User talk:BarrelProof/Archive 9

The Signpost: 27 January 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

"A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro)" listed at Requested moves
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the requested move of A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro) and other Metro pages. Since you had some involvement with pages related to A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro) and others, you might want to participate in the discussion if you wish to do so. Lexlex (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Spliting discussion for [[Member state of the European Union ]]
An article that you have been involved with ( Member state of the European Union ) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article ( Member states of the European Union ). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Talk:Member state of the European Union. Thank you. Doug Mehus T · C  23:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Assistance Requested on Kentucky Colonel Article
I noticed your comments on the Wikipedia article Kentucky Colonel and know you understand the commission and the honor well. I am one of the editors for the page and a commissioner for Kentucky Colonels International. There has been a lawsuit filed against us for using the term "Kentucky Colonels" as part of our name, the Honorable Order of Kentucky Colonels has trademarked the term as their own and are making its use exclusive for their commercial use and profit (the purpose of trademarks right?). There is more information about this on our website Kentucky Colonels International and information can also be found in the Google news headlines. Problemsmith (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. That's pretty interesting! I would have thought that term would be well established to be in the public domain or under the control of the governor rather than the HOKC. After all, AFAIK the governor can bestow that title legitimately on whosoever they see fit, and the HOKC has no special recognition enshrined in law (and various others who have no affiliation with HOKC have also used the term – e.g., the Eastern Kentucky Colonels). —BarrelProof (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a new article that came out, apparently the new Governor has made an unethical alliance with the HOKC and now the public (anyone) can now nominate a Kentucky colonel, it is no longer a privilege reserved for Kentucky colonels, this was confirmed in a news article that came out on Google News search last night by Marty Finley, Reporter at Louisville Business First. The trademark that the HOKC filed is dated February 17, 2020, our organization Kentucky Colonels International became legitimized on January 30th. As we understand though if they get their day in court next week a "gag order" will be issued against us to civilly defend our constitutional rights, we have mined a plethora of information that shows that this is a term which belongs in the public domain on our website, unfortunately though the motion filed in Federal Court yesterday comes after our website and the information we are sharing that all predates their existence. Unfortunately most of the information only exists in the Internet Archive and the Library of Congress, sites the public is not very apt to be able to find, I will be working on a new search in a day or so, to publish additional links there. You will probably want to see also the section we developed with links about First Colonels under our History section it shows that the HOKC has manipulated substantial facts in history to show deference to specific governors going all the way back to 1813. Thank you for taking an interest, I cannot consider myself an objective editor at this moment. I have also notified Berean Hunter on his talk page relative to this to see if he can take an interest as a Wikipedia editor. Problemsmith (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a few questions. I see that the Louisville Business First article that you referred to says "KCI especially took umbrage with former Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin requiring a donation from Kentucky Colonels to nominate someone for the title, calling it 'unethical' and 'unjust'." My first question is who was Bevin requiring such donations to be given to? Was he requiring donations to the HOKC or to some other entity?
 * The article then says "Crose confirmed the donation component under Bevin, but she said Gov. Andy Beshear has changed the nomination process to allow those who are not Kentucky Colonels to nominate someone through an online form." My second question is whether there is still a donation requirement under Beshear. The Crose remark about a change of the nomination process doesn't seem to answer that question.
 * I think the question of who can nominate someone seems somewhat irrelevant. The governor has the discretion to bestow the honor, and as far as I know, the governor has the full authority to decide who can nominate someone or whether there is even a nomination process at all.
 * As a comment, I would think that a donation requirement might also be within the governor's discretion as well – as long as the donations are going to charity rather than into the pocket of the governor or their friends.
