User talk:BarrelProof/Archive 3

Fireball Cinnamon Whisky
I've seen lots of editors who dislike various lyric sites. Sometimes it is WP:RS and sometimes it is WP:copyright and sometimes it is WP:linkspam objections. All of those exist. Notwithstanding this being the wikipedia equivalent of How many angels can dance on the head of a pin, trying to find a source of any kind that details the wording of a lyric is always problematical. And it doesn't change the factual accuracy at all. So I understand your concerns, but note that we actually do have a source, albeit perhaps not the best. If you eliminate those kinds of references, then you are left with references to the liner notes (which probably aren't on line) or to the record itself. And then someone says that it is WP:OR, and that it needs a WP:RS. You get the idea. I actually thought I've made a number of substantial contributions to this article, and that the whole cinnamon liquor phenomena should be developed. In passing, the group we are talking about also referenced Goldschlagger in their lyrics, so it is part of the culture. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually appreciate your efforts at improving the article, and wasn't trying to reverse those. I think you might not have noticed that I didn't actually remove that material or the reference to the lyric site – I merely moved it from the lead paragraph to a later section about popular culture references, since I didn't think it was important enough to put in the lead section (and ordinarily the lead section mostly just summarizes what is elsewhere in an article – this was only mentioned in the lead). I also slightly reworded it since it does not seem entirely clear that the song is talking about that particular branded beverage. The lyrics site just quotes the lyrics – it doesn't interpret them or say whether the song is discussing the brand. The phrase "that fireball whiskey" might (hypothetically) refer generally to any whiskey that seems like a fireball when drinking it, which could basically be any whiskey – with or without cinnamon flavoring – or any brand of cinnamon-flavored whiskey. Note also that the phrase is written in lowercase, which may imply that it is a generic term rather than a proper noun, so it may not be brand-specific. Note also that the brand name is "Fireball Cinnamon Whiskey", which is not exactly the same phrase, because it includes the extra word "cinnamon" that is not found in the song lyric. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My WP:Edit summary may have been confusing. I wasn't saying that the lyrics site might not be reliable. I was saying that the other (thelocalshottest.com) site that I tagged as a dead link might not be reliable and that the other site referenced in the next sentence, mybestcocktails.com, might not be reliable. I think it's actually pretty clear that neither one of those two sites is reliable. For example, it looks like anyone can get an account on mybestcocktails.com and create a description of a new cocktail there. So there is really no evidence that the cocktail recipes listed on that site are notable. The other site (thelocalshottest.com) may have been even less reliable, but I can't check it because it doesn't even seem to exist anymore. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I did notice your light touch. Thanks for the clarification.  There are other lyric sites, and we could cite to one of them.  And unless you have the sheet music, because they are a homonym, it is unlikely that one could say for sure that it is an upper or lower case "F" in Fireball.  As I mentioned, the Goldschlagger article mentions the band's affinity for that gold flecked beverage.  As I recall, I only got involved with this article because some idiot wanted to delete it.  As to recipes and reviews, a lot of the liquor stuff is blogs, and I agree that re3liability is nonexistent.  But it is often the best available evidence.  Best to you. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In drink articles, the closest thing you can find to a reliable on line source is the manufacturer, and a lot of our esteemed editors get their pantie in a bunch about those because they are not third party. Trying to find straight up articles from real newspapers or magazines is difficult.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's true. But it's also clear that manufacturers sometimes basically lie (or deliberately mislead people, or at least selectively choose what to say in a way that suits their own purposes). And I find it annoying that someone could hypothetically sign up for an account on some random drink forum site, provide a description of the cocktail recipe they just whipped together during a drunken party earlier that evening (and name it with a silly name they came up with at the time), and then reference the recipe in a Wikipedia article. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I feel your pain and share your concern. Of course, if someone has a mixology book they can find more or less reliable sources for silly-named but real drinks like Sex on the beach. And that articles states: "Sex on Fire" is Sex on the Beach with Fireball Cinnamon Whisky in place of the vodka. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Often, I suppose, the silliness can be part of the charm. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you ever look at the page view statistics for this article? <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 23:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow – "viewed 40756 times in the last 60 days" – that's a lot. I wonder why? That's more than Jim Beam, which has got to have a much much larger market share. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't figure that one out, although one of the Huffington articles talks about the effective use of social media. I know that our local Costcos brought it in,  which is a rough measure of how au courant it may be.  I gave a bottle to a friend of mine, and he took it to a party and was given high 'style points' by everybody there — it (the contents of the bottle) didn't last long.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Added the ethylene glycol controversy. Lots of views. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I noticed that. I was surprised to see something banned for "high toxicity" because of the presence of a substance that is considered "generally recognized as safe" by the FDA. I guess shocking headlines are good at attracting attention. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That should be propylene glycol, I suppose, not ethylene glycol. Different substance; the less toxic one is the one that was found in the product, and apparently the product would have been acceptable for sale elsewhere (including the U.S.). —BarrelProof (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I got it right in the article.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7&6=thirteen (talk • contribs) 17:12, 30 October 2014‎ (UTC)

