipedia edits was a page for the independent bottler master of malt. It's been repeatedly vandalised which is incredibly annoying! I saw you made some valuable edits, and apologise that I undid them when reverting to a pre-vandalised version of the page. Sorry for this, and I hope you wouldn't mind giving the page a once over again and making any edits you see fit. Huckleberry113 (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I have made some modifications – please take a look. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I put in back where it was. Some good third party sources would make it stronger and quash the naysayers; but I think you deserve an "Attaboy" for the effort. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Stan

Old Forester (and other whiskey pages)

GREAT JOB on the Old Forester page. Love It! This weekend I am looking to add a few more Bourbon pictures to any that we have missing. I will also put up about 12-20 Canadian Whiskey pictures to Existing Canadian Whiskey pages. I also have about a dozen American Blended Whiskeys in my Collection.
Should I put them up as well? Some don't have pages yet?--Craiglduncan (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Sorry for not previously noticing that you had recently created an Old Forester (bourbon) page – I just merged the infobox from that article in today. I love the photos. I'm sure that more of them would be very welcome – you must have some collection! More KBD brands would be my personal top request. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that the two of you think about merging the pages before somebody else does it in a more officious way. If you haven't done it already. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I already did that (just a couple of hours ago when I noticed that the other one existed). There wasn't much in the Old Forester (bourbon) page. The only thing I found there that didn't already seem superior on the Old Forester page was the infobox, so I copied that to the other article and replaced Old Forester (bourbon) with a redirect. I thought about making the merge in the other direction, but the Old Forester page had a rich edit history, while Old Forester (bourbon) had only a single first draft upload. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Kudos. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Impending WP:DYK for Tobermory (distillery)

Some info I ran across that might be on interest. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I couldn't find what you were talking about. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know talks about the impending WP:DYK for Tobermory (distillery). Hope that answers your question. I know you have an interest in spirited articles, so to speak. Not trying to be a bother. Hope all is going well. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Thanks for the heads-up. (Although it doesn't seem like especially intriguing information to me.) —BarrelProof (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Not a heckuva lot there. But there is a need for new distillery articles, and I imagine they (like almost everything else) can be improved if one wants to devote the time and effort. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the touch up. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for thoughts on Stellar page

Hi BarrelProof -- not a problem! I expected that I may make some missteps at first. However, I'm very interested in hearing your additional thoughts on how to address the remaining issues. I posted a response on the Stellar talk page. Thanks in advance.

ShanaHerrin (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for correction of accidental changes to Bourbon-related Talk pages

Hi BarrelProof: Thank You for the revisions. Yes you were right my intension was not to delete comments. Apparently I was doing something wrong. I will be more careful. Thanks Again--Craiglduncan (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Article: Rajkumar

Greetings! Appreciate your contributions to the article: Rajkumar. When you've got some spare time, I request you to go through the language and grammar used at the entire page and suggest/make necessary corrections. Thank you. Cheers! - Niri M / ನಿರಿ 04:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"Best selling" in Diageo

To jump to the conclusion that, because I've done an edit you don't agree with, there would be an edit war, seems to me a bit of an overreacting but anyway... If you look in the talk page you will see that I express my concern (since the one given is the company itself) about the claims a month ago. On the same day of my posting another user wrote that they would look for better references. Since then there has been no update. Further, if you read the Smirnoff article, you will see that editors there expressed their concern about the lack of independent references too and wrote "In March 2006, Diageo North America claimed that...". The Baileys article do not even mention the claim. So, I don't have an agenda, I don't own articles or my copyedits but I try to follow WP guidelines, in this case verifiability.--Dia^ (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the explanation. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Pisco

If I incorrectly deleted something, my mistake. It's clear from the article that Pisco is both Chilean and Peruvian and that point needs to be apparent in the introduction. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Pisco to me is comparable to Whisky, where you have different types such as American, Scottish etc. In this case Peruvian and Chilean are both different forms of Pisco, but the origin of it can be attributed to the Spanish Empire which at the time were the early colonialists in South America before the rise of nations. That's my take at least.Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Fortune Brands Home & Security

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Fortune Brands Home & Security requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. To me it seems obvious that this NYSE-listed company that makes major brands of well-known consumer products meets the criteria for notability. However, I may not devote the necessary time and energy to rapidly improve the article enough to demonstrate that fact. –BarrelProof (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Spirit ratings

