User talk:BarrelProof/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Possible spamming of whiskey reviews

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)

"Th"

"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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftCXrOawSvY 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. 91.10.58.43 (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! —BarrelProof (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

PPACA close

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

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)

Distil

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!

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!

	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

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)

Details:

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", Askmen.com, 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

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

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

Whiskey in the news

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.

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

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

Talk:2014 East Harlem apartment buildings explosion

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

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

Alberta Rye Whiskey Dark Batch Olmsted, Larry (May 19, 2015). "A Bold New Rye Whisky From Canada's Rye Expert". Forbes Magazine. Retrieved November 20, 2015. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Wimpy's

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)

Justify

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

Hello, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky#Religion, 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

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!

	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)

Talk:Gangsta.

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

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)

Thanks (Francis Hopkinson)

Thanks for updating the opening paragraph of the Francis Hopkinson article. When we made the changes last summer, we didn't think to change the first paragraph--my first effort for Wikipedia. We so appreciate your contribution saying that Hopkinson designed the first U.S. flag. The evidence is certainly there! Fran Featherston (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Happy to try to help. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Amendment

Hi BarrelProof. I hope that this message finds you at a good time. Since you pointed out that I could review my topic ban ([2]), I wanted to let you know that I have done so as of today (see [3]). I know that I had mentioned that I first wanted to pass the bicycle kick article to FA status, but a recent highly uncomfortable situation prompted me to go ahead and request the TBAN removal. Regardless, I wanted to acknowledge that your reminder was also a reason for me making the request.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I see that there has not yet been any response. I'll try to keep an eye on that as it is considered, and I may chime in to support your request. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Pappy Van Winkle's Family Reserve

Production is being increased, but because of the time lag, it is a work in progress. Hunt, Kristin. "10 Things You Didn't know About Pappy Van Winkle". The Washington Post, Thrillist. Retrieved August 26, 2015. there is quite a bit more in this article, and perhaps we should put more into ours. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Doubling production won't put the slightest dent in the demand. I think a factor of ten would still be conservative. They aren't treating this like a business. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

High demand and high profits. Like being a Bourbon rock star. The link in the article to an interview with one of the offspring is informative. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Theft link. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Southern Luri language

Edit war is back. — kwami (talk) 06:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Davis third opinion

Re: [4]

There's no indication this person even saw your request for third opinion, so I wouldn't consider it one. A second opposing opinion would consider your rationale and respond to it. Although I'm the one who originally reverted that, and I received one "thank" notification for that, I see this as a failure of the system. I'd suggest you take it to talk if you still want a third opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful note about my edit and edit summary at Kim Davis (county clerk). Regardless of whether my comment was fully considered or not, the fact is that two different people rejected my suggestion to include the date for the Supreme Court decision in the lead. Since then, other information has been removed from the lead as well, including the date on which the suit against her was filed and the description of the four couples that filed the suit. I am sometimes more fond of factual details than other people are, and I should try to respect that. I am glad that I was at least able to remove the reference to August in the lead, which was clearly incorrect, as she was clearly already turning away applicants – including mixed-sex couples – by the end of June. As I mentioned in my summary, the time span between the Supreme Court decision and her refusal to issue licenses and the filing of a lawsuit against her for that was only five days (that included only three business days). That's remarkably fast. To me that's worth noticing, but so far no one else seems interested in that fact. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Prematurely closed requested move at Kim Davis

I was saddened to see your premature close at that requested move. I never got to comment.

The problem is that a mistaken/confused/incompetent attempt to bypass an AfD decision resulted in the creation of the Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy article (an improper copy-paste of nearly all of the Kim Davis article), intended as a replacement for the Kim Davis article, leaving it as a mere biographical stub. (That's because MrX doesn't understand WP:Spin-off. He's got it totally backwards, and that confuses people.) We can't allow his attempt because the AfD decision recognized that the controversy is the only reason she's notable, ergo, that content must remain in her bio.

The Kentucky article should not exist as a duplication of the Kim Davis (county clerk) article (sans the strictly biographical stuff about her). She, because of her actions, is the focus of the media circus. There is no recent RS mention of her without it. Before the controversy she wasn't notable enough for an article.

You are absolutely right that her article should be entitled Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy, and you would likely have gotten support for it. That would have forced the Kentucky article to stick to its larger scope, and resulted in a much-needed paring down of the excess material related to Kim Davis which it contains. That would be the proper solution.