"Viewed 47950 times in the last 60 days" (with major spiking in the last 4 days). The phenomenon continues (28510 for Jim Beam). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Russell Welch
I've had a look at this, and once you take away all of the fringe conspiracy-theorist type sources, there's not much left on Welch. I don't think he meets WP:BIO. I want to take it to AFD, but since you also seem familiar with the article I figured I'd run it by you first for an opinion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Thank you for the note. I am glad someone is trying to study that article and figure out what to do with it. Yes, the sourcing in that article is weak. You may have noticed my previous remarks at Talk:Russell Welch. I don't really think I know enough about the issue to have a strong opinion about the AFD at this point. I would be tempted to dismiss the article entirely except for the connection to Barry Seal, which seems to be a more well-documented subject, and the one referenced article by the well-known journalists Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair. I suppose they are not really mainstream objective journalists, but they are (or were, in the case of Mr. Cockburn) at least notable and relatively widely read. Several of the sources seem to be basically self-published, or seem to be simply documenting what Russell Welch himself has said without providing any indication that they have tried to verify the veracity of his claims. Several of the factual assertions that are made would be highly notable news if they are verified, but it is clear that mainstream press has not been saying those things. The mainstream press seems to have mostly just ignored Mr. Welch as far as I know – without even bothering to publish something to debunk his claims, much less verifying them. It might be nice to find a copy of the referenced article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, since that appears to be a mainstream publication, but I have been unable to find that article using the search tool on the newspaper's web site. Note that there was a of the article two years ago (just after the article was created on 15 March 2012), which  at the time. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Tennessee Whiskey in the news
On a state level, the State of Tennessee has imposed stringent requirements. It is not enough under state law that the whiskey be produced in Tennessee; it must meet quality and production standards. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer. To me it seems like there are a couple of things that WSJ article is failing to mention. One of them is that although the federal "standards of identity" do not include a definition of "Tennessee whisky", there are international trade agreements that do, and the federal government has actively pushed for adoption of those trade agreements (and, of course, has signed them itself), which include the requirement that "Tennessee whisky" must be bourbon (although there may be some wiggle room on what qualifies as "bourbon" for export versus internal consumption – wiggle room that Canada has not allowed but others may allow). Another is that there is a special exception in the new Tennessee law that was obviously tailored as to exempt Benjamin Prichard's from the requirements. Presumably that's just a grandfather clause, but I think it's worth mentioning in an article about requirements that are imposed on all producers except one. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I added the citation and some content to Tennessee Whiskey and to Lincoln County Process. Take a look.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Jim Beam
Appreciate the tweaks you made. I had the regular Signature Craft in front of me but was going from various blogs/reviews for the other one. The bottles have such a distinctive look, I probably should take a picture of the bottle (with a sample poured, of course!) to go in that section. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 16:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. That Signature Craft sounds well worth a try (although I probably wouldn't personally go for the Spanish brandy variant). –BarrelProof (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The brandy variant is interesting. I'd have a pour if offered.  I'd take a bottle as a gift but it's not likely to end up on my bar otherwise.  Between the 12-year small batch and the single barrel is pretty tough.  If you like the regular Jim Beam's, you'd like either of these.  I've got the 12-year and sampled the single barrel.  I didn't think there was that much of a difference between them.  I think the bottle is extremely well done with pretty good juice inside so it's a nice touch on the bar (especially with some nice LED backlights).  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 16:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Jack Daniel's
Does the Krass book say anything the distillery being seized by the feds in February 1898? I found it mentioned in several old newspapers (e.g.,, top-middle column). It may have been a false report. Bms4880 (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't yet have a copy of the Krass book. I only know what's in it by looking at excerpts in Google books online and by viewing the C-SPAN video of the author lecturing about the book. I will probably be getting a copy of the book in a couple of weeks. I have not heard about that incident before. It would also be interesting to hear what happened during World War II when beverage distilling was generally prohibited in the U.S. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Homopus names
Barrelproof, when are we going to be allowed to clean up that mess of the Homopus article names? You've gone very quiet since it was pointed out that even the IUCN is beginning to update its records and phase out the old system you have in your terrarium book. I understand how strongly you don't want to move on from the old names, but they're indisputably incorrect, misleading and (for that reason) now outdated. I don't need to go into all the many reasons why they're no longer accepted, it's explained on the talk page of Homopus boulengeri and Homopus (genus). Please rename the Homopus articles to their correct common names - or to their neutral scientific names.Abu Shawka (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've gone quiet. Sorry for that – I've been busy. Also, after seeing "padloper" show up in a source article that looks like a reasonable and reliable international source, I feel more willing to believe that what you've been saying has some validity. But I really don't expect to be able to spend time on it within the next few weeks. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I just added a comment in that thread at Talk:Homopus. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay thanks. A good tip to remember is that corrections to naming systems tend to originate in the relevant national and international scientific bodies that specifically study the species in question (hence my parroting off the names of Homopus research foundation and SANBI). Only very much later do the corrections filter down into the IUCN, and only later still will such corrections show in the IUCN website. I'd like Wikipedia be up-to-date on these things, rather than the laggard behind the IUCN website. Please do try to focus on the change though, as soon as you have time. You were the leading person blocking my prior attempt to correct these names, so I would appreciate it if you could help me complete this changeover. As I said, whether you choose the neutral scientific names, or the (correct!!) common names, I leave the choice up to you. Abu Shawka (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * By the way, if you would like to consult the highest authority on the Homopus naming system, Prof Margaretha Hofmeyr (UWC) is by far the best authority on South African tortoises. It's her papers that inform both the IUCN and national policy here. On padlopers specifically, Dr Victor Loehr is the highest international authority in their study (he's also international, a NON-South African, which I think you'd appreciate!) Dr Ernst Baard is the highest authority on them in Cape Nature. Let me know if you want the contact details of any of these people. Otherwise Steven Molteno, who runs the "Cape Tortoise Group" on facebook, is easily contactable, and he has all the necessary links to these sources. He's also a Wikipedian, who's commented on this topic before. (By the way, the name "Cape Tortoise Group" you will see does NOT refer to Homopus species specifically, which are not known by that name, but to ALL tortoise genera that occur around the Cape). Good luck and let me know if you need a hand with the change-over. Abu Shawka (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson's Ocean Bourbon
<b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 02:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