The article Spirit ratings has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability of subject not established. No independent third party coverage of any of the ratings organizations covered in this article. No criteria given for "major" ratings organizations. No indication that any ratings are notable at all.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianhe (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI

If I could have reached you by e-mail, I would have sent you the unfiltered version of this article from todays NY Times on Bourbon. Happy holidays and cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Bourbon’s All-American Roar 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

[Long quote removed for brevity]

Single Pot Still

Hi there Barrelproof,

i work heavily in the whisky world (I was the American correspondent for the Irish Whiskey Socitey in Dublin, worked for Diageo for two years as a whisky expert for their bushmills and classic malts line at various conventions, worked as a whisky educator for the Bourbon and Branch beverage academy program, taught a class at UC Berkeley for 4 semesters on the history of whisky and am currently writing a book on behalf of the IWS on the history of single pot still whisky) but, despite loving the topic passionately and despising the brand-vomit that too often becomes the main source of information (or misinformation) for consumers, i'm thoroughly new to the world of wikipedia editing and, as i saw your name on a number of edits and you seem to be passionate about protecting the quality of the information on wikipeda's whisky articles, i thought it might be worth asking your help. The article titled "Pure Pot Still Whiskey" started out inaccurate, and then due to a few coincidental misunderstandings of the term, became completely divorced from its original topic and now, due to changes in the industry, should be deleted anyway and replaced with a different article, if not two. The term "Pure Pot Still Whiskey" historically refers to a style of whiskey that arose in Ireland after the hike in the malt taxes during the Napoleonic wars. It does not refer to the theoretical concept of whiskey made in a "pot still" but rather the style resulting from the distillation of malted AND unmalted barley in a pot still. (Historically, the unmalted or "green' section of the wash sometimes included small amounts of other unmalted grains as well. The term isn’t a great signifier for its concept, as single malts or, say a pot still bourbon, are also theoretically “purely made in a pot still” but it is the term that history has coughed up.

The article was originally a bit of a lackluster stub but some well-meaning editors unfamiliar with the term seemed to stumble on it and, with the best intentions, said that there was nothing uniquely irish or mixed mash about the concept of a pot still and, on the strength of that conviction, deleted the small amount of information that there was. As it stands, the current article neither describes the historical style nor the actual process of theoretical pot still distillation. An article on the latter should be given a name like "pot still distillation" and should outline the chemistry of the pot still in comparison the column still. (Come to think of it, this would be a very worthwhile article as the old pot still/column still divide has relevance not only for whisky but for brandy and other craft distillates...)

Although the original PPS style was widely popular during the victorian age, it was almost wiped out in the early 20th as a result of the convergence of the Irish War of independence, the economic war with Britain, the subsequent civil war in Ireland, and the untimely declaration of prohibition in the U.S. As a result, Ireland's once vibrant distilling scene fell almost completely silent over the space of two decades and, as this unfortunately happened at the same time as the actual creation of the independant Irish Free State and, eventually, the subsequent Republic of Ireland, there has been no law written in Ireland explaining the specific definition of the term. As a result, the cooley distillery started labeling some of their products as “Pure pot still single malts” during the 90s but have subsequently ceased the practice and have even recently begun experiments to produce genuine pps whiskeys of their own to compliment their single malt line.

Anyway, this is all rather irrelavent as the industry and major critical bodies thankfully have come together in the last two years to lobby the EU for a new official definition (I spoke with the IWS president Leo Phelan (who can be contacted on their website) a week ago and he can offer more information about this legal process) and the style, under its more rigourous specifications has been renamed “Single Pot Still.” This new name is presumably meant to put it in more obvious contrast with its “Single Malt” cousin and also to satisfy American liquor laws which have a prohibition-old distaste for the word “pure” being written on an alcohol label. The industry, the IWS, and the early stages of the long EU certification process have all accepted the new term (not all that historically diferent from the clarification of “Single Malt” decades ago, as old bottles of SM scotch used to use all manner of terms like “pure malt” “all malt” etc) and, in light of such changes, I would like to recommend the speedy deletion of the existing muddled article and the construction of a more thorough article on Single Pot Still whiskey. However, I have no idea how to go about this as I am entirely new to Wikipedia. However, just while perusing the talk pages, I saw your name crop up again and again and I was very impressed with your commitment to the subject so I thought you might be the man to contact on this front.

