User talk:BarrelProof

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

Possible spamming of whiskey reviews[edit]

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

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

Chancing across this again (I argued at the time that it was promotion of a newly-released book and Wikipedia shouldn't include it), we still have a bunch of articles presenting Murphy as the only expert worth quoting on a lot of classic whiskeys. The quotes were all added in a single day by User:Kalexander11 who never came back to Wikipedia afterwards - although the quotes were all immediately removed by various editors, they were (all?) added back by User:Stevietheman who didn't have a problem with them and hoped that they'd grow into fuller review sections. (Sadly they haven't.) Might be worth taking another look at this. --McGeddon (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but I think I'm with Stevie on that one. I'd like to see more reviews added rather than removing the reviews we have (however sleazily they may have arrived here). Reviews by Jim Murray might be nice, as his annual book seems popular. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Informed reviews and links thereto can shed light on the subject. I would favor more their use, not less. I concur with Stevie and BarrelProof. 7&6=thirteen () 22:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: Archived prior discussions found at User talk:Stevietheman/Archive 15#Jim Beam revert, User talk:Kalexander11, and User talk:WellsWiggins. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


"ß" and even if they know it is not a funny B and have been told how to pronounce it, many English speakers have a much difficulty pronouncing it as many Germans do pronouncing "th". -- PBS (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Should be closer to a double-s, shouldn't it? (See WP:ß.) —BarrelProof (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes and no, a double s in English would usual be be pronounced as a longer "s" to emphasise it or even a break between words eg Stras-ser, but the second s in German is pronounced as a German z which combined comes outs as "ts". "ts" is unusual in English, but it is found at the end of in words like "cats", (or much less commonly at the start of words like "Tsar" (which most English speakers pronounce "Zar"). You will find much more detail in the variations depending on the leading vowel at The Germans on Wikipedia make a lot of this because they hear the difference more distinctly than English speakers and have had the correct rule drummed into them at school, but Swiss German uses just ss in spelling and expect someone to know the difference on pronunciation, (rather like the way English speaking people learn that the e at the end of a word changes the vowel pronunciation -- eg "bat" and "bate"). So really if English speakers were taught in school what an ß was, it would be more of a help for English people than it is for Germans in knowing how to pronounce German words! -- PBS (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the education! I very much appreciate your taking the time and effort for that. (I seem to have previously misread your original note.) —BarrelProof (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Stumbled over this and want to comment: "ß" in a word is never pronounced with a "ts" sound. The only situation where the "ts" comes into play is when you directly name the letter, eg. when you spell something. This is comparable to the English "w", which is pronounced "doublejoo" only when refered to directly, but never in a word.
In context, "ß" is always a voiceless s sound. Modern German (after 1996) uses "ß" only after long vowels, a double-s is used after short vowel. However, old texts and many people used to legacy spelling still use traditional spelling.
Hope this helps. Now I will go and see how much of this was already included in ß. (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! —BarrelProof (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

PPACA close[edit]

Could you revert that, please? There were people supporting a move to ACA, who might not support a move to Obamacare (like me). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest to just submit a new RM. That one was withdrawn by the nominator. I just added a clarification to the closing description to make it clear that a new submission can be considered. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, except you can't actually withdraw a move request like that. Thanks for the clarification, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I just reviewed the rules. To me the guidance on that question does not seem entirely clear. I had thought that such a closing was definitely allowed, but now I'm not so sure. I think I wouldn't do it again under similar circumstances. However, now another request has already been opened. The events have moved on, and the talk page discussion record would get rather tangled by trying to undo that. Since the prior RM was only open briefly, with only a few people commenting, it may be best to just let the discussion of the new RM proceed and have alternatives discussed under that. For what it's worth, I apologize for the questionable close. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
No apology necessary, you did what you thought was best for the encyclopedia. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your kindness. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yvette move request[edit]

Hi, I made my first RM close today, do you think it looked okay? I quoted WP:SNOW but not sure if that was more to refute a proposal than support it?! Hope it went okay and BD2412 made the appropriate changes to the disambig page and thanks to him for that, this is untreaded territory for me. Appreciate any feedback you have. Cheers. Zarcadia (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Congrats on your first RM close! I think people would know what you meant and agree there was plenty of support to establish a clear consensus to move. But the one thing I notice is that you did not comment or act on the suggestion to move it to Yvette (river). The last two people who commented in the discussion made that suggestion and pointed out a naming convention expressed at WP:NCRIVER (and common practice evident at Category:Rivers of Île-de-France), and no one had disagreed. I think that was a good suggestion. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for the revert! I had suspected it might have been a Britishism, but my references at hand let me down when I checked. I should have dug a little deeper. Best regards, Peter Kaminski (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Please help![edit]

