User talk:BarrelProof/Archive 5

Illogical rename
Please rename to what has been agreed by RobertsBiology and others.....Italian Mogadishu is a well defined title for an article centered ONLY in the fifty years of Italian control of Mogadishu......The name "Mogadishu,benadir,Somalia" is simply "illogical". Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.223.242 (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2016‎ (UTC)


 * I am not sure I understand what you are saying. I think you are objecting to the recent renaming. The proper way to request to revert an undiscussed move is to submit a request at WP:RMTR, as I previously indicated in my edit summary. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, BarrelProof. I "support" move to Mogadiscio under Italian rule or Mogadishu under Italian rule (& also again Italian Mogadishu, a title chosen by user:RobertsBiology). I have written most of the article and I want to pinpoint that it is centered ONLY in the half a century of Italian control of the city: it is a small period of time in the history of Mogadishu (like there it is British Hong Kong and History of Hong Kong & Hong Kong). As AjaxSmack wrote, there is ample precedent for such articles at Wikipedia. IMHO it is illogical the actual rename of "Mogadishu,Benadir,Somalia", done just after the discussion over a rejected move/merge was finished: someone seems to wish to create "problems" & confusion here...... User 68153223242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.223.242 (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2016‎ (UTC)
 * Well, we have now succeeded in moving the article to Mogadishu under Italian rule and redirecting some other titles to Mogadishu. I think that is a big improvement, and I'm pretty sure you agree. Hopefully now we can stop worrying too much about the title and focus on improving the content of the articles. (Personally, I am neutral on the question of "Mogadishu" versus "Mogadiscio" for the article about the city in the Italian context – I basically don't think I know enough about the topic to have an opinion about that.) —BarrelProof (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

To prevent ethnocentric edits
Dear administrator, thanks for your attention to this dispute. Unfortunately some users are trying to achieve ambitious ethnocentric aims and not historically-verified and documented facts are seeking especially in case of so-called the Greater Kurdistan territory. Our goal in free encyclopedia is to promote realistic and not ethnocentric knowledge. I provided some valid citations and sources to discuss but they were moved several times by the user Gomada. Another falsifying and WP:POVPUSH objective evidence is in cases of Feyli people page and their language  which was converted to Feyli Kurds and Southern Kurdish language by this users Oblivious to hot discussions and dispute over their Lurish or Kurdish identity. I hope we find a solution for this dispute. I proposed a move requset to convert these pages to their original names Feyli People and Feyli language and not Feyli Lurs to discuss this pages more honestly. You can see many opposition views over these pages in their talk section. Best regards--Shadegan (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to help resolve this, but I don't really have expertise on the facts of the dispute. Incidentally, I am not an administrator. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Alcohol in Afghanistan
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Super! —BarrelProof (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

List of reptiles of North America - names of species
If you reverted List of reptiles of North America to not finished edit, finish it. Because so far some of names are decapitalized, others are not. This is chaotic and at this moment that article is spoiled. Darekk2 (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your help is also solicited, of course. Reverting to consistent use of the wrong format is not the solution. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All names in the SSAR checklist are capitalised. Darekk2 (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * They may be capitalized by the SSAR, but they are not capitalized by Wikipedia. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sue Chandler and Linda Bostock and your proposed deletion
Dear BarrelProof,

Hi.... I am thinking to remove your prod's from these - but just thought I'd drop you a line first. I made these little stubs after getting into a little chat about the apparent lack of females in maths and I then found out that the main book most of us, of my age, in the UK had used for A level maths was written by some women. The book - a series of books in fact - were for many years "the" book for A level maths. My guess is many/most UK mathematicians of an age know their names but probably not that they were women, or anything about them. I couldn't find out much either as is obvious from the stubs. Having written their best selling textbook would seem to be enough to pass WP:prof in a technical sense but I have not been able to find out much about them and so I can see the prod could be justified even if I would rather they were kept. I have added another ref to Chandler which should help there - and will look for more - but I am dubious whether I kind find much. Anyway just thought I'd drop you are note rather than just removing your tags and best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC))  PS: I have for many years been a Teacher's fan but thanks to my brother am in the process of moving to Ardbeg.
 * Thank you for the comment. Of course it is your right to remove the PROD if you think that is appropriate, and I see that you have done so for Sue Chandler. I certainly have nothing against these two women, and I agree that their work seems important and that the best outcome would be if some independent reliable sources can be found to support the idea that their work is notable. If you like Ardbeg, I suggest trying Laphroaig. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Policy discussion in progress
There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of "Smells Like Teen Spirit", "Love You Like a Love Song", People Like Us, &c., a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — Llywelyn II   11:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I appreciate that you have tried to attract widespread attention to that question, and perhaps my understanding of how to identify parts of speech will improve. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Love Me Like You Do
I understand why you might be suspicious of an edit like that given the conversation at the, but no I really was counting the actual formatting of the underlying pages in my list there. Love Me Like You Do is actually aside that question since the "like" is functioning as a conjunction here and should be capped even under the current rules.