Yours sincerely,

Trestarig

p.s. if you’re curious, the IWS have a website as does Middleton Distillery’s Single Pot Still line up, although the latter is obviously drenched in all the familiar self-promotion and brand vomit.

Trestarig (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the note. Your knowledge of the subject seems to be far superior to my own. I try to help improve the accuracy, depth, and objectivity of various articles, but my expertise is limited. I would certainly be happy to try to help with improving the quality of articles such as the "pure pot still whiskey" article (or renaming it or deleting it, as appropriate). The one important tip that I would like to provide it that it is very important to find reliable sources to substantiate the edits we are making. Too often, people just write whatever they think (or whatever they want other people to think), and it is impossible to figure out whether what they have written is really true or not. Sometimes what people write is also rather vague, and references are essential to try to clarify the intent. It may sometimes be annoying to need to find sources to cite to substantiate what you know is the truth, but providing citations is really essential to establishing the objective truth of what we are writing. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey BarrelProof, sorry for the late reply! Any help would be brilliant and, tedious as it is, just tell me how and i'll be glad to cite every sentence as goodness knows i have to many whisky resources lying about (can we use books or do they have to be internet links? either way should be fine.) I'd like to suggest that the pure pot still article be renamed at the very least and then we can go from there about giving it some real information and removing the garbage.

cheers

Trestarig (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to review (and perhaps respond to) the comments made recently on the Talk:Pure pot still whiskey page. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Pisco and Pisco Sour

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)

Scotch whisky

Nice to see a collaborator on the page. I've been staring at that article for weeks now—since I have a stack of good books, I figured I'd take a stab at improving the article. I'll be working on the labelling section next, and then probably starting on History. I have MacLean's Scotch Whisky: A Liquid History. Do you think there's anything you could do with the Methods of Production section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laser brain (talk • contribs) 19:16, 16 March 2012‎ (UTC)

Multiple accounts?

Hi. If (as it sounds like you're saying on your user page) you have more than one account for a legitimate purpose, it is generally recommended that you disclose the identities of the alternative accounts so that people will know what your "main" account is and which other accounts you are using. See WP:SOCK#NOTIFY for more info about this. — Richwales 06:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you think I have exhibited a pattern of edits that appears unconstructive, POV, unsupported by reliable sources, or particularly controversial? I value my privacy. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I haven't noticed any "problem" editing on your part. However, the policy (as I understand it) recommends such notification in any case. I was simply making a friendly suggestion along these lines. Note that single-purpose accounts are described in the policy as attracting scrutiny even in the absence of problematic editing behaviour. Also, if privacy is a concern, the policy suggests you can consider directly notifying a checkuser, or a member of ArbCom, in lieu of posting a public notice. — Richwales 14:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

On further thought, there is one other issue that may be relevant here. You said (on your user page) that you created this account in order to categorize your whiskey-related edits under a separate identity. But many of your recent edits under this account have been on other topics having nothing to do with alcoholic beverages (such as citizenship-related issues, which were what brought you to my attention). This could bring into question whatever privacy concerns might have led you to set up the separate account, and it suggests that you really should either consolidate your activity onto a single account (the expected normal situation), or else disclose the relationship between your accounts (either publicly or privately, depending on the circumstances). Additionally, some of the citizenship-related articles have been targetted by banned users reappearing under new identities, IP editors refusing to get accounts (or possibly refusing to disclose that they already have or had accounts), etc. — again creating a situation where any out-of-the-ordinary editing activity could reasonably be attracting scrutiny. — Richwales 16:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly true that I've let my interests wander lately. I remember that I ended up in citizenship-related articles after wandering from whiskey to Kentucky-related articles (nearly all bourbon whiskey is made in Kentucky), which led me to the Kentucky colonel article, where I noticed something about Yahya Jammeh (the president of Gambia) becoming a Kentucky colonel, and then read the article about him and learned that his child had been denied birthright citizenship in the U.S., which I found interesting since I didn't know there were exceptions to the U.S. birthright rule. So that's how I ended up in citizenship. This account has somewhat drifted into becoming a grab-bag of my aimless wanderings in addition to whiskey. Maybe I should rein that in, although I have a tendency to want to fix little problems when and where I happen to see them, and I think that it should be clear from my edit history that my edits are generally straightforward constructive improvements. I've never been blocked. I don't think I've ever even gotten a warning. I really have other (higher-priority) things to do with my time, and should cut down on my wiki-activity. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey BarrelProof, I think that you have done some good work on that article and I hope to work with Sebastian Lake to help improve it. That being said, I agree with sebastian and Richwales above that you should identify your other account. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I understand your concern. However, my understanding of WP:SOCK#NOTIFY is that it acknowledges that privacy may be a valid reason not to reveal editing IDs, and does not impose an absolute requirement to make such a revelation. I have chosen not to do so. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, and perhaps more to the point, I also see legitimate uses of multiple accounts acknowledged in the WP:Multiple Accounts policy article. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