Please don't back away from this. Your idea is correct. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I was really surprised when I found out that a content fork already existed and had apparently been created with consensus support (as best I could tell at a glance), and I felt like a clueless fool for submitting an RM that would create a duplicate article. I had seen some discussion about creating some such content fork article, but I wasn't aware that it had already happened several days ago. I don't want to be someone that creates random noise on Wikipedia, and I feared that this is what had resulted from my RM suggestion. Since the situation wasn't what I thought it was, I didn't think a continued extensive RM discussion would be helpful. I also have a lot of respect for Stevietheman, a very diligent and prolific contributor to Wikipedia, who said this was just a rehash. I don't plan to retract my withdrawal of the RM. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand, but please stand by and keep an eye on things, because this is one time that he's backing the wrong horse because he's listening to a confused editor. There was a weak consensus because of confusion, but it's not backed by policy or MoS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

From the requested move:

• You said "I note that there is no separate article about her refusal to issue marriage licenses". Are you aware of this article Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy that was spun-off as the result of a discussion resulting in a clear consensus?- MrX 12:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oops. No. I wasn't aware of that! Can I withdraw this? It doesn't make sense to have two articles about the same controversy. Shouldn't a lot of stuff be deleted from this article if there's another one about the controversy? —BarrelProof (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that "fork" and "spin-off" have been used interchangeably in all this discussion. That alone creates confusion. You are correct that it "doesn't make sense to have two articles about the same controversy." Since the AfD recognized that the proper scope and content of the Kim Davis article made it notable enough to keep, we must maintain that scope and content in her bio. The controversy must not be removed/spunoff/forked, but it can be copied to a fork, where other similar themes are also used.

You are again right on that "a lot of stuff [should be] be deleted from [an] this article," but it's the Kentucky article which should be trimmed of excess Kim Davis stuff. WP:Summary style (WP:Spin-off) should be followed there, and MrX doesn't seem to understand that, so he's intent on hijacking the Kim Davis article. Unfortunately for him, SHE is the reason the subject of "same-sex marriage license controversy" became notable, and in the process she also became notable. The controversy and Kim Davis are tied together and must not be separated. That's the AfD conditions.

Leaving the Kim Davis article without all the relevant controversy stuff leaves it open to another AfD, where it would rightly be deleted. The solution is to either delete the nearly identical Kentucky article, or develop it on its own without vandalizing/hijacking the Kim Davis article.

If two articles were (improperly) created, then (as a compromise) the proper titles (reflecting content and scope) would be Kim Davis (county clerk) and Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Her name must remain in the title. Your requested move is still the right thing to do, so don't drop that ball. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Now there has been a declaration that there should only be one article, not two. If that's going to be the outcome, then we're back to the situation that led me to request renaming the article. I haven't made up my mind whether I prefer the title "Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy" or "Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy", but either one of them is better than "Kim Davis (county clerk)", and I just expressed that opinion in the new RM that someone else just opened. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comma

• Hi, I have no any problem with the commas if you demonstrate I don't like it. There are three examples; I did that to maintain the proper grammar. I do not think you own the article, enjoy with poor grammar. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about my edit of Ahmed Mohamed (student). The MoS says those commas before quotes are optional, and it's true that I personally don't like them. But also there were more places in the article that didn't use them than there were places that did, so I think the appropriate way to make it consistent is the approach which changes fewer of them, which is to remove one rather than adding two. Of course I don't own the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Since then, someone else put the commas back in. I didn't revert it this time. It doesn't seem worth fussing about. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: None but/But Lucifer

Hi BarrelProof. This is in reference to your comment on your latest revision to None but Lucifer. You don't need to remind me of the decision to change "But" to "but." I am aware of it. While I disagreed with the proposal, which disregards common bibliographic practice that recognizes the title of a work as the version that appears on the piece, I do not contest the decision. My own edits had nothing to do with that controversy, but were image-related. It appears that when the article title was changed, the internal references to the book title had not been. BPK (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh – now I see what happened. Thanks for the note. I had done a diff across your three edits and it showed that you changed lowercase "but" to uppercase "But". That change is what I was responding to in my edit summary, but apparently that part of your edits was an unintentional change that was a side effect of a revert you did for a different reason. George Ho made two kinds of changes in his edit. You objected to one of those changes, so you reverted the whole edit, which accidentally reverted both of the two different types of changes. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

re: Ahmed Mohamed article

You noted that a change by an IP user appeared to change the meaning of a sentence. I invite you to re-read the sentence (link here) remembering that the citations are not punctuation, and I think you will have to agree that the word "clock" three times in the same sentence is awkward. It's more of a style issue than a grammar issue, but it does improve readability to reduce repetition within sentences of the same word, as long as it doesn't introduce ambiguity. (Ping if you reply or I may miss it.) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  00:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Etamni: Yes, the sentence might be awkwardly written, but I reverted the edit because it changed the meaning from "Dawkins referred to some place and said that photographs showed X" to "Dawkins referred to some place where photographs showed X". The latter version says that X is definitely true, but the other version just says that Dawkins says it's true. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