 * As a further comment, all of that is separate from the question of whether there are really some valid trademark rights to dispute and whether an organization of KC's that is different from the HOKC is allowed to exist or not. There seems to be several distinct issues that are getting confused in the coverage.
 * —BarrelProof (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not replying sooner, I never received a notification regarding this talk message. As you may well know I am one of the defendants named in the HOKC v KCI lawsuit, the case has compelled me to thoroughly investigate the historical record dating back to the founding of Kentucky before the first colonels and a preacher made bourbon there, all of my research is well documented at Commonwealth Colonels, I have also taken out a US copyright preregistration for a history book titled "Kentucky Colonels:...". We would be interested in having you join us in the book to author a chapter on bourbon as it relates to Kentucky's first colonels.
 * Let me answer your questions: First question, Gov. Bevin when in office was requiring that colonels were active and making donations to the HOKC, the HOKC requires that a person make an annual donation to be considered active, prior to Bevin only a colonel could nominate someone to become a colonel, no donation was required. By doing this it brought the state into an implied special relationship that does not exist or would be illegal if it did since the organization is a private charity not operated by the state and because the organization operates a seperate for-profit enterprise from Lexington under Jimmy Dawahare that is a licensee of their trademarks "KENTUCKY COLONELS" which is a brand name mark for clothing, food items and cigars. Second question, yes under Gov. Beshear now anyone can recommend or nominate someone as a Kentucky Colonel. This has upset many colonels though because it was the only privilege they had. Either way, yes you are correct the governor is at sole discretion as the head-of-state who becomes a colonel, the award is bestowed under common law and diplomatic law. In all of my extensive research for our website which contains more than 1,000 noteworthy references and a complete bibliography the only current law regarding colonels is relative to the governor's personal staff and does not apply to "honorary colonels" Kentucky Acts 36-110.
 * Your last sentence is definitely true, the source of the confusion however is not coming from Kentucky Colonels International (Commonwealth Colonels). As you can imagine there is much more here to the issue than can be easily sorted out. It should be understood that the HOKC has trademarked their name HONORABLE ORDER OF KENTUCKY COLONELS in 1983, then in 2003 began to trademark arbitrarily products under the trademark KENTUCKY COLONELS which is not relative to the title or the people, the trademark refers to cigars, a clothing line, other products and food items; but it is suggestive to their organization. These trademarks are as stated previously licensed to a third-party LLC for profit. Now, on February 17 the HOKC trademarked the term "Kentucky Colonels" for three new purposes bringing their trademark count up to six identical marks.
 * Now in October after reviewing the personal Memoir of Col. Chas. S. Todd and the single reference cited by the Charles Stewart Todd Wikipedia article (Harper's Encyclopedia) I have discovered that he was never commissioned at all by Governor Isaac Shelby, why or who added to that article that he was commissioned by Shelby is unknown. This however, invalidates the whole history of the HOKC and the basis for the Kentucky Colonel article. I am unsure how to approach this situation, but I am very certain about it and also checked the state's records in 1813 and 1815. Apparently Chas. Todd was in Michigan Territory in 1815 working for the US Army under Brigadier General Duncan McArthur who appointed him Inspector General with the rank of colonel. He was not even in Kentucky in 1813 or 1815 this is proven, and makes the HOKC account false, mythical and an erroneous stain on Kentucky colonelcy. Unfortunately the Commonwealth and the Kentucky Historical Society have both misprinted extensively the false HOKC account which emerged in 1941.
 * What is abundantly clear is that the first official Kentucky colonel was commissioned by Governor Patrick Henry of the Colony of Virginia on December 21, 1776 to form a government in Kentucky County. See The County of Kentucky - Names of its Soldiers. I have identified that there were more than 250 "colonels" in Kentucky before it became a state in 1792, I am in the process now of recording and investigating the most notable accounts of these men and their families. It is also very clear that Gov. Ruby Laffoon treated the ideal of the Kentucky Colonel very light-heartedly, used it to gain political favor, hoped it was a good way during the great depression to raise money for the state, and he trumped the rights of more than eight other organizations that already existed at the time. See Kentucky Colonels Handbook Problemsmith (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...