John Henry Browne

I wanted to compliment you on the improvements you made on this article. It reads much better and addressed several concerns I had with the article (regarding edits I made last month). I wanted to add information to the article when he took on the Bales case, but really struggled with trying to write without personal bias, as one of the firefighters killed in the Pang warehouse fire was a friend. I believe I may have over compensated in being too flattering (I think you called it puffery - great word!) and spending too much time on the Pang case. I agree completely with your observations and just wanted to share that with you as often I find articles I edit get changed for, in my opinion, the worst and happy this was not the case! I have little desire to work more on the article, I think you demonstrated my weakness in being biased and I actually can't really be bothered anyway, but if you were so inclined there is a comprehensive article in today's Seattle Times you may or may not want to read. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017933125_browne08m.html?prmid=4939

I hope you have a great day and thanks again for the improvement and comments about why they were made so I can be a better editor in the future!! OneHappyHusky (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the compliment! Yes, that new article in the Seattle Times seems like it should be helpful to improve the article (although I'm trying to cut down my editing, so I won't promise anything). Please accept my condolences for the loss of your friend. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I read the new Seattle Times article, and ended up making substantial edits based on it. Please take a look - I hope you find it an improvement. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent work, again! I think the article is much more comprehensive now. Why I initially edited the article, despite my negative feelings about Browne, was due to the fact I knew he would be getting national and international attention from the media which would almost certainly increase the traffic on his article. When I went to check it out I found it was quite limited in information, specifically his clients (did not even mention he represented Ted Bundy), and what was there was pretty much limited to his successes. The article as it appears now is a much better representation of the man, his career and (even more important) is now up to the Wiki standards...as my young niece would say, "You done good, Dude!" OneHappyHusky (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again! And thank you for finding the additional citation and for maintaining a constructive attitude toward the article in spite of your feelings about the man who is its subject. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Kentucky becoming a Commonwealth in 1850

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)

Thanks

Thank you for clarifying this. The way it was presented in the article made for a slightly confusing cite-error fix. I'm just pleased to see that it has been addressed by someone who knows the article. Have yourself a great day, and happy editing! :)  -- WikHead (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit of Sweet Revenge (liqueur)

Hi, BarrelProof,

I am a complete Wikipedia newbie, and so will ask that you be patient in our first conversations, as I am incredibly naive to the nuances of gaming the Wikipedia labyrinth of process. However, I am not a newbie to the things I write about, and have a long career in editorial and creative production in consumer magazines and a leading international newspaper.

I saw that you had some concerns about "nonsense" in an entry that went up last night, and that several well-versed Wikipedia vets have had a hand in mentoring over the last few weeks. While I certainly appreciate the input of anyone who is well-qualified, I want to ask you please to take a step back and rein in the rhetoric.

For example, sure, most or all American bourbon may be yielded from a sour mash process, and maybe most Tennessee whiskey. But sweeping statements about "all-American" anything are probably best shied away from. In the entry, I believe you may have linked the word "shot" to a Wikipedia post about "shooters", and that's something that takes the reader off-track, and not necessarily correct. Your feelings about the use of the word "mash", or not using the word "mash", are intriguing and I'd love to hear about them. But please understand that I am a reporter first, and my sources are very, very authoritative. Rather than simply react harshly, or overreact, could I invite you please to enter into a conversation about some of the things you may perhaps presume true, or hold dear, before you rip into other's work?