There was also an existing section on the dab's talk page and a link from there to further discussion on that topic that you should have looked through before your revert. — Llywelyn II   02:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest that while there is what you described as a "kerfuffle" of a discussion ongoing and another RM already opened at Talk:Love Me like You, changes such as those are not appropriate without using the WP:RM process, even if you are personally convinced you're right and even if you see some comments on a Talk page somewhere. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Pisco
Hello, Thank you BarrelProof for your message, I am a Pisco expert and will update WIKIPEDIA´s Pisco pages as they contain some wrong information that misinform users and consumers. Please be patient that I will add all due references and historical sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pisco1630 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Bourbons
Jimmy and Eddie Russell Wild Turkey Career Changing Whiskeys. good article. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 02:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)
I invite you to improve consensus of ongoing RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Requesting your help on Invoca article
Hi BarrelProof. I noticed you did a minor edit on the Invoca article a while back. Would you be willing to take a look at my suggested rewrite of the article, which I posted on the Invoca talk page? My goal is to make sure the article meets Wiki neutrality guidelines, as well as to update it, etc. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Ultimately, I'd like to get the article to a place where the advert tag could be removed.

I have disclosed on the Invoca talk page, as well as on my user page, that Invoca has hired me to make the suggested edits. Thank you for your consideration, and for any help you might offer. JNorman704 (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi BarrelProof. I have revised the description of what the Invoca software does on the Invoca talk page. When you have a second, would you take a look and see if the revised description makes sense? I really appreciate your help! JNorman704 (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi BarrelProof. When you have a second, would you consider reviewing a couple of fairly minor editing suggestions to the Invoca article, posted on the Invoca talk page? I would appreciate it. Thank you again for all your help. JNorman704 (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this
Hi BP, thanks for catching this. I'm not positive what happened, but I was trying to revert this edit from a user who has twice added "Indian fraudsters" as a cat. I suspect I had an old diff open on my screen, came back to roll it back, in the meantime this editor had already removed the problem content. So it wasn't entirely a lunatic edit, just some atrocious timing on my part. Anyhow, thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought it might be something like that. I've certainly done worse myself. (Thus ugly flub got me justly trouted.) Thanks for trying! —BarrelProof (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Time is Not Yet Ripe
I invite you to ongoing RM discussion. George Ho (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:As Long as You Love Me
I invite you to ongoing RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Sazerac connection
Hey BP. I appreciate you reaching out and appreciate the concern. I do not work for the Sazerac company and have no conflicts of interest. I am a fan of the alcohol world and would like to help the community by adding my .02 to Sazerac and non-Sazerac pages alike. --Bermsalot (User talk:Bermsalot) 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI
Barrelproof, I saw that you wrote to Vituzzu, a famous mafia-boss of Italian wiki. No problem from me, but because I know you are a serious person who always checks for understanding both sides in a situation, I suggest you to go to my website "manmer2.blogspot.com" and read about who is REALLY Vituzzu. BD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.149.118 (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I do not really understand the dispute. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's just Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Brunodam, WP:BRI perfectly fits with his paranoia, cheers! --Vituzzu (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Gregory Watson
Hi. Thanks for your nice edit summary. Do you have a link to the discussion about this being a BLP1E issue? When I did the AfC review, I couldn't find any record of it having been deleted previously. Thanks.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's at Articles for deletion/Gregory Watson. I did not take part in that discussion. I was reminded of it through a comment someone else left at Draft:Gregory Watson. The outcome was to WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT. There may be a subtle difference between that and deleting, but I think it's basically accurate. Certainly Watson should be discussed prominently in the article on the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, but I don't see any reason to have a separate article about him. The other article provides an adequate place to discuss his role. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Question
Why did you ask me that? Please tell me.Snake Dude 2.0 (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why you asked me that?Snake Dude 2.0 (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I'm not sure why. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Mogadiscio / Mogadishu under Italian rule / Italian Mogadishu
Hi BarrelProof,

