User talk:BarrelProof/Archive 8

Those sneaky post-noms
Dear Master Editor — with that credential, I expect that you can explain to me, please, how this does not mean to include post-noms on, for instance, the Bill Gates page, from MOS:POSTNOM:


 * "Post-nominal letters should be included in the lead section when they are national or international honours or appointments issued by a state, or a widely recognized organization, with which the subject has been closely associated"; and "Post-nominals should not be added except to a biography subject's own lead sentence, in an infobox parameter for post-nominals, when the post-nominals themselves are under discussion in the material"; and goes on to instruct "This template needs the |size=100% parameter when it is used in an infobox, or its output will be too small."

...because that's exactly as I did when I was "sneaking" those post-nom letters back in, with detailed notes regarding,14 Nov and 6 Jan, on the, (talk) page for the editor who had deleted them, with no response. Please clarify your no post-noms position. Thank you. AHampton (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * That is easily explained by noticing some of the other words that you didn't put in boldface: "... issued by a state, ..., with which the subject has been closely associated" (please especially see the italic part). Mr. Gates has not been closely associated with the state that issued him those honours, and the post-nominals are not typically considered an important part of his notability, so they should not be included in the lead section in that manner. The consensus about this has been recorded at Talk:Bill Gates (see the FAQ and the Talk page archives), and if you wish to try to change that consensus, that Talk page is the proper place to hold that discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * And, I would easily argue that "closely associated" is subjective, and also that anyone involved with as many UK projects as Gates is, and who has over 10,000 British employees, is "closely associated" with the UK. Further, copious post-noms have been removed by the editor who chose to ignore the note on his page regarding, without leaving any mention of same of those pages. There was also no visible discussion on the page regarding, I had checked.
 * Was trying to respond, but met "edit conflict" while you were changing your last comment somehow (about which I have been pointedly told: "never, ever modify existing content in talk pages... even if it's your own text. It's a huge no-no."(Mardus /talk 03:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)).) I guess that's subjective, too. AHampton (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * In addition to the article Talk page itself, I suggest checking the archives of the Talk page (which you can typically find by looking for the word "archive" on the Talk page). I found discussions in every one of that article's Talk page archives about this – please search the archive pages for "KBE". Also please note that Talk:Bill Gates has an FAQ section about this particular issue. It says this:
 * Q1: Should the post-nominal "KBE" appear after Gates's name in the introduction? (No.)
 * A1: No. According to the Manual of Style, post-nominals should be omitted unless the article subject is closely associated with the issuing country. Gates's honorary knighthood is mentioned along with honors from several other countries in the "Recognition" section.
 * If you think that this consensus should be changed, you should start a discussion about it on that Talk page.
 * Regarding the issue of modification of Talk page comments, that is actually acceptable to some degree, and especially for the type of change I made; the previous comment from another editor was a bit of an oversimplification, but I agree that the edit that it was discussing was problematic – please see WP:REDACT. The modification I made in this instance was to remove a few words from the quote and replace them with "..." to make the quote easier to read. I made that change before you responded. The relevant guideline about that can be found at WP:Talk page guidelines. Among other things, it says "So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them. If you've accidentally posted to the wrong page or section or if you've simply changed your mind, it's been only a short while and no one has yet responded, you may remove your comment entirely."
 * —BarrelProof (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I will take it to the page, disagreeing, thank you. Too bad Mophon did not deign to recommend same, long ago. As for the modification... I would have thought so, too, my own being equally innocuous, but a lot of editors are terribly high-handed, even rude, one finds, "sneaking" away now. AHampton (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize for using the word "sneak"; I should have assumed that the addition was good faith editing. I suppose I was thinking otherwise since this has been a repeated "edit warring" issue for that article for a long time, despite the consensus recorded on the article's Talk page. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. I abhor manipulation, underhandedness and, so, sneakiness, and one does not expect to be referenced in this way when openly editing and leaving notes regarding for a specifically interested party. (Apparently, ignored TALK page notes can lead to such unnecessary issues.) One does smart from the unexpected high-handedness and insults of some seasoned WP editors, no doubt discouraging new editors. Would that they were all so accountable, as you have been here. Thank you.AHampton (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Kościuszko
Thanks for your edit - Freemasonry might not even be a "minor characteristic" of Kościuszko, see also this discussion where I questioned the addition by HorCrux48 (in case they decide to continue arguing for its inclusion). Gestumblindi (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, the user has added "freemason" to the introduction of several articles with the same web source (that doesn't look very reliable to me) - as I don't know these biographies as well as Kościuszko's (and as I'm not very active in English-language Wikipedia anyway, and don't intend to become too involved in disputes here), I'm not going to concern myself with these edits, but you might want to have a look... Gestumblindi (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comments. In fact it was an edit of the 21 Savage article that led me to think about looking at that user's edits, and I had noticed there was some discussion on the Talk page of that article. Alas, I have no real expertise (or even much real interest) on the topic of Freemasonry, although I have the rough impression that some people tend to put too much emphasis on Freemason membership status. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Explanation
There was a user who added Bloods and Crips categories to other Rappers' pages with no reliable sources to back them up. Here, for example is [their edit to Ice Cube]; the word Crip is only mentioned in the user's category addition. So a lot of their edits had to be reverted to due to WP:BLP. But checking 21 Savage, I now see he had affiliation with the Bloods, so the category will be restored by the time you read this. Crboyer (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