With respect to your critique of the Britishisms in the text: are you able to see the hours, and many many inches of Talk conversation about this subject, surrounding this entry for Sweet Revenge Liqueur? (I frankly don't yet know how it works at Wikipedia, but I assume that you can easily "see" and access all of the conversation that has gone into this, particularly the professional help from a fellow called Ryan Vesey, and a European named Night of the Big Wind. The reason I'm asking if you've had the chance to review any of this content, prior to posting your comment, is that we've all been discussing exactly that. I think the consensus is, sure, I suppose we can go back through and make the piece colorful, not colourful, but understand that the changes to Britishisms came from Big Wind's engagement. He's done a great job to fine tune and finesse many other details, and my feeling was, what the hell, we've all got bigger fish to fry than to fuss about this. Plus, maybe it sounds snazzier. Who knows. If for some reason it is really bothersome to you, please start by getting your own house in order, as I see all kinds of boo-boos when it comes to the inevitable (given your penchant) whisky v. whiskey inconsistencies. Knock yourself out, my friend!

That being said, if it turns out that you actually do have some expertise in this area -- and by this "area" I mean spirits, cocktails, food, etc. -- I'm happy to make your acquaintance and invite you to enter in and make this a collaborative, not adversarial, opportunity. As Big Wind, and Ryan Vesey, will attest, I am no less assertive and protective of my work than the next guy. And probably come off as a lot of hot air, to some. But I'm genuinely getting into this with a sense of calling and mission. I really want to bring Wikipedia up to speed in these areas that are right now weakly covered. One reason, I suspect, for this inadequacy is that there vocal and harshly opinionated people waiting to pounce, and shred, and call things "nonsense", when in fact it is quite likely that if we do a bit more listening, taking deep breaths, and discussing-in-advance, we can all help one another do better.

With respect to the Sweet Revenge post, if you've got an axe to grind about that piece, let's talk about it together, shall we?

You mention that you've got some expertise with respect to whiskey. Is it possible that you are unfamiliar with Jaquin et Cie, and the legacy there? If you know of an older producer of liqueurs in the US, could you please share that information? I certainly can't find it.

Many thanks, BarrelProof!

Sebastian Lake (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Sorry if my edit description was a bit flippant. There are quite a few comments above. I think I agree with you that my link to shot (alcohol) was not a good idea. I should have checked the link target for that. My understanding is that all whiskey is made from a mash, so to me it seems unnecessary and undesirable to refer to something as being made from a "mash whiskey", as that would be a bit like talking about having a "mammalian cat". My comments about British versus American English on a Talk page were meant to be helpful advice, not adversarial – I didn't actually make any change the language or spelling in the article. However, since this is an American product that says "Proudly made in the USA" on its label, I suggest that U.S. English may be the appropriate choice for the article under Wikipedia article conventions (see MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:SPELL). I didn't say "all-American" (with a hyphen and without a qualifier). What I said was "Essentially all American whiskey is sour mash whiskey". To me "essentially all" means "the vast majority" or "nearly all" or "practically all", but not exactly "all", and I certainly would not put the hyphen there. My wording may be somewhat more informal and less precise when making an edit description than what I would actually say in an article. I think my comment about "nonsense" was about the claim that this 2012 product "is the first sour mash base liqueur". My understanding is that many liqueurs are based on sour mash whiskey. Again, sorry if my edit description was too casual. I'm happy to engage with you on the Talk page of the article if there is any disagreement over the article content. I do not claim to have any special expertise in the area of spirits, cocktails, food, etc. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, BarrelProof, the distinction is dough, vs. sourdough. Anything distilled has something mash-like going on, for sure, just like any bread starts with dough. But the "sour mash" process is something different, just like sourdough is not Wonderbread. I am no distiller and I think you are likely not either, but my elementary understanding really is about this idea of sourdough, which I do get. The idea that some of the mash, the "sour" mash, is set aside and utilized for the next batch as a means of maintaining consistency in flavor, based on the chemistry. So we're talking about two different mammalian cats. Sebastian Lake (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Not all mash is sour mash. But I believe that all whiskey (in the usual sense of the word "whiskey") is mash whiskey. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