Some idiot decided to move my page from Zulkifli Abdhir (his real name) to his alias Marwan (terrorist). I've tried to revert it but I do not have the technical know-how. You've encountered this asshole user before making unwelcome page moves so I thought I could get you to fix this for me. Breckham101 (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to help. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you very much for your help! Breckham101 (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! —BarrelProof (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Five Wheat Whiskey Alternatives to Pappy[edit]

thought you might be interested. 7&6=thirteen () 21:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had Bernheim Original, but not the others. The Bernheim Original web site notes that Old Fitzgerald and Maker's Mark are also wheaters. I've been meaning to create an article about the Stitzel-Weller Distillery one of these days. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Flicker, Jonah (February 4, 2015). "5 Wheat Whiskey Alternatives to Pappy". Retrieved February 4, 2015.  citation. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen () 23:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. Larceny (Heaven Hill, not expensive, haven't tried it)
  2. Bernheim Original (Heaven Hill, not expensive, not so great in my opinion, also not a wheated bourbon but rather wheat whiskey, so not really comparable)
  3. W. L. Weller (Sazerac, cheap!, I guess I should try it – same company as Pappy)
  4. TOPO Eight Oak Carolina Whiskey (Top of the Hill Distillery, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, never heard of it, modestly priced)
  5. OYO Oloroso Wheat Whiskey (Middle West Spirits, Columbus, Ohio, never heard of it, modestly priced)
BarrelProof (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Haynes-Peterson, Robert, "Top 10 Pappy Van Winkle Alternatives: Bourbons to Fill that Pappy Van Winkle-Shaped Hole in Your Life",, date unknown. Details:

  1. Barterhouse 20-year ($75, Diageo)
  2. Old Blowhard 26-year ($150, Diageo)
  3. Old Weller Antique (Sazerac, cheap!, I guess I should try it – same company as Pappy)
  4. Jefferson's Presidential Select 18-year aged in Stitzel-Weller barrels (only 132 bottles were produced, so forget it)
  5. Masterson's 12-year wheat whiskey ($60, never heard of it – from some company called 35 Maple Street in Sonoma, California, also not a wheated bourbon but rather wheat whiskey, so not really comparable)
  6. A. H. Hirsch Reserve 16-year (Anchor, a non-distiller brand, price not specified, but seems to be north of $250, so you may as well just look for Pappy)
  7. Willett Pot Still Reserve (one of my favorites, not too pricey, really cool bottle design)
  8. Larceny (Heaven Hill, not expensive)
  9. Black Maple Hill (CVI, reportedly bottled by Willett, they say $40, but I doubt you'll find it for that, pretty decent in my opinion)
  10. Rebel Yell (Luxco / Heaven Hill, cheap)

BarrelProof (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Macy's data[edit]

Hello. I erased the data in the Macy's article, because are wrong. Macy's and Bloomingdale's are subsidiaries of "Macy's Inc.". There is an article about Macy's Inc. in Wikipedia, and these data are there. The Macy's (subsidiary) financial data is missing. Thanks. Cgx8253 16:54, 22 February 2015‎ (UTC)

I suggest to use an WP:Edit summary the next time you make edits that do not have a self-evident rationale. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for 2015 State of the Union Address[edit]

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Whiskey in the news[edit]

Schelzig, Erik (March 16, 2015). "Dickel master distiller leaving to head Popcorn Sutton: Dickel master distiller leaving for brand named after legendary moonshiner Popcorn Sutton". Associated Press.  7&6=thirteen () 17:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That is interesting. There's got to be something more behind that story. Ravensfire (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
That seems like a step down to me, in terms of likely impact, although there surely may be other considerations. George Dickel is a major brand (and much tastier than Jack Daniel's if you ask me, which bodes well for the nascent Popcorn Sutton brand). I just updated the Marvin Sutton and George Dickel articles with that information, and also filed a WP:RM requested move to move the Marvin Sutton article to Popcorn Sutton). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

General Sanctions: Electronic Cigarettes.[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to electronic cigarettes.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

SPACKlick (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Black Dog Scotch Whisky[edit]

You are welcome.Luckydhaliwal (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2014 East Harlem apartment buildings explosion[edit]

Another move discussion has been set up. Join in to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I saw the discussion, but I have not formed an opinion about it, so I have not commented. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Rye Whisky[edit]