[The user was reprimanded on their talk page] for adding categories without reliable sources. Crboyer (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you for the response. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Bobby Beausoleil
Could you take another look at recent edits, particularly to the opening paragraph? Do you think there is any alternative to having that WP:SPA blocked from editing that article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. I reverted that change and contributed to the discussion on the article's Talk page. I am pleased to see that the editor in question has participated in the discussion, but disappointed by the continued dispute. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Torres again
Hi BarrelProof: I noticed the message you left on Joseth Felix Torres' talk page on 8 April. Today, he moved two pages without discussion: 1) clouded leopard to Mainland Clouded leopard, and 2) Panthera leo fossilis to German Cave Lion. Unconstructive edits as well. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note. This sort of behavior should not be allowed to continue indefinitely; something ought to be done to get this person's attention – e.g., using WP:ANI or WP:ANEW. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Torres does not really engage in edit war, at least not in a strict sense; but every once in a while re-adds false info to pages, despite repeated warnings. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess you're mostly right, but I consider it warring when someone "re-adds false info to pages, despite repeated warnings", and some of the edits of List of domesticated animals and Exotic pet seem to at least border on warring to me. Also, some of the edits of Exotic pet seem similar to those by various unconstructive anon IPs and low-edit-count users. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: After a brief discussion at WP:ANI, the Torres account was indef blocked on 22 April 2019. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Ian Anderson
Vocals, flute and guitar are the instruments of consensus for the infobox, if you'd like to add more please seek consensus on the talk page. Please review Template:Infobox_musical_artist, "Instruments listed in the infobox should be limited to those that the artist is primarily known for using. The instruments infobox parameter is intended as a WP:COATRACK for every instrument the subject has ever used." Thank you, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 14:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note. I was not aware of that instruction, and was only trying to find a compromise with an edit by an IP. I am fine with just listing flute and guitar. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, I too had to be pointed to that fact years ago. Cheers, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 20:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Bobby Beausoleil
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Mnpie1789 (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI to TPSs – that was later closed with a determination of "no violation". The record can be found at Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive388. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Reason at Mueller Report?
Hello BarrelProof,

I thanked you on your recent revert of an edit you did. And I was curious what was the reason behind the move? I don't blame you but wanted to know your understanding. I know it was a big edit, primarily on expanding contexts. However, I added or expanded numerous citations and its contents and added excerpts from the report to already-existing report citations for clarification and I made sure to corroborate the report source; which there is a comment at the top of the page that mentions this. Thank you! Aviartm (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The edits were, as you noted, a big change. I was kind of confused by them. While looking at them I focused on some lines that were added that said:
 * "If he says it we own this election. Americas most difficult adversary agreeing that Donald is a good guy to negotiate . . ..
 * We can own this election.
 * Michael my next steps are very sensitive with Putins very very close people, we can pull this off.
 * Michael lets go. 2 boys from Brooklyn getting a USA president elected."
 * Those lines looked really strange to me, and they appeared to be unsourced. I didn't realize that they were part of a long quote inside of a citation (perhaps partly because there were no quote marks around them – you might notice that the other quotes in the article had quote marks around them, but these and some other ones that you added didn't, and that bugged me too).
 * After reverting, I went back and took another look and realized what was going on with those lines. That's when I reverted my revert.
 * —BarrelProof (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

My Change
I added the name of a victim that was shot on March 4, 1958 as Joe Pepitone because it was Joe Pepitone and I don’t understand why you denied it so if you could explain why I would appreciate it. ClappedCuck (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you identify a reliable source to verify that? Joe Pepitone is a well-known name, and the article about that person does not mention any school shooting victim of the same name. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (Conversation continued at User talk:ClappedCuck) —BarrelProof (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Malvina Shanklin Harlan) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Malvina Shanklin Harlan.