As someone who knows nothing about alcohol/liquor/liqueur at all, I find the sour mash information useful. I would have had no clue that every whiskey is mash whiskey or that all American whiskey is sour mash. In fact, without enough information, I would have assumed the drink had a sour flavor. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree about that. Since the product emphasizes "sour mash" on its label, it is useful to have some information about what the term means in the article. Strictly speaking, not all American whiskey is sour mash whiskey – but most of it is (especially Bourbon). —BarrelProof (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Barrel and Ryan,

I had a good conversation with a couple of absolutely authoritative sources with respect to the specifics about "sour mash" included in the original draft. Without drilling into all of it, not all American-made whiskey by any means is made in this manner, although the assertion that most American bourbons are, is somewhat correct. There too, there is a lot of flux because of the surge of interest in developing craft, small batch brands, which can be unique (not using the "sourdough" method.)

Of greater concern to me, however, -- and maybe Barrel, you could offer some reassurance in this regard -- is my perception that there is some, for lack of better words, interference or even just intentional sniping going on here. Specifically the link that has been identified as not working -- pertaining to the trademark registration information for Sweet Revenge -- works perfectly fine. I have that link open now on my monitor, no problem. And as I have invested a tremendous amount of time and effort in benchmarking this subject matter on Wikipedia in preparing to file this entry, I do not understand the claim that the article is poorly cited or backed up. Rather, it is accurately reported, the sources are strong and specific, and I would like to have your help in understanding how it could -- or should -- be differently structured.

As mentioned, because of my background professionally, I have very deep and strong story sources and a journalism background. I would appreciate it if we could discuss together, rather than drop bombs on one another's work. I will move swiftly for intervention if I sense that there is simply arbitrary or obstructionist behavior at work. I'm not about to engage in Edit War. So help me out here with some clear communication, Barrel.

And again, please advise if I am communicating with you in the wrong place. I'm so new to the Wikipedia rabbit holes, I'm never quite sure if I am "Talking" or messaging where i should be.

Ryan, I have some additional developments about the photos, and would like to share that with you. Love to hear your thoughts, too, BarrelProof.

Sebastian Lake (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you misinterpreted my edit of the trademark registration information link. The link is working fine. But if you look at the page found at that link, you will see that it says that the status of the trademark registration is "Abandoned-Failure to Respond". That's a quote from the site. To establish notability (see WP:NOTABILITY), there should be some identification of "reliable sources" (see WP:RS) such as articles about the product. –BarrelProof (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this explanation, BarrelProof. Now, please listen to mine. In journalism as in law, we use citations (particularly when they are sparse) to establish particular points and their place in time. In this case, we have hard evidence of the claims of the producer of a product, submitted under penalty of perjury, as to the manufacturer's claims about the product, and the elements that the distiller intends to highlight in the branding and marketing of the product. That's what this citation is for. There is no "gotcha" in the notice of "abandoned-failure to respond" notice. This happens all the time when a business is developing a new brand. We don't need to drill into why the TM application was abandoned. We are simply providing a piece of evidence that verifies that the brand exists (because it is so very new) and that these are the features the distiller intends to highlight. This is not an entry about investigation of a TM application. This is merely a supporting citation that clearly says that what the Wikipedia author claims the distiller is up to, is real. This is an absolutely reliable source and I hope you'll step back, breathe and agree. In my "real" profession, I would absolutely walk this citation source all the way up the food-chain, with no qualms. And I can assure you, the reporting and editorial standards I refer to are considerably more rigorous than the kinds of things that display on Wikipedia at every turn. Let's please collaborate here like gentlemen. Or Ladies and Gentleman.

Please don't forget that in good faith, I've asked you to share what other Screennames you are operating under, on Wikipedia. I have only this one.

