User talk:Bourbondog

March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Firefly Distillery do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Vrenator (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Old Taylor, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

Please read WP:NPOV. Immediately. Just because a bit of information about a product is negative does not mean it is removed from an article. It is a clear violation of Wikipedia's policies to attempt to whitewash an article to present only good things about the product, like you did at 1792 Ridgemont Reserve. If you cannot folow this, then you should cease editing immediately, as it is non-negotiable. oknazevad (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why you removed sourced content from the Sazerac Company article. Can you please explain your motives? —BarrelProof (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After further review of your recent edits of the Sazerac Company article, they really do not appear helpful to me. Similarly as Oknazevad's comments above, I wonder if you are trying to promote a particular point of view with your editing. Can you please explain? —BarrelProof (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

You seem to just be repeating this behavior with editing of the Sazerac Company article without discussing it and without explaining any of your edits with an edit summary. These edits do not appear constructive to me. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are also repeatedly removing sourced content from the 1792 Ridgemont Reserve article. Why? It appears that you are making biased edits in some attempt to help the Sazerac Company. Is that correct? Is there some other explanation for what you are doing? —BarrelProof (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]