User:Elliot321 while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 23:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks! —BarrelProof (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Alpina Watches on Frederique Constant Page
There are multiple errors on Frédérique Constant since User talk:PCock made changes that are wrong. Then, placed tags that I cannot correct because of COI. I was wondering if you can step in as you have contributed to page in past. Here are the issues I see:

On top: Since 2002, the company has also owned Alpina Watches, a manufacturer of Swiss sports watches founded in 1883. Alpina watches International SA is an independent brand with long history and owned by Citizen Watch upon acquisition in 2016.

Under Products, Alpina is wrongly added as a collection of Frederique Constant. This should be removed.

The original Alpina Watches page should be restored: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpina_Watches&oldid=775205021 Thereafter the Alpina page should be improved with sections, citations and neutral text

I have asked User talk:PCock also to correct mistakes, but to no avail. Maybe you can help. Thank you. Pcstas (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I will be happy to try to correct errors – especially errors relating to ownership. Thank you for letting me know about this – I have not been paying attention to that article for a while. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Frederique Constant SA, Alpina Watches International SA and Atelier deMonaco SA are individual entities that were sold to Citizen Watch in 2016. These companies are currently owned by Citizen. Each of these entities represent the individual distinct brands Frédérique Constant, Alpina Watches and Ateliers deMonaco. Alpina Watches should be restored from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpina_Watches&oldid=775205021. Please let me know if this answers your question? Pcstas (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Who owned Alpina Watches between 2002 and 2016? I am not satisfied with knowing about the most recent transaction and current ownership. There seems have been several different companies that have had similar ownership. Also, we need to be able to cite reliable sources of information about what we say in Wikipedia articles. If I understand correctly, there is (or was) more than one organization known as "Frederique Constant". There is (was) something called the Frederique Constant Group; what is (was) that? There was also "Union Horlogère Holding". Bloomberg reported in February 2015 that "Union Horlogère Holding ... owns Swiss watchmakers Frederique Constant and Alpina". Was that correct at the time? —BarrelProof (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Before the takeover by Citizen, Frederique Constant SA, Alpina Watches International SA and Atelier deMonaco SA were whole owned subsidiaries of Union Horlogère Holding B.V., which was a whole owned subsidiary of Frederique Constant Holding SA, a double holding structure. After the takeover, Frederique Constant SA, Alpina Watches International SA and Atelier deMonaco SA are directly owned by the Frederique Constant Holding SA that is a whole owned subsidiary of Citizen Watch. Citizen Watch did not acquire Union Horlogère Holding B.V. So, the Bloomberg article was correct in 2015, but no longer the case in 2016. I fully agree that the Wikipedia Page should have reliable sources, but more importantly, it should not contain mistakes. I do not have an external article explaining the 'in between' holding structure, but really hope that it is clear that Frederique Constant SA never owned, nor owns now, Alpina Watches International SA. The two brand Frederique Constant and Alpina Watches used to be two separate wikipedia pages, representing the two distinct different brands and companies. Hope this is of help? Pcstas (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Team Losi Edit.
I see you did the initial change and reverted my changes. But did read my change notes? Team Losi is most definitely a notable brand having existed for a very long time with products sold all over the world. Their major competitors all have their own entries on Wikipdia, Associated Electronics, Traxxas, and Kyosho. How does Team Losi rate a redirect to a page for parent company that has virtually no content on Team Losi? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c46:6880:7174:fd2c:6416:b979:6123 (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As I suggested in my edit summary, a more appropriate place for this discussion would be Talk:Team Losi. Please also see WP:GNG. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I have and after doing some google searches it seems the edits and request for change by Donnie Park was scam on the editors. Donnie Park makes edits to the main competitor for Team Losi, Associated Electrics. I think his work is more malicious than being helpful and you guys got tricked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynosprime (talk • contribs) 21:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Walter Raleigh
I was curious why you closed the requested move at Talk:Walter Raleigh when it was only for four days. I agree with your close, but I see no harm in letting in run the full seven days.  Calidum   02:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I just didn't see a point in keeping it open longer when the outcome seemed very clear. A substantial amount of discussion had occurred, and it seemed clear that the proposal had no remaining chance of adoption. The last four !votes were all negative. Perhaps I should have left it open, but I felt that closing it would help the community to move on and focus on other things. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Paras
Hi, I would like to know if the article is ready to be published? I was thinking of removing few awards for which I couldn't find any sources, then will I be able to move the article to main space? How to move draft article to submit as afc? or do I need to start fresh to create afc? Sumitpatelster (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, I am not very fond of the article, as I don't think it establishes sufficient notability. I think the tone is too promotional and it reads too much like a resume or an advertisement for clients. But you are welcome to try submitting the article to the WP:AfC process and see what others think about it. I have expressed my thoughts on the draft article's Talk page already. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Max move review
Hello!

Fyi the second move request discussion moved to review phase: Move_review/Log/2019_June

As an entry point to the long wall of text, here are 2 summaries I wrote: Cheers, — Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)  07:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * for the arguments: Move_review/Log/2019_June
 * for the need of the close review: Move_review/Log/2019_June
 * and a systematic refutation of faulty / personal preference arguments: User:Aron_Manning/737_Max_RM

Religious article names
Thanks for the link to the discussion about the churches at Talk:Eastern Catholic Churches. It does seem to be a rather complicated subject matter. Do you have any info on what's the rationale behind WP:DOCTCAPS? I don't see it on the MOS pages.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 22:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about WP:DOCTCAPS. I wonder whether it was really originally intended to affect titles like Eight precepts and Five Pillars of Islam. I think the spirit was just to avoid overcapitalization when in doubt. Some people seem to want to use capital letters just to indicate importance, and it is clear that Wikipedia tries to avoid that. Articles about religion seem especially prone to that phenomenon, since they discuss things that the adherents of a religion tend to think are extremely important. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, .-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Numismatics
Based on your recent contributions, I think you should consider joining WikiProject Numismatics. - ZLEA  T \ C 19:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Need your help
I have had nothing but blowback from uneducated people who quite frankly, arent even in the industry, when ive not only been in the industry 20 years, I still actively bartend and still research drinks. I know the truth behind the old fashion and cocktail and I will send you the free ebook, its on kindle but if you give me your email you can read it and see the truth. Then from there you can help me word and phrase things so it doesnt keep getting removed. Because honestly, its very frustrating having a CURRENT REFERENCE on the old fashion page THAT PROVES THAT IT IS INFACT AN OLD FASHION, yet people completely act like they dont see the reference or something. There are tons of others, I was just noting that CURRENT REFERENCE proves my point so what is there to argue? If they take that reference down then they have to remove the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5000:d9a:785d:21da:5259:385c (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

POTUS List RM
Thanks for bringing the changes up, I wouldn’t have thought to clarify the normalisation in titles without someone pointing it out. When I undid your edit I was already in progress after to add the note so didn’t see your comment noting the change, sorry for causing you the extra work! Kind regards, Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 19:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. I guess we were editing simultaneously and it got a bit confusing for both of us. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I merely corrected a mistaken link, by Steven Crossin. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It was not a "mistaken link"; it was the record of what was proposed in the RM. You changed the record of what someone else had proposed, after that proposal had been extensively discussed and the discussion had been closed – without providing any explanation why you were doing it. I suggest not to do that in the future. (I have no quarrel with the action taken by the closer; I just think it is important to have a clear record of what happened.) —BarrelProof (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of a WP:VPIL discussion that you may be interested in
Hey BarrelProof! I see that you're also a bit frustrated by Wikipedia's naming conventions when it comes to sports teams. I've submitted an idea at the Village pump (idea lab), and I'm hoping that the draft proposal can be suitably refined and then proposed properly. I think it would be of interest to you, and I'd be extremely interested to hear any feedback that you have to offer on the proposal. Domeditrix (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Imnsir
I made a mistake in writing I'm sorry−−Imnsir2019 (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks!
Kudos for your formatting cleanup of Nevertheless, she persisted. I appreciate your attention to detail! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —BarrelProof (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)