tq vs xt
I hope you'll forgive the intrusion, but I spotted something that relates to an ongoing issue that I'd appreciate your feedback on.

In at Talk:John Gielgud, roles and awards, you used the tq template to mark examples of acceptable titles:

"List of roles and awards of John Gielgud or List of roles and awards for John Gielgud"

I think you meant to use xt which is meant for good examples (as opposed to !xt for bad examples):

"List of roles and awards of John Gielgud or List of roles and awards for John Gielgud"

Those templates look very similar and are sometimes used interchangeably. I am hoping to overcome this by adopting a different format for the tq template to distinguish it from xt better. Please see Template talk:Tq. If you would like to comment there, it would be appreciated.

Cheers! —sroc &#x1F4AC; 05:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note. I was wondering myself yesterday why they both existed and what the difference between them was. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! (I'm not 100% sure my renumbering was a good idea, but I think it's helpful to have the history properly catalogued.) —BarrelProof (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Speyer wine bottle
Please take a look. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI
Hi, saw you trying to help clean up that mess another editor made of the California Chrome article. I managed to get it all fixed, but wanted to thank you for your valiant effort even though you were pushing against the tide. Just wanted to let you know that I brought that article to GA status, so if you ever need to revert to a "last clean" version, you can always go back to one of mine and then work forward to fix anything I screwed up! I anticipate needing a lot of eyes on that article, as the horse's profile is now getting very high and he has a very devoted fan base. Thanks again. Montanabw (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I wasn't paying attention to all the recent ebbs and flows on that article – I just jumped in and noticed that the beginning of the article really wasn't telling the average reader what they ought to know right away. I was a little shocked by your big revert, but was willing to wait a while to see what you did next. –BarrelProof (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, when you saw what a total mess that one editor made of the article, I had no choice but to go back to the last known-clean version and rebuild. - it was already GA prior to the Derby, we have been real careful since, I had just asked User:Eric Corbett to do one of his thorough copyedits and it was all set up as of this morning to need nothing more than to have the results added and the stats updated. Than that other user went in, tossed out whole paragraphs, tossed out sourced material, lost references, just thrashed it. I was petty pissed. (I've been having issues with that editor on some other articles too. Sigh...) I appreciate your patience and continued eyes on the article.  Montanabw (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