As you can see, I have since attempted to improve the phrasing. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Ahmed's Clock

You said --> What he brought to school was not a pile of disassembled clock pieces; it was a fully-functioning clock in a case

1) This is Thomas Talbot, who is arab and an electrical expert analizing the device: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEmSwJTqpgY 2) This is a video that shows how it looks when you take the guts of a commercial clock and place it in a pencil box: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHk_6Vh4Qeo 3) Another forensic analysis was referenced. 4) Even when i'm not judging Ahmed intentions, the truth is that he placed the electronics of a commercial clock into a pencil box, so I don't know why you guys keep saying is a home-made clock, which isn't.

Also, i'm placing this in the discussion page but I wanted you to be aware of my arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarcocapitalista1981 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

He didn't just disassemble something into a pile of non-functioning pieces. He came up with an idea, found an appropriate case, found an appropriate internal mechanism, figured out how to mount the parts in the case, and put all of it together in a way that enabled the result to function as a cool-looking nifty decorative clock with a tiger hologram on the cover. That all seems basically undisputed, regardless of the ethnic origin or electrical expertise of the commenter. There are words that apply to the concept of selecting design elements and determining a mounting technique and obtaining component parts and mounting the parts in a case to produce a cool-looking fully functioning clock that is different from the clock or internal clock parts that you started with, and those words are "assembly" or "making". Some people might even call it "inventing" (especially if the person who did all this is a kid), although that might be a bit of a stretch. And even when you think you're right, edit warring is not appropriate. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Bottled in bond

Flicker, Jonah (September 24, 2015). "Everything you need to know about bottled-in-bond". Retrieved September 25, 2015. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've started reading it. It contains at least one error. It says bottled-in-bond must be "at least 100 proof". According to the regulations (CFR 27.5.42.b.3), it must be "(v) Reduced in proof by the addition of pure water only to 100 degrees of proof; and (vi) Bottles at 100 degrees of proof", not at least 100 proof. (And I've never seen a BiB bottle that wasn't 100 proof.)

It might be nice if more people were interested in bottled-in-bond whiskey. I think it has three advantages:

1. Often you see brands with a brand name you never heard of and there's nothing on the label to tell you who really made it. The bottle uses a "doing business as" name instead of a real company name. Sometimes they are good stuff, and sometimes not, but that makes it rather confusing to the customer – especially the customer who wants a good whiskey but doesn't know which brand to buy. With the recent bourbon boom, there's lots of new brands popping up. On a recent visit to Total Wine, a knowledgeable staff member recommended several whiskeys to me that I wasn't familiar with, and the label information was not helpful. I want to know something about the product I buy. Something that's bottled in bond is required to have some basic information on the label.
2. Because it's bottled at 100 proof, it's not for everyone. Personally, I prefer a proof higher than 80, which is unfortunately the most common level of abv. 100 is a pretty good number. Even 90 is substantially different in character than 80. If it's bottled in bond, I don't have to look for small numbers on the back of the bottle to know it's a high-proof product.
3. Because it requires advance planning and special requirements and is somewhat old-fashioned, in practice it isn't done by distillers unless they want to cultivate a reputation for honesty and for being a well-established stable brand that has a track record. If you're interested in learning something of lasting value to you as well as just buying a nice drink for your next party, you want to buy a brand that will probably still exist 10 years from now. A brand that won't exist 10 years from now won't be producing a bottled-in-bond expression. The worst that can happen is that the brand will later be sold to someone else who'll start lowering its quality, but even that makes an interesting story.

Incidentally, as I understand it, each distillery is required to have a registered distillery number. But I don't know where to find a reliable source that identifies the registered distillery numbers and lists what distillery each one is. I think that's basic information that everyone should have access to. The number is required to be written on the label of a bottled-in-bond product, so the public can know who produced the whiskey. But if there's no list that's readily available to the public of who the number represents, it seems useless in practice.