Sebastian Lake (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I partly responded on the Talk page for the article. I think you may have gotten an incorrect impression of my attitude towards the article and your edits, so I will give the topic a rest. I am very sorry that you have gotten the impression that I have a hostile attitude. I sincerely hope that you will not find the attitude here by me or others on Wikipedia to be generally hostile – but it may take some time to get familiar with Wikipedia conventions relating to notability, reliable sources, citation style, and neutral point of view. In noting that the trademark application has an abandoned status, I just get the impression that there may not be much evidence of notability from an application with that status. Regarding your request for other screen names, I do not edit articles related to beverages under other screen names (and generally use this ID for nearly all of my editing). However, for reasons of privacy, I do not plan to reveal all screen names under which I have edited. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Some further comments, after a break of about a day and a half. (Please also note that the editing of the article and the discussions on its Talk page have moved onwards in the meantime.) Regarding the uses of citations, Wikipedia tends to be somewhat skeptical about claims that come directly from a person or company when it talks about itself. This is for good reason – people and companies sometimes tend to provide biased, misleading or incorrect information when doing so benefits their interests. Also, please note that I have not actually questioned whether this product exists or not. However, under Wikipedia policy, there are supposed to be some objective sources cited to establish notability and to establish factual statements. Notability is not the same thing as existence. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:PRIME

Hi BarrelProof. The reason why WP:PRIME and WP:PTOPIC link to the same place is because I haven't yet changed WP:PRIME to redirect to Wikipedia:Prime objective. I didn't think this would be too controversial, given there were only 25 or so uses of WP:PRIME (most people seem to use WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). So Ive gone through and corrected the links to WP:PRIME, making sure not to change the visible text itself (as that would be tampering with someone's comment), but just changing the link. Regards! -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Josh Wolf (disambiguation)

Ping, you have replies. --George Ho (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Melungeon

The melungeon page is about MY family, I'm from the vardy collins and shep gibson, these people have been coming an dharassing our family for the last 25 years trying to say our ancestors was liars when they stated clearly we are portugesse and native american. The gions family is the only family of the melungeons that had african dna. Our ancestry is Portugesse and Native american. Jack goins is NOT a real goins either..his step grand father was a goins not him. Jack goins asked many of the family members for dna samples..which they did.. these tests showed over 75 percent match to the portugesse dna results... Jack took our family dna and started trying to claim it showed black and white and no portugesse... jack goins used family tree dna for this...the same reference I used in the wikipedia article....if you look at parkwell's past wikipedia edits you will see he only edits stuff dealing with african american and disproving any ancestry but black ancestry. This is flat our racist not only to our family but to the portugesse and native american people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.68.123 (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I am really not familiar with the issues or people involved in this discussion. However, I strongly suggest to try to constructively discuss the subject at Talk:Melungeon with other editors, rather than just continuing to make confrontational remarks and continue an "edit war" over the content of the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This a formal "Cease and desist" letter to you informing you to STOP contributing to racism and malious attacks on my family, the melungeons. Further contrubutions to this wil indicate a delibrite attempt to further racism and malious embarsement on my family the melungeons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.68.123 (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Rapid transit

See reply. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 6 years 21:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Kentucky

Hey, BarrelProof. Thanks for helping do some cleanup on Kentucky. Some time ago, I tried to at least cite parts of the article, but it's a daunting task. Is your interest mainly in just making this article a little less embarassing to Wikipedia as a whole, or do you have hopes of taking it to the point that it could pass a GA review or something? I'm not sure how to handle a topic so massive, but if you're interested, perhaps we could give it a shot together. If not, no worries. Just wondering. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the positive feedback. Unfortunately, I doubt that I will devote much time to that article. I have just tried to correct specific problems when I notice them. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Understandable. That's about all I can do with it myself. It's such a broad topic, I don't think I could do it justice without some help from someone who has experience with that kind of thing. Most of my work is on tightly focused biographies. Thanks for your help in at least helping remove the vandalism that I obviously missed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Rocky mountain locust

If you delete new entry maybe you are sending all people wrong way fighting against locust. Plowing theory is not proofed. Normally you can`t plow everythere and never kill all eggs where plowed. Meliantriol is already used poison against locust from neem tree alone with 3 poisons. Plants killing insects is normally. Of course farmers brought <1900 new plants into USA maybe also knowing about effects with other plants adding effects normally used. I did not say it must be neem tree but that it was likely a plant like neem tree proofed enough with german WP poison entries missed in english WP. You could transfer also that. Locust is stupid searching and eating new plant from alone maybe it was neem tree or beetroot with oxal acid poison... historical research for killer plant to be asked for ! Do you really believe that you should fight locust with plowing in africa, asia....... ?

