User talk:BarrelProof/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Barrel, you have a good deal of edits in drink-related articles and I would like to hear your advice on the

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 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)

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

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)

	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)

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)

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)

I just added the source to the

) 23:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 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)

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)

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)

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)

I have proposed a "merger/move request" between

) 22:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Hello. I added the refimprove template to the article

) 20:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

That is a perfectly good explanation of the perceived problem. I suggest saying something like that on

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)

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)

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)

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

) 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)

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

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)

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)

Hi. I noticed that you recently posted that you would support closing the discussion about the requested move of

) 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)

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)

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 [email protected].

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)

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

) 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)

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

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)

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.

) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

It seems cleaned up now. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

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

'

) 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)

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)

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)

Hi BarrelProof

You recently participated in a move request for the albums/songs titled "Living for the Weekend". This move has been partially carried out, but due to lack of consensus over the album versions, I have started a new request for those specifically, at

) 11:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:DAB

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

Thanks for comment on my Talk page. I'm quite in favour of following consistent MOS where it really is spelled out. Thanks also for keeping

WP:PDAB up to date, Gene Vincent may get deleted though - perhaps I'm not being objective, but it looked as notable as any other major rock star's single to me. In ictu oculi (talk

) 01:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks

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

Thanks for the encouragement. Do you happen to know whether the user warning templates generate some kind of notification to admins to consider generating a block, or is it necessary for someone to go create a report manually like you apparently did? —BarrelProof (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't "know" if use of the templates communicates with administrators. I don't think so. I usually go to

WP:AIV, and report it. I basically use the formulae "warned, persistent, hot" and if it is applicable "school short block?" As long as you've got the warnings in place on the talk page, this always works in my experience. 7&6=thirteen (☎

) 14:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The warning templates do not automatically notify admins and 7&6=thirteen is correct about reporting vandal editors to AIV. OTOH some admins will watchlist the talk page of the problematic editor and, when they see new warnings being added they will block the person without a report having been filed at AIV. This does not happen very often so it is usually a good idea to file the report anyway. Cheers again and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 22:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello BarrelProof

You recently participated in and initiated a

) 20:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A Boy was Born

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

Are there any reliable sources that say it's important in this particular case? For most titles, I think it would not be considered important. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I said I would unwatch my article but sometimes look how the Boy is doing. I am puzzled by the term OR for the observation that the piece was published as shown and named like that in all sources that I used. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather not repeat the whole conversation here. It's already partly above and also being discussed on the article's Talk page. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)