—BarrelProof (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Numbers for distillers Does this help? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting, but those don't seem to be the numbers that are widely used. Heaven Hill's Bardstown site is widely known as DSP-KY-31, but is listed there as KY-S-85, and its site in Louisville is reported as DSP-KY-1, but is listed there as KY-S-779. See http://www.bourbondrinker.com/index.php?topic=1501.0. I've seen barrels with "DSP-KY" numbers on them, but not those "KY-S" numbers. Here's a source that clearly states that the DSP-KY number is written on the BiB bottle. A Google Advanced search for one of those DSP-KY numbers turns up a lot of relevant material. A similar search for a KY-S number turns up almost nothing, and mostly what it finds is off topic. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Uhhhh

--""racked up" is not encyclopedic phrasing"-- Uhhh, no doubt. That's why I removed the POV paragraph. Which you restored. Dave Dial (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Oops. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Plip!

VQuakr (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Fully deserved – consider me screeched in. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Flying toilets

Hi, flying toilets are certainly a widespread phenomena in some countries.. but I am not sure how we are going to include them into bucket toilet - as it stands, honey buckets do not necessarily imply flying toilets as the "honey bucket" system in Alaska is collected by a truck. The danger of these kinds of topics is that we end up unintentionally becoming misleading, as obviously the situation in a disaster in a developing country is not the same as the standard faecal collection system in place in parts of North America. So using a honey bucket in Alaska does not imply flying bags of faeces and using a bucket in Ghana does not imply an organised system of collection. Sigh, I can't help thinking we've just brought this wiki problem onto ourselves by trying to streamline the (often low quality) sanitation pages in wikiproject sanitation. Simpler would have been to leave "honey bucket" well alone.JMWt (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Also I don't know whether there are refs which show emergency use is less common than regular use. I suspect that is probably true, but some of the refugee camps are largely served by forms of bucket toilet..JMWt (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Yes, it's true that there is a substantial variety of practices for disposing of the contents of bucket toilets, and they range from reasonably sanitary practices to cholera-inducing nightmares. I just think the article should clearly say that. Certainly, a very central issue for the use of such a toilet is the question of what happens when the bucket needs to be emptied. I think the article should talk about that. About refugee camps – sadly, some people live whole decades and entire lives in refugee camps. If a refugee camp has existed for several years or several decades, I think it unfortunately no longer really fits the usual definition of "a temporary measure for emergencies" (unless, perhaps, you're one of the people who is forced to live there). —BarrelProof (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Nur_Ali_Elahi#Requested_move_15_October_2015

I saw that you opposed this move and wanted to point out that your reason for opposing is in contradiction to Wikipedia policy on naming articles. Please see WP:NPOVNAME. To paraphrase the relevant portion: the title of an article should generally be what the majority of English language reliable sources use. When that name includes non-neutral words, then the prevalence of the name, or the fact that the descriptive word has effectively become a proper noun, generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. Naolae (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have the strong impression that you don't have a "neutral point of view" on this topic. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

My point was that if you're going to vote on a request for a page move, you should adhere to Wikipedia policy for doing so. That involves making an argument for or against based on article title policy, which you can find here. If you're opposing the move because you feel that my request was not neutral, please remember that unlike other request processes on Wikipedia, nominations for controversial or potentially controversial moves need not be neutral. If you're opposing the move because you think the proposed article title isn't neutral then please see WP:POVNAMING, particularly the first sentence. In other words, you're not meant to vote on what you think of me as the nominator, but whether or not you think the proposal adheres to Wikipedia article title policy or not. Naolae (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Bowman

Hi BarrelProof, I refer to your recent edit to Bowman Brothers. I have the following comments. Firstly, a comparison of the following articles reveals no connection between the family described in Bowman Brothers with the family discussed the family in Abraham Bowman and A. Smith Bowman Distillery. At the time, I thought it was reasonable to upgrade the hat notes to point the reader to the Bowman (surname) rather to an unrelated family in Kentucky. Secondly, I have now added Bowman Brothers to the list on Bowman (surname). I must also point out that there was already a piped link on Bowman (surname) to the Bowman Brothers under the name of Edmund Bowman who is the eldest of the said Bowman Brothers. For your information, I have removed the piped link. If it is OK with you, I would like to restore my edit to the hat notes. If you wish to reply to the above message, please reply here as your page is now on my watchlist. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I certainly agree that there is no connection between the Tasmania Bowman brothers and the Kentucky Bowman brothers. That is why we need a hatnote – so that if someone is looking for information about the Kentucky Bowman brothers or the brand of whiskey that is named after them, and they find themselves reading an article about a group of brothers in Tasmania, they will have some clue about where to find the other brothers they are looking for. If they are directed to Bowman (surname) and there is no mention of the Kentucky Bowman brothers on that page, they have not been helped. I have removed some detail from the prior hatnote, and I plan to improve what is given at Bowman (surname). I have also suggested moving "Bowman Brothers" to "Bowman brothers". —BarrelProof (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

John McTiernan

Not to "provoke the anger of the other editor" should not be an an overriding factor when doing the right thing. If another article's subject had the same criminal background would his/her article have "convicted criminal" in the lede. If not, why? If so, then consistency and fairness should rule. If this editor in question starts engaging in edit warring or violates civility, then he/she can be reported at ANI. Yours, Quis separabit? 16:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

In any case, I certainly welcome having more eyes on that article. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Shelby Gem Factory

Barrelproof: Thanks for your edits. However, your claim that these are "diamond simulants" needs a WP:RS. None of the sources in the article uses that phrase. Putting this in the most charitable light, until you have a source this looks like WP:OR or WP:Synth. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I question the claim and the addition to the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Help

Hi BP, I have created article Alcohol in Afghanistan and nominated it for DYK here where one user suggested me to have a co-author. Article fulfills all DYK criteria but it only needs some "polishing" or copy-edit. I think section of "NATO base" needs some copy-edit. I thought you are better person to ask for help. You will also get credit of DYK if appeared on main page. I am just asking because you have edited some of my alcohol related articles in past. My another article Alcohol in Indonesia will appear on main page within 2 and half hours from now, I hope you will help on Afghanistan article. Cheers. --Human3015^TALK  21:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Maker's Mark

In November, 2015 Suntory announced a major expansion of its distillery. Schreiner, Bruce (November 20, 2015). "Crank up the flow of red wax: Maker's Mark is boosting its bourbon output". U.S. News & World Report. Louisville, Kentucky. Associated Press. Retrieved November 22, 2015. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	Thanks for helping another editor at DYK (re Afghan alcohol) Victuallers (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! —BarrelProof (talk) 04:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Second Thoughts are Best

I invite you to an ongoing RM. --George Ho (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:People Like Us (film)

I invite you to ongoing second RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 08:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)--George Ho (talk) 08:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Mary Celeste revert

For some inexplicable reason you seem to like poor grammar, bad punctuation and malapropisms in your prose. Whatever. You own the changes you made in the Mary Celeste article now and they reflect badly on you. They also make Wikipedia look amateurish. — Quicksilver^{T @} 23:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for opening a conversation about this. I only reverted one of your three unexplained edits. It took me some effort to figure out what your comment here was talking about. Since your signature disguises your username, I had some difficulty figuring out that I had reverted an edit by you. It would be nice if you would use edit summaries to explain your motivations, so that other editors are not required to guess about the motive and inspect the edits character-by-character. It would also be nice if you would adopt a more collaborative tone in your comments here and would assume good faith in general. As I indicated in my edit summary, the edit that I reverted was primarily changing the use of dashes in the article to a format that is contrary to what the Wikipedia Manual of Style says to do, per WP:DASH. The other changes in that edit seemed very small (changing the spelling of "halyard" to "halliard", which is just an alternative spelling of the same word, and changing "Channel Five television" to "Channel 5 television", which seems to make no significant difference and links to the same place). I was also in a bit of a hurry at the time, but I still don't see obvious value in that edit. If you would like to discuss this further and provide some explanation of your edits – either here or on the Talk page of the article – I am willing to listen. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Oculus (disambiguation)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Oculus (disambiguation), BarrelProof!

Wikipedia editor MB298 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Reviewed disambiguation page MB298 (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on MB298's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Distorting realities about Lurish people

Dear BarrelProof, Thanks for your kind recommendations. Due to their voracious appetite to make propaganda about the so-called Great Kurdistan and unfortunately impalpable and pale presence of Lurish users, some Kurdish users recently have began significant sabotages and distorting realities to expand their territory even by fake comments and edits. I hope you having being able to study or read the Persian editions of these pages (Laki dialect and Lak people of Iran). My edits only is an effort to prevent their counterfeit actions. During my edits I have pointed out to valid and authentic references. Best wishes.--Shadegan (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Good article

The Jews who made American Whisky. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)