I have email from rocky mountain locust experts who said also that plants possible reason same like in references but not for inside link but to your email address if interested ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.88.228.95 (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't actually have an opinion about what is correct. However, there is a source referenced that offers some reason for the disappearance of the Rocky Mountain locust. If someone wants to say that some other explanation is more likely, that's fine, but they should cite some reliable source to support that claim. There needs to be some verifiability. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see Special:Contributions/Kay_Uwe_Böhm, the above ip has been blocked for block evasion. Vsmith (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"Florida law" in Prime Directive/Objective

I added that part because Wikipedia's servers are located in Florida, and it has a policy against hosting anything that is illegal in the state, even if it's notable or verifiable. I suppose it may go without saying, but thought it would be better to be clear. I've left that out for now, pending your response here. But I've reverted your addition of "However, it is important to...", as excess wordiness. Better to explicitly tell readers what to do than to merely say it's important. Consider the unambiguous brevity of a "Stop" or "No Smoking" sign. Same deal here. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh. OK. I suggest that "Florida law" should only be included if there's some hint about why it's there. Very few people are probably aware of the connection. Regarding the first part of the sentence, I have an alternative phrasing that could perhaps suit us both. Something about the grammar of the beginning of the sentence is bothering me. I'll make the edit and see what you think. Please feel free to change it again if you don't like it. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It's also partly a grammar issue with me. I generally avoid "that" whenever possible, but it's not a huge deal, if you'd rather keep it. But I think I'll change "applicable" to "Florida", for clarity's sake, with "(where Wikipedia's servers are located)". "Applicable" doesn't help a reader who doesn't know which laws are applicable. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed that some people avoid using "that". I don't understand why. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Much of the time, the sentence means the same without it. It's excess wordiness. "I have noticed some people avoid using 'that'." Particularly annoying in "said that..." or "thought that...". Not as annoying as when editors begin every sentence with "Also," or say "would do something" when they mean "did something", but in that same vein. Quite common mistakes. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

To which I would add the use of passive voice, e.g., 'have' and 'had' which should be excised from good writing. And which are far too common in this encyclopedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

To me it seems that (there I go again) using 'that' often improves clarity – probably I use it too much. I'll have to think more about the passive voice topic. I probably also use that too much. I wish I had paid more attention to grammar and writing style earlier in life. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A modest suggestion for your WP:User page

You are quite right that after two years, you should not have to explain your presence. Unfortunately, we have editors who don't seem to be well informed, and sometimes would benefit from some instruction. I suggest you confer on yourself the appropriate Service Award. As I don't know which one that would be, I leave it all up to you. But it would put a sign on your door, a diploma on your wall, and let those who care and are interested what the facts are. Keep up the good work. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. It's buried at the end of your page, and I missed it. Please pardon the presumption and error. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Yes, it was rather deeply buried. I had previously had some trouble with its alignment. In response to your comment, I investigated how to fix that problem and exhumed it. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

To an awesome Wikipedian

	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) 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)

Secretariat

Thanks for your edits on this article. I think most of the old hands at Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing have this page on their watchlists, and we TRY to keep an eye on poorly sourced, irrelevant or biased material. Tigerboy1966  20:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep an eye peeled

Here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis article

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.--212.22.51.31 (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

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

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?

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 70.196.129.142 (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

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

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

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

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 ‎

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

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 24.130.123.183 (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 24.130.123.183 (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

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

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

Markov chain

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

Additional references

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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 pcstas@frederique-constant.com.

Thank you, Peter Stas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcstas (talk • contribs) 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

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 86.137.12.93 (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I confirmed that Beard has departed (as reported at http://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2013/08/mallya-quits-whyte-mackay-board/ and http://www.shankennewsdaily.com/index.php/2013/08/12/6470/news-briefs-for-august-12-2013/) 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)

Wikiproject

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?

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. http://www.nndb.com/honors/256/000163764/ 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

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)

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

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

Hi BarrelProof! (Hmmm, bourbon!)

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 76.119.76.228 (talk · contribs) at 03:45, 24 January 2012‎.

My removal was reverted by 50.138.198.185 (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? -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)

Pogonophobia

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

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)

Comments

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 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Pappy Van Winkle's Family Reserve

'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

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

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)