I got a bit confused with all the cut/paste moves when I found Mogadiscio during new page patrol. I think things are OK now, but if I made a mistake, please let me know! I've also updated the section header at History of Mogadishu. --Slashme (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Yes, that has been a confusing topic. Thanks for helping to straighten it out. —BarrelProof (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Glad to help! --Slashme (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI
Good bourbon article 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move for War in Afghanistan (2001–14)
Hello. I just want to let you know -- it appears that you support moving the page to the same page, and not to the new proposed name (or title). . Steve Quinn (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I have struck through that incorrect remark. I was mixed up about which character I was seeing. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Finally/Clock Boy
Finally-

The word "finally" (re Clock Boy) came from the press conference as they, the family talked about wanting to file it earlier with the threat of $15 million lawsuit. If you do not live in Dallas, did not attend the press conference in person or watch the local stations in Dallas, then thus the confusion of "finally"  Heyyouoverthere (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanatory note. I still think the word should not be in the article, as I don't think it conveys any real information to the reader and its meaning is not clear. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

James Stewart
FYI, there was *no* ref there when I added the {cn} - go look at the edit history. Someone added a ref after I tagged the sentence, but failed to remove the tag. Hence no need to "revert" me, just remove the {cn}. Textorus (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the citation was there – sort of. See your edit. The line that you changed included " source=James Stewart|The Leading Men of MGM ", which is a source citation, but an improperly formatted one. I later noticed that changing the pipe to a comma would fix the problem that was causing the citation to not appear in the article. Sorry for not noticing that formatting problem earlier. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Re this edit: Nowhere do we say Stewart published anything. As for reading poems on the Johnny Carson Show etc, well, Jack Lemmon played piano a few times in public too, but we don't credit him as a pianist, because that was not what he was notable for. Cheers. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article does say he published his poetry. Stewart published a book of his poetry in 1989: The article already had a mention of that, and had a citation to an L. A. Times article about his publication of the poetry book that said he had "a tradition of reading his poetry on The Tonight Show." The Wikipedia article also discusses his readings of poetry on The Tonight Show. There are two paragraphs in the article that discuss his poetry writing. The content of biographical articles (and their categorization) is not limited to the primary reasons for the subject's notability. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Invoca
Hi BarrelProof,

A while ago you were very helpful in my edits of the Invoca Wikipedia article, which I disclosed as paid edits. Another Wikipedia user has just flagged the article for deletion via WP:PROD. I don't believe this editor is being fair and would like to know what you recommend. I've never experienced this in my 5-6 years of Wiki contributions. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. JNorman704 (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Although I don't have much time to pay attention to that article, I think it's not so bad. It has multiple independent sources and no puffery, and it includes some criticism. It has no obvious bias. (I'm not so sure that the discussion of the CEO's remarks on Facebook, which were about what's going on in the neighborhood where he lives in his personal life and did not discuss the company, really belongs in the article.) As articles go on Wikipedia, it's not so bad. You haven't been difficult to work with at all (in contrast to some others who insert obvious bias into articles). If someone wants to disagree, that may be their right, but I think this at least merits a discussion rather than just a WP:PROD deletion. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for being such a rockstar, BarrelProof. I really appreciate it.
 * I noticed that after you removed the PROD tag, the same Wiki editor who added it nominated it again for deletion via WP:AfD.
 * My question for you is: Does this editor's action meet with Wiki policy? According to WP:ATD "Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again."
 * I would greatly appreciate any help or insights you can provide. Thanks so much. JNorman704 (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is perfectly OK for an editor to submit a WP:AfD deletion request after a PROD tag has been removed. In fact, that is the ordinary procedure for what to do when that happens and the original PROD submitter (or someone else) remains of the opinion that the article should be deleted. That initiates a discussion toward reaching a consensus about whether the article should be deleted. The statement saying "Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again", just means that the WP:PROD should not be repeated, not that an WP:AfD should not be submitted. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks again! JNorman704 (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I just edited that instruction (see this) to try to get this clarified. I'm sure you're not the only one who has been misled by that statement. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alcosynth