AfD
In case you're interested, there is an AfD on Nu Flavor that was set up since one user objected to the PROD. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for informing me about that. My impression is that notability has not been established – either for the band or the album – and I have just recorded my opinion in the deletion discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I also PROD'd their albums for the same reasons. Definitely do not meet notability criteria as neither have received reliable secondary coverage and are both unreferenced. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up, the above user has withdrawn the subject AfD and yours is the only outstanding delete !vote. I don't know how the article looked when you !voted for deletion compared to now, but I was wondering if you would mind taking another look at the article and consider withdrawing your delete !vote so that the discussion can be closed. You are under no obligation to do so, and you are absolutely welcome to stand behind your delete !vote and let the AfD run its course. I have no opinion one way or the other on the merits of deletion and am only interested in this matter from an AfD process perspective. Thank you. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note. I have struck through my prior comment, as the sourcing in that article is much improved. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Turkey
I reverted your edit because it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts, and also because I do not believe that it is true that both the wild and occelated turkey species are described with those terms, rather than just the domesticated turkey. I also don't believe that the young of any turkeys are called "babies" rather than chicks. You said that you can verify all these supposed facts in 30 seconds, so please add a reference. If no reference is forthcoming in the near future, I'll remove the edit again <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  17:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if the above seems a bit abrupt, but I think you have got it wrong here, so please discuss rather than re-adding unsourced material that has been challenged <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  17:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You make an interesting point. In your first removal of this content (which wasn't added by me) you didn't mention that you were concerned about whether those terms are applied to non-domesticated turkeys. I hadn't thought about that. When I said it was easily verifiable that those terms were used, I was just referring to the terms being used for turkeys of some sort – not thinking about whether they apply to non-domestic turkeys. I'll self-revert. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I think part of the problem is that the vast majority of people (understandably) don't know that there is a second species of turkey. There is a similar problem with a few other pages, like starling, where people make GF edits adding stuff about the one species they know, the Common Starling, that doesn't necessarily apply to all the others. Cheers, <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  05:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Kentucky Kingdom.

 * Sorry, but "Trust me I know way more about the place then you" doesn't seem like adequately reliable sourcing for Wikipedia articles. Please see WP:RS, for example. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Edmond post office shooting
My apologies, I missed the section that you quoted, "Use boldface To identify terms in the first couple of paragraphs of an article, or at the beginning of a section of an article, which are the targets of redirects to the article or section (e.g. sub-topics ..". I appreciate the edification... Regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Bernie Robbins Stadium
Your concern is appreciated but I have reverted to the page move I made. There is a citation of an article from the Atlantic City Press within the first paragraph of the introduction that states the name was changed to Surf Stadium. If more recent info exists to say that it reverted to its previous name since the 2012 renaming, then I will gladly undo, but I moved the page based on what the venue is currently known as according to cited info already on the page. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A change of WP:OFFICIALNAME does not imply a change of Wikipedia title. Please stop the back and forth. It is not appropriate. There is a process for proposing a move and determining consensus. Please follow it. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC (Yank Barry)
In case you were unaware of it, there is an ongoing RfC on the talk page of the Yank Barry article related to his tenuous association with the Kingsmen.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 04:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note. There's so much on the Talk page, it's hard to follow. I don't know whether I'll stick around on that page in the longer term or not. But if I do, I'll try to come up to speed. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Yank Barry for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yank Barry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Yank Barry until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  02:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Black awamori
Hi BarrelProof,

Thanks for your addition to Aspergillus oryzae. I was wondering, are we certain that black awamori really is A. oryzae? I ask because I know there's a species called A. awamori, which is a domesticated derivative of A. niger and so presumably has black spores, and I've never seen a black-spored strain of A. orzyae. I realise this page does imply black awamori is A. orzyae, but do you know of any other sources that could corroborate? I can imagine how there could be confusion, as "Koji mold" is often used as a synonym for A. orzyae, even though I'm pretty sure it's not the only species used in making koji. Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note. The answer is basically no! I wondered myself whether all three of those variants are really A. orzyae when I found those descriptions in the Shōchū article. I also noticed that the A. orzyae article seemed to say that A. orzyae is synonymous with kōji, which I thought might or might not really be accurate. I thought it was undesirable to have an independent and duplicate description of kōji in the Shōchū article (accurate or not), so I added a Main article template into the Shōchū article and pushed the undesirably-duplicate description of kōji in to the A. orzyae article to see what would happen. One way or another, I thought some improvement would ultimately result from that WP:BOLD action – either the A. orzyae article would benefit from the extra information or some factual errors would become apparent to someone and force a correction. Possibly both things could happen. I have no personal expertise on the subject. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