A Bold New Rye Whisky, Forbes magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7&6=thirteen (talkcontribs) 14:57, 19 May 2015‎ (UTC)


I removed your {{Proposed deletion}} tag from Wimpys Diner and added a (weak) source but I'm not opposed to deletion by AfD process depending on evidence presented. It's an interesting case for me—a regional chain with 44 restaurants but very limited web coverage in secondary sources. —  AjaxSmack  21:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem; thanks for the note. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


Would you justify your self? [1], we have other articles about other dialects of Luri language, please don't empty the Southern Luri language article, it's well sourced of Ethnologue. Mjbmr (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The relevant Talk page can be found at Talk:Southern Luri language. I suggest to start a conversation there if you want to change the redirect into an article in the manner you are attempting, rather than continuing to WP:Edit war. Your content dispute is not really a dispute with me. I don't really have an opinion about the subject, but I think you are not acting appropriately by conducting an edit war and complaining to admins without discussing the issues on article Talk pages. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Religion in Kentucky[edit]

Hello, in, if you add together the percentages of the listed religious and nonreligious groups, the total comes out to be 117% and not 100%, which is not possible. I tried to fix that and not vandalize the page. Thank you!DarkCoke (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Sorry for the mistaken impression, although if you had used a WP:Edit summary, this could have been prevented. Let's try to follow up on fixing that. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
It appears that although you were correct that the article was wrong, the way you changed it was not correct either. Please check the correspondence between my new edit and the cited source. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Gene Abel redirect[edit]

I noticed that you recently redirected a whole article without obtaining consensus. With all due respect I believe there should be consensus before such a large change is made, though as a novice on this site I am not completely familiar with the policies. I have respectfully reverted your change and hope a community consensus can be achieved before such a change is made. Best wishes! Sjrr124 (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for the nice note and for your concern for ensuring that the content of Wikipedia articles has the support of the community consensus. I have started a discussion on the article's Talk page at Talk:Gene Abel to determine what the consensus will be. But I really thought that article (Gene Abel) was very low quality and mostly just duplicated what was in the Abel Assessment article (which I also think was very low quality). —BarrelProof (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for opening a dialogue. Correct me if I am mistaken, but shouldn't some notice be placed on the article page and not just the talk page? Also is a 24 hour limit standard for discussion? This would leave casual Wikipedia users who do not visit the site daily out of the discussion. I will attempt to gain some more policy information from a third party. Additionally, it appears to me that your redirect leaves some information out that was on the Gene Abel page, but is not on the Abel Assessment page. It is my hope that you will not redirect without a consensus. Best Wishes! Sjrr124 (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no deadline. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
You have always been a great person towards me, and I feel like I have never fully expressed my gratitude towards you for being a friend and mentor to me, and for all the positive contributions that you provide to this project. This barnstar is for your kindness, honesty, and work. Thank you!-- MarshalN20 Talk 06:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
That's very nice of you – thanks! —BarrelProof (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


There is an ongoing RM discussion. Comment there. --George Ho (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have submitted a comment. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Dr. McGillicuddy's •is• notable[edit]

It's a major schnapps brand in the USA, and if other whisky brands can get their own page, why shouldn't Dr. McGillicuddy's get one? I created a stub for myself or someone else to expand later and put a link to it in Fireball Cinnamon Whisky that you unilaterally decided wasn't "notable."

That said, this kind of arbitrary and reckless editing is why I don't really contribute to Wikipedia anymore. You could have opened a discussion, but instead you reverted and undid work. That's not productive for anyone. I don't engage in edit wars, I really don't care. Burn away and let people who read the article, like I did, say "Wow, I didn't know FIreball started as a McGillicuddy brand...." and then not be able to click the link to find more. I don't care enough to fight this. Iamvered (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Iamvered: The main problem with that article is there are no sources, nothing to show why that brand is notable. Look at the whiskey articles you complained about - they have sources, independent sources. That's what is needed. Ravensfire (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, the link in the Fireball Cinnamon Whisky article was created before the Dr. McGillicuddy's article was created. Unaware of any other association with "Dr. McGillicuddy's", I could not fathom why someone would create a link to the name of a fictitious back-story brand "inventor" for Fireball Cinnamon Whisky, so I removed the link. At the time that I looked at the page, the other article didn't exist yet. No edit summary was provided when the link was created to explain why it was happening, and I'm not unfortunately a mind-reader. Using edit summaries in the future would be helpful to explain the motivation for edits. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)