The article Alcosynth has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Nothing on pubmed. Nothing from nih.gov Nothing by FDA.gov Not sure it is legit.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alcosynth 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/Alcosynth 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. I wasn't actually the one that created that as an article – that was Magnolia677. I only created a redirect. I added an AfD notice on Magnolia677's user talk page. I will participate in the deletion discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Osho - Move review
are you seeing consensus for that move request? I'm not. I have proposed a review. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:CD3A:BE58:71EA:4683 (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

move review is now open if you care to comment. Pandroid (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

On barrels
Kilchomans Latest Whisky is Matured in Really Small Casks and its Delicious 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether the terminology in that article is something well accepted. If so, we should put it into the barrel article, but I'm kind of skeptical, as I haven't seen it elsewhere, and the cited source of information ("Claxton Spirits") doesn't sound too reliable (although Forbes certainly would be considered ordinarily reliable). Incidentally, have you read Cowdery's commentary about small casks? He wrote an essay called "Small Barrels Produce Lousy Whiskey". Once you've read the title, you kind of know what it's got to say about the topic. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Haven't seen it. Will take a look.  I know almost nothing about barrel sizes and product quality, so this will be a good introduction.  7&amp;6=thirteen (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 23:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Quick question re: posting new page
Hi BarrelProof. Wanted to get your opinion on something. I've been hired to create a new page for the CEO of a company. I want to do everything transparently as well as expeditiously. My thinking is to post the draft (with disclosures) to my user sandbox and get the community involved through the Articles for Creation process. However, I'm wondering if there is a faster process, as this route can take many weeks. Any advice? Thanks as always for your help. JNorman704 (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not very familiar with that, but one alternative to the sandbox is to create something in the "Draft:" namespace (although you're probably already aware of that). Just to pick one random recent example, see Draft:Adil Adi. There are some instructions at WP:AfC. Posting a notice on the talk area of a relevant Wikiproject might help draw attention to the effort (or it might not – no one responded to a comment I posted that way recently). Of course, you should be aware of WP:Paid and WP:COI (and it sounds like you are probably aware of those already). The responsiveness of other editors to your suggestions seems likely to depend on whether the proposed article has a biased tone and whether it has a sufficient amount of citations to independent reliable sources (and whether it includes any critical commentary about the subject from such sources, or mentions only the glowing praises). I think I have seen paid editors simply submit articles directly into "mainspace" as well; that's frowned upon, but I'm not sure whether it's completely prohibited or not. It might result in the article later being moved to "Draft:" or "WP:USERFIED" if someone reacts negatively to that. I suppose you may have just created the Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen article directly yourself. Anyhow, you've been around here for a few years; you might know more about that issue than I do. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Incredibly helpful. Thank you so much! Great suggestions.JNorman704 (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

AGF notice about RfC comment
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Abortion-rights movements. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I will try. However, I disagree with your characterization of my Talk page comment in that RfC discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You know what, I abjectly apologize for going on the attack like that, and I was the one who ignored WP:CIVIL, not you. You have been extremely calm and nice to me despite my combativeness. I can only say in my defense that I had been steeling myself for incoming attacks based on the questions I posed and the topic area I posed them in, and sometimes I do engage in preemptive strikes. So I'm retracting my warning and offering you an olive branch, you seem like a very decent editor, so I hope to work constructively with you in the future. God bless. Elizium23 (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for that – I really appreciate your gesture. It's certainly a very difficult subject, and I will try to keep in mind just how "prickly" I myself might be in that territory. —BarrelProof (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Chan Chi-chuen
You participated in one of the previous RM discussions on Chan Chi-chuen. I invite you to the latest RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Death of JonBenet Ramsey
Regarding the edit that you made removing a source - I put part of the content from the source in the edit summary, but the info is:

Burke Ramsey said his mother was not a strict disciplinarian, nor did she fly into anger or rage. “We didn't get spanked, nothing of the sort, nothing close, nothing near laying a finger on us, let alone killing your child.”

It seems you had difficulty bringing up the article.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There are other sources that make the same kind of a claim, if you think that's needed.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the help. I added that quote, and I think that aspect of the article is better now. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)