May wish to see my recent note at Alcohol (drug) page
...and see also my earlier comment to this editor at his Talk page. He asked that I edit the article for the chemistry, but I have declined, for he does not seem committed to either well-sourced science writing, or respect for article structures. He appears on a mission to express a POV (that while I may agree with it in large part personally, it misses the point of WP). Sooner we can persuade him of this, the less mess we will have to clean up. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note. I'm still trying to make up my mind about that topic. I notice that the editor is replacing a lot of references to ethanol in alcoholic beverage articles with references to alcohol (drug) and also modified the definition of alcohol proof. There is some interesting information in the alcohol (drug) article, but I am also wondering whether it is correct and widely accepted information. For now, I'm taking a "wait and see" attitude. —BarrelProof (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Three Bs
Hi! Two things: Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. It's a community nickname as it's seen as one of the three major "rich" neighborhoods. If something is known by a nickname locally, Wikipedia should cover it
 * 2. I don't mind if it isn't in the lead, but I want it to stay in the article
 * Is that a term that is commonly used, or just something made up for that particular publication? —BarrelProof (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's one more:
 * Melton, Mary. "The Stars of Star Maps." Los Angeles Times. August 25, 1996.
 * "Each map tends to cover the "three Bs": Brentwood, Bel-Air and Beverly Hills. A few toss in a Malibu sidebar." - Based on this, you know the answer is the former.
 * Remember that you can ease the burden off of other Wikipedia editors by checking by yourself for additional sources. Even though technically the burden on keeping content is on the person adding it, it is good to go above and beyond. Now, I am an experienced editor, but some other editors may be less experienced and Wikipedia has a problem keeping editors, so you need to go above and beyond to make sure that they have a good experience so they can stay and contribute. Reverting over and over again can frustrate these new editors and make them leave. We don't want that, so please understand my feelings about this. Please just revert once before discussing, even though the rule is technically three times, because the second revert made me upset especially since I had taken the time to move it out of the lead as a compromise.
 * People are interested in knowing local nicknames of cities, so if there is a local nickname of three cities, it is assumed that the reader will care about this.
 * Thank you,
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood, and thank you for remaining polite through this. I was not previously aware that this was a common term. To explain the relevance of the term, it would be nice to add some explanation of why these three neighborhoods have a grouping nickname – I suppose it is because they are the most affluent and attractive neighborhoods in the area? —BarrelProof (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't either, because I'm from Houston and not Los Angeles. I was doing research on the Iranians in Los Angeles when I encountered the name in a passage about Iranians moving to Los Angeles. Anyway, what I'll do is do a google books search and see if I can find more info about the "Three B"s name. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this can provide an explanation of the grouping (I'm still looking for new info!):
 * Myers, David W. "A Sad Westside Story : Home Prices Have Declined as Much as 50% Since the 1980s." Los Angeles Times. May 28, 1993. "But, as Meyer's case suggests, nowhere have those losses been as dramatic as the high-priced area on the Westside known as the "three Bs"--Brentwood, Bel-Air and Beverly Hills."

In my experience sometimes taking the time to investigate a new edit has allowed me to find some more interesting things to write about. When someone added this information I could have removed it due to a lack of citations, but instead I decided into investigate it. It turned out to be true and I started a new article: Our Mother of Mercy Catholic Church WhisperToMe (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Siddharth Mallya to Sid Mallya
Hi,

We have been trying to change the name of the article to Sid Mallya as it his actual name. Can you please help us out with the same?

Richa101091 (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Who is 'we'? Please see Talk:Siddharth Mallya. Apparently, his birth name is Siddartha. As far as I can tell, Sid is just a recently promoted nickname. What source of information are you using to determine that he should be called Sid on Wikipedia? —BarrelProof (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Deadmau5
I wasn't aware of the contentiousness of that article's title—thanks for pointing that out. I won't change the capitalization again. I do want to point out, though, that the capitalization of the page title does not currently match the capitalization used in the text of the page and in the infobox, which seems like an odd state of affairs to me. It might be worth editing the article to make the capitalization consistent. Just a thought. Cheers! —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Frederique Constant
Saw you removed line. Propose following more neutral:

In 2014, Frederique Constant celebrated ten years of manufacturing the Heart Beat. Company developed and produced 15 calibers since 2004.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcstas (talk • contribs) 08:56, 19 July 2014‎ (UTC)


 * It's better, although it still has a somewhat non-neutral tone. A better thing to say would be "As of 2014, the company has brought 15 distinct movements to the market, starting with the introduction of its original Heart Beat in 2004." Incidentally, you may notice that I had to go look up 'caliber' to figure out what it means. Like 'silicium', it seems to be another choice of a fancier, more obscure word being chosen for something that has a more well-known term in plain English – in this case, 'caliber' seems to be an obscure synonym for 'movement'. Perhaps in the Geneva watch-making community, these terms (and others such as manufacture) that are used in the French-influenced watch-making community are well accepted and common, but the article is written for a wider audience of English-speaking people world-wide, so we should strive to use plain English. But if you find 'movement' absolutely unacceptable as a replacement for 'caliber', I'm willing to listen. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I notice that the accents in "Frédérique" appear only in the article title – there are none within the article itself. This seems like an undesirable inconsistency. Should we remove the accents from the title, or add them within the article? —BarrelProof (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I am fine with: As of 2014, the company has brought 15 distinct movements to the market, starting with the introduction of its original Heart Beat in 2004.

Please note that silicium and calibers are typical "watch industry" words, no intention to be fancy. Especially on silicium/silicon, there have been plenty debates within industry. Good to use silicon and movements.

With regards the accents, probably best is to remove as language=English.

Pcstas (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Well, thank you so much! —BarrelProof (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! It's good to see you jumping in there as well. I think Kendall's comments have actually resulted in improvement of the article – and possibly may result in further improvement yet to come. And things are looking up for me in some ways – I've had Pappy by the glass twice since we last discussed it here in 2012! I was more impressed the second time than the first. (Maybe the first place was refilling an old bottle with an imitation, or maybe my taste buds just weren't fully tuned up that evening.) Anyhow, I want to savor a full bottle or two someday to get a really good feel for it. —BarrelProof (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I just went to recent changes and picked a user but you probably deserve it anyway. haah WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I hope it's house-trained. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Jack Daniels a "Sour Mash"
You removed the term "Sour Mash" from Jack Daniel's saying it is unnecessary because all Tennessee Whiskeys are sour mashes. Fact of the matter is, it IS a sour mash. The Sour mash article is interesting and relevant, and now, NOTHING about Jack Daniels links to that article. And how is the reader supposed to know all Tennessee Whiskeys are sour mashes? Even the Tennessee Whiskey article does not link to the sour mash article! I do not follow the logic of removing sour mash completely from the article, given that it is indeed a sour mash. Just because all Tennessee bourbons are sour mashes does not mean we should not mention the sour mash process somewhere in the article. Marteau (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. The article opens by saying it is a Tennessee whiskey and that it is generally made according to the practices of making straight bourbon (except for the Lincoln County process, which is a process allowed but not required for bourbon generally), and it links those articles for details. The Tennessee whiskey article also mentions the close relationship to bourbon. The bourbon article, which is also linked directly and discussed in the lead section, says that all straight bourbon on the market today uses the sour mash process. There are also various other miscellaneous details about what it takes to make a straight bourbon (the type of grain mash that must be used, prohibiting of artificial coloring and flavoring, prohibiting adding other types of whiskey or neutral grain spirits, distillation purity limits, aging term limits, using new oak barrels, using charred barrels), and they all apply.
 * Another option is to talk about it somewhere else in the article. I primarily just thought it was unnecessary and redundant to discuss it in the first sentence, and that doing so gave that topic undue emphasis in the lead – as if sour mash Tennessee whiskey is something much different than ordinary Tennessee whiskey. So I just added a paragraph about that to the "Production process" section of the article. I think it's much more informative than having that phrase in the lead section. I'd be interested in hearing what you think about it.
 * —BarrelProof (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Bluegrass Barnstar

 * Thanks! And thanks for your own high degree of dedication and diligence in improving Kentucky-related articles. Your own editing for Kentucky is more deserving of praise than mine. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Cities, countries, etc.
Well, we lost on the complaint about the IP but in the end salvaged a draw, which under the circumstances is sufficient for me. It would be nice to know though where discussions like this have taken place, because there is certainly enough good faith disagreement among intelligent and experienced editors for there either to be a definitive policy, or a definitive statement that there is no policy! Thanks for the discussion - JohnInDC (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It was an educational experience, I suppose. Clearly, I was under the impression that this was more of a settled matter than it is. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup. Appreciated your thoughts - they were helpful.  Until next time - JohnInDC (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed page move request
You undid my adding of a listing to the page move requests for technical reasons section for the following reason: "(Undid revision 621433788 by WikiWinters (talk) Removing, since the user edited the article Talk page to say it is contested." Why is this wrong? I thought it would simply serve as a notice for those who were frequent editors to the page. Also, I was only following the template. I did not intend to say it was contested. That was just part of the default template. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this. WikiWinters (talk) 05:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Normally, people either enter a "technical request" or a normal Move Request. You seemed to do both, and you said, on the article Talk page, that the move was "contested". That causes a somewhat confusing situation. It seemed to me that the thing to do was to let the normal request proceed and cancel the other one. Also, you may note that I responded on the article Talk page. -BarrelProof (talk) 07:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

My driv3r contribute
hello,i typed this: The game sold rather well despite poor reviews not because i'm a troll,but because i have seen this on the page Driver (video game series)
 * You're right that the other article says that, but no source is cited in the other article either. Some reliable source is needed for such information to be included. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A Boy was Born II
Page heading from the score for A Boy Was Born, published by Oxford University Press. Text includes "To my Father – A Boy was Born – Benjamin Britten – Op. 3"., - you reverted it. The piece was published "A Boy was Born", as the image shows and the caption has to follow, if it is supposed to make sense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC) ps: What we have now looks to me as if under the image of a yellow flower you read a caption about a red flower. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comment, although as before I think it may be best for the discussion of this issue to be centrally located on the Talk page for the article. Personally, I continue to look to MOS:CT and MOS:QUOTE for guidance. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:All Things Are Possible
Barrel, in response to your post on my talk page, I've re-opened this discussion. I think that your creation of a dab page changes the discussion, so it is worthwhile inviting the discussants to reconsider, and another administrator to close the debate. Regards, Ground Zero | t 12:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! —BarrelProof (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Edits being made in Siddharth Mallya's page
Hi,

This is in regards to the changes that you have making in the content that we have been editing on Siddharth Mallya's page. Can you please let us know what is going wrong that you are re-editing all our changes. We also wanted to change his Wiki page name to Sid Mallya, as he is known by this name and it is confusing his fans and other people in the industry as it appears as Siddharth Mallya on his Wiki page. He has changed his name long back. Sharing reference links with you for this. Kindly advise me on how can i change his name to Sid Mallya again as it is not even allowing us to move his existing page to Sid Mallya. Please help us out with this.

Sabsssy (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the note. I have been using edit summaries to explain the motivations for all of my edits (please see WP:Edit summary). I invite you to review those comments – they appear in the history listing for the article. I notice that you and the other recent editors of that article are never explaining your edits anywhere – you are just always leaving the edit summary blank – please stop doing that. Another place where edits can be discussed and explained is on the Talk page of the article (Talk:Siddharth Mallya). And finally, I notice that you and the other editors have not been responding to comments that I (and others) have placed on your own User talk pages. I am glad that you have finally made some comment somewhere rather than just continuing to edit the article without discussion.
 * Regarding the name of the article, there was previous consideration of that suggestion. The discussion comments can be found at Talk:Siddharth Mallya. There was no consensus reached to change the name of the page in that discussion. If you think a new consensus can be reached, the process for how to suggest renaming the article is described at WP:RM and you can follow those instructions to start a new move request. However, I caution you to carefully read the prior discussion comments and think carefully before doing that, because you're suggesting the same thing that was recently suggested in the other request and it is generally considered bad behavior to refile a move request soon after one has completed. Personally, I usually suggest a one-year wait before a repeated request, unless something fundamental about the situation has changed. And I don't really see how it is a problem to have the page use his longer name rather than his nickname. The purposes of a Wikipedia article is to serve as an encyclopedic reference, not to advertise the person being discussed, and it is common for formal biographies to avoid nicknames that may be used in more casual settings. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

closing an RM
Hallo,

may you tell me how you did this? Thank you, PigeonIP (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. There are instructions at Requested moves/Closing instructions (a.k.a. WP:RMCI). The page starts with a lot of blah-blah and then gets to the point in the section entitled "Step-by-step formal closing procedure". You just change the things that look like what's in the "Before closing" column of the table so they look like what's in the "After closing" column and hit 'save' (after previewing to make sure you haven't messed anything up). —BarrelProof (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Nothing Broken But My Heart
I see you commenting in related discussions. If you are interested, please join in this discussion to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I did. I wish I had a better understanding of grammar, but I think you're right about what our MoS recommends for this title, so I expressed support for that requested move. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:On a Night Like This
Page move is proposed; join in. --George Ho (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I moved too slowly on that one. Some recent move requests have been left open for long periods of time, but not that one. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