 * New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers
 * New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines ; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
 * If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    20:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

About the source for Diamond Princess cases
Please recheck this source as it actually contains information about Diamond Princess cases. Scroll down further until you see a green table that shows the numbers of cases in Diamond Princess.

The reason why I added this source is that its content is updated everyday, so that we wouldn't have to replace the source link when we update information. Many Wikipedia editors don't update source links even when they update the numbers, so I thought it'd be easier for everyone. 27.147.201.144 (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I see. I don't know why I didn't see that before. Maybe it was the page translation tool I was using. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

A Boy was Born
Do you have no more serious problems, than writing a composition not as the composer published it? Lucky you. You hurt me, by revert and edit summary, but perhaps you are not aware of that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I had no intention for harm, although I did react negatively to discovering that after five years you had come back and quietly overturned the outcome of the extensive discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I was harmed all these five rather seven years, as you might have known. Most of the participants of the discussion seem to be not active, so o longer interested. Have a good day. I'll unwatch the article which to have created on the composer's centenary, and presented on DYK on Christmas Day, was one of my better ideas and contributions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

PCR means polymerase chain reaction
not "positive coronavirus [test] result". PCR's a way to make many copies of a specific segment of genetic material. It's a pretty cool process if you want to look into how it works. Not a big deal; just thought you'd want to know. Stay well, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Perhaps I should have known that. I don't remember why I made that remark, since "PCR" wasn't involved in that edit. But I believe I had encountered that as an unexplained abbreviation somewhere on Wikipedia at around that time. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:-IZE" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:-IZE. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 3 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Have a Nice Day
Hello. Saw you proposed this for deletion...curious about your thoughts on the entire series...just clicking through them, many, unlike this one, don't even have an AllMusic review. There are other series like this, so perhaps I need to bring it up on the Project Albums page. I don't have an opinion on this specific one; just think it may be more efficient to deal with these types of articles in other ways. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking. I think the whole series is probably non-notable and they should all be deleted. I also think AllMusic should not be considered evidence that something is notable. They simply try to catalog all music. —BarrelProof (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * AllMusic staff reviews and staff-written biographies are reliable, but yeah, one AllMusic review would not be enough...and this one is short even by AllMusic standards. Caro7200 (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Move Request for Brendan Angelides
Hello, Following step 1 of the move review process, I am the writing to follow up on the request to move the page 'Eskmo' to 'Brendan Angelides.' Brendan Angelides is shifting from the use of the artist name, Eskmo, to his birth name, Brendan Angelides. He recently transitioned from a touring artist to a composer for film & television and is crediting all future work under his full name. On IMDb you will notice past works are credited "as Eskmo," but his most recent 2020 credits (Naked Singularity & Minimum Mass), are credited as Brendan Angelides.  His about section on ancestormedia.com also reflects this change. Please inform me if this inadequate proof and I will proceed with Move review process. Thanks Bobtinontinton (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you should raise the issue with buidhe instead of with me, since that is who closed the original RM at Talk:Eskmo that you disagree with, and then proceed with WP:Move review if you are still not satisfied that the RM was closed properly. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Killing of Manuel Ellis
Hello! Your submission of Killing of Manuel Ellis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Shooting of Jamarion Robinson
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Kentucky Colonel
I have just noticed that you removed one of the awards from the List of Pakistani Peace Laureates; I therefore insist to reconsider this entry and review your existing decision on the basis of following grounds:

POINT NO. 1) List of Pakistani Peace Laureates does not specify whether the Awards/ Rewards are major or minor recognitions; it describes the people who received international awards on their work on Peace, Humanity, Social Services, Human Rights etc.

POINT NO. 2) Kentucky Colonel is not a small recognition, it is the highest title of honor bestowed by the Governor of Commonwealth of Kentucky. We can not downgrade this fact with our personal expert opinion but we should analyze its notability and importance before declaring it a minor recognition.

POINT NO. 3) It is pointless to say how many people have already received this honour but it is important to mention here that a Pakistani has also achieved it first time in the history. Also, this page is not concerned with other people who have received that title but it is about Pakistani people only, who received international recognitions.