RM notification
Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C ☎ 16:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the notice, but I can't actually find a section entitled "Talk:Sarah Jane Brown", and the page is not listed at WP:RM, so I guess no formal RM has been filed. I think it is important to submit a formal RM, since that is the available mechanism to try to involve the general community in the discussion. Also, filing an RM sooner rather than later may save some redundant discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did file an RM - one that I had been working on for over a week. It was reverted because yesterday someone proposed a moratorium on RMs there and it was getting strong support.  Unless a wave of support comes in opposing the moratorium, the title as exists will have to stay.  --В²C ☎ 01:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've seen speedy closes, but the idea of reverting an RM seems out of line to me. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * They're justifying it on the grounds that that the the discussion on the moratorium was ongoing. Never mind that the plan and process for the RM had been ongoing for over a week before that. --В²C ☎ 02:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it was improper to remove it. I just restored it (simultaneously closing it) so that it will stay visible on the Talk page. Restoring it kind of messes up the headings, but I think it's better than deleting it. That was a substantial contribution that took took effort to prepare and submit, and it was clearly done in good faith. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Heading problem now fixed; let's see if it gets deleted for a third time. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Davoud Akhlagi
Hi. All Olympians are notable. If you don't think this individual is notable, then please take it to WP:AFD.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If an article fails WP:GNG, it shouldn't be here. Being listed in some old list of participants isn't sufficient by itself, if there is no detailed coverage in reliable sources. Being an Olympic athlete may create an initial presumption of notability, but it does not guarantee it. However, I probably won't bother with the AFD. Wikipedia seems set up to make it much easier to create low-quality articles than to delete them, so it is not really worth bothering to try. While one person is spending their valuable time and energy trying to delete something of dubious value, there are twenty others adding other stuff of dubious value. I have nothing against Mr. Akhlagi personally, of course. I'm sure he was a fine athlete. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally eschews excess capitalization
Thank you for that line. A Boy was Born. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose I'm glad I said "generally". :-) —BarrelProof (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Be glad, - I just wrote a lament ;) - More seriously: a year later I still believe that the styling is "generally" part of the name, - look at Tim riley, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Good gracious me! The irregular capitalisation of my user name is due to fumble-fingered typing when I first signed up, shortly after the end of the last ice age. I haven't bothered to change it, but I can't honestly recommend the style! Respectful hugs, as always, to Gerda, and greetings to BP.  Tim riley  talk    01:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The style follows naming patterns nicely and regularly (even if not intended), - return hugs ;) - Where is the guideline that makes us write IBM, not Ibm? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * MOS:TM: "Using all caps is preferred if the letters are pronounced individually, even if they don't stand for anything. For instance, use SAT for the (U.S.) standardized test or KFC for the fast food restaurant. Using all lowercase letters may likewise be acceptable if it is done universally by sources, such as with xkcd." —BarrelProof (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. - I may need more help. Imagine you were a creative artist and named something (a book, a group, a poem, a composition), wouldn't you like it to be called that name? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A name and a typographical styling of a name are not necessarily the same thing. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder if a name styled differently is necessarily still the same name. Imagine you had named your group musikFabrik, - would you find Musikfabrik acceptable? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote bands or make them happy. When someone has tried to promote a particular styling, or even a particular naming, in a way that they think will help them become more popular or more profitable or fulfill some other goal they have chosen for their own reasons, it is entirely appropriate to resist if this will help Wikipedia to establish and maintain an independent and objective perspective. It is also common for well-respected publications to establish a house style in order to try to produce a consistent literary work. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Why WikiProject India
Why do you feel that attention of WikiProject India is required for a brand of whisky even if its available in India? By that logic we'll be swamped by ten of thousands of articles more. As it is we have to track & improve over a lakh of articles. AshLin (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a brand produced by an India company exclusively in India for the India market. It is not just "available in India" – it is exclusive to India. I checked several other India-specific whisky brands, and they all seem to be included in Wikiproject India. I don't see why this one should be ruled out if the others are included. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see your point. AshLin (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Adobe AIR
Response to your comment at the Adobe AIR talk page. Wonderfl (reply) 07:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I hope its not too forward of me to add your Barnstars to your user page? I couldn't help but feel proud of them! -- Wonderfl (reply) 07:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Another editor could have reacted to my comment in the Adobe AIR discussion in a much more negative fashion, and I thank you for that. In retrospect, my own comment was really not so friendly. I will respond further in that discussion. As for the barnstars, I have thought about whether to put them on my user page, as I have seen for others. Philosophically, I don't want to "toot my own horn" or convey the impression that I think they give me some special status on Wikipedia. (That's also why I chose the smaller format for the WP:Service award display as well, and I was slow to add that too.) But in the place that you put them – i.e., at the bottom – I think they are quite a nice addition. Thank you for that gesture and for making the effort to collect them together. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Your welcome. Have a nice day! And congrats on being a Veteran Editor II! -- Wonderfl (reply) 08:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Now that you mention it, I've crossed 16,000 edits, which makes me a Veteran Editor III. Updating. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Wahoo! Thanks – yes, I guess today is my Wikibirthday! —BarrelProof (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks so much! I was a bit worried about whether I put in too much about the Liston fight, but it's such a great story I couldn't resist, and I think it helps put the album into its historical context and show why it was such a phenomenal development. Incidentally, I'd really like to know just what it says in the book you referenced there as Richard Crouse, Big Bang Baby, Rock Trivia, 2000, p. 55. Could you possibly provide a quote from that here? In some minor searching, I didn't dig up anything about Columbia pulling the item from the market. I suppose that must have been because of the draft refusal controversy in '67. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for fixing my move request. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you saw that I was trying to help and didn't take that the wrong way. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting share
we don't have an article (or non-voting share), if someone makes an article it may be a mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.80.54 (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But voting shares links to an article that seems appropriate (the article on common stock, which contains several sentences of explanation of the term "voting share"), so I don't see a problem. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit dispute you're involved in
You recently reverted an edit. Then gave what you thought was a "rationale" for its removal, but actually the rationale you use really just exposes your lack of familiarity with the subject, making you look pretty darn ignorant. This dispute has been taken to the talk page Firestorm, were your prejudiced assumption is shown to be wholly unsupported. 92.251.172.194 (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note. I see that several comments have since been made on that Talk page, and I will review them before further editing of that article. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)