On the basis of above-listed justifications, I request you to reconsider the inclusion of that title. List of Pakistani Peace Laureates does not define which awards are Major and which awards are Minor. The thing is, it is an international award and it is correctly and appropriately written under the category of International Awards (Government Based). Please consider. Zeruiah Michael (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Things that are not notable should not be included on Wikipedia. One way to identify whether something is notable or not is to look for multiple independent reliable sources for the information. More than a hundred thousand people have received the title of "Kentucky Colonel". It is simply not a very important or exclusive award. As the article on the topic says, "sometimes it seems like everybody" is a Kentucky Colonel. At one point the government of Kentucky was printing so many of the certificates that they found it necessary to shrink the size of the certificates to save money. Minor matters should not be discussed on Wikipedia. Additionally, the source that was used to support the factual claim in the List of Pakistani Peace Laureates article is not a reliable source. I would also like to ask whether you have a close connection to Mr. Butt, and I suggest to review the Wikipedia conflict of interest policy. I am also pretty sure that it is simply not true the Mr. Butt is the first Pakistani to receive that recognition. I notice that promotional information about Mr. Butt has been added to Wikipedia primarily by what are known as special purpose accounts – acounts that seem to be primarily used to add information about Mr. Butt to various articles. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear MR. BarrelProof, as you said "Things that are not notable should not be included on Wikipedia", I think if the title of honour of Kentucky Colonel really does not have that much significance/ importance then why don't wikipedia admins and moderators delete the page of Kentucky Colonel? Many of my friends told me that they tried to create pages about many popular areas, monuments, celebrities etc. but Wikipedia admins removed those pages under a claim of non-notability. Then I have a right to ask that if the title of Kentucky Colonel is that much minor/ small then I should know the reason behind its such a lengthy & detailed page on wikipedia which claims that "this is the highest title of honor bestowed by the Commonwealth of Kentucky". A page with such a fake claim and false information should be removed from Wikipedia. Am I right? Now, let me again explain a very important fact that the page List of Pakistani Peace Laureates does not define/ narrate the Humanitarians/ Peace Activists/ Social Activists with MAJOR/MINOR awards & recognition. It simply explains that it is a list of Pakistani individuals and organizations who achieved international awards in recognition of their projects or social services for peace, human rights, education, health, public welfare and youth development etc. This definition solve the purpose and clearly identify that Kentucky Colonel is an international recognition which has been achieved by a Pakistani. And yes, if you have any doubt that some other Pakistanis also hold the same recognition, then share their names? Does wikipedia or google.com shows any result about other Pakistanis achieving the said award? Of course not. Not only wikipedia but google.com and other search engines do not show even a single result showing other Pakistanis having this title of honour in past. I hope these explanations resolve the purpose. Zeruiah Michael (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between the award itself being a notable topic for an article on Wikipedia and the receipt of the award by a particular person being a notable achievement. Please also see the Wikipedia policies about independent reliable sources and conflict of interest. I repeat my question about whether you have a close connection to Mr. Butt. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * If there is a difference between the award itself (being a notable topic for an article on wikipedia) and the recipient of the award being notable achievement... then let me clear another important fact that we are not making an Article about the Recipients of Kentucky Colonel title. We just mentioned about reciept of this award on a specific page which is about international awards. We were not preparing a complete articles on the recipients. So, there was hell of difference between making an article and making a paragraph. Hope little editors like you understand this. Secondly, let me answer your question here. Are only those people allowed to write such inclusions who have close links to the subjects? If I have no close connection to an award recipient then it means I can not add anything about him? Have all other writers are relatives of subjects? You can not ask such question with me my dear. It is not your concern at all. We had a serious discussion about inclusion of an international award in a page which is about international titles and rewards but you shared lame excuses only to exclude that paragraph from that page. It seems your nomination was rejected by the Governor of Kentucky; thats why you are too oppose to that title. And by the way, I am wondering you have not answered many of my questions... Q-1. I questioned you that as per the page description, List of Pakistani Peace Laureates is a page that shares details about those Pakistanis who received International Recognition over their projects for peace, social activism, human rights, education, health, public welfare and youth development etc. Then WHY WE CAN NOT ADD KENTUCKY COLONEL AS AN INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION FOR A PAKISTANI CITIZEN? I think this question is not that complicated at all because that page does not describe that ONLY MAJOR AWARDS & RECOGNITIONS ARE SHARED IN THAT PAGE. Q-2. Secondly, I made another question that how can you claim that many other Pakistani people have also achieved that title in past and the subject is not the first/ only Pakistani recipient of Kentucky Colonel? Have you checked other pages of Wikipedia.com to prove this assumption? Have you tried google.com or other search engines to prove this assumption? If you have found anything like that then please share with me. If you failed to find one then you should accept that paragraph on that page without writing any further bogus excuses. It seems you are not opposed to the subject or to his achievements. You are actually opposed to the title of Kentucky Colonel. Zeruiah Michael (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * BarrelProof, silence from your side clearly shows you have no answer to any of my questions. You did it only due to your jealousy with Kentucky Colonel Award. You even removed all those texts which were previously cleared/ accepted by the other editors and moderators. This only shows your negative approach and poor intention. Zeruiah Michael (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You may have misinterpreted my question about whether you have a close connection to the subject or not. If you are saying that you have no close connection to him, that is helpful. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Pakistan–United Kingdom relations
I posted about this at WT:UKWNB, but never got a response; so, thank you for taking a look at the article. The same editor/editors (a number of accounts were blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nawab Afridi/Archive) was also added similar sections to Nigeria–Pakistan relations and Pakistan–Philippines relations. The same problems seem to be found in them as well, but I'm wondering if you'd mind taking at look at them too. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note. Please also see the section above and what I said at User talk:Shazi WP. I have noticed that there seems to be a pattern here and several WP:SPAs. I had not seen your comment at WT:UKWNB, but I obviously agree with it, and I also just posted a reply there. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. There does seem to be a pattern and possible evasion going in on here; so, I've added some accounts to the aforementioned SPI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Marchjuly, I am wondering what is the qualification of Wikipedia admins and moderators to judge or to make decisions about the people who are doing extra ordinary work. I am wondering if anyone of you has ever done that much social work. I am wondering if anyone of you is a laureate of any international prize. Or if anyone of you have ever received an international recognition on your work. Still you are so much judgmental about the achievements of Pakistani people who are doing amazing work. Anyways, it isn;t my department to analyze the efforts you guys are making on wikipedia. Good luck to you guys. Zeruiah Michael (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither me nor Marchjuly is an admin on Wikipedia, and I don't think there is any role called moderator on Wikipedia. We have only ordinary account status here, although we are both experienced editors. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is what I am asking that what is your qualification to judge which awards are major, which awards are minor, and most importantly, which awards should be mention in the list of international awards and which are banned to mention anywhere (though you have full page articles about those awards). People like you with zero experience in social activism, humanity, philanthropy, medical and peace activism are judging people and their achievements. It is a bit funny for me though. Especially, none of you guys have ever received any award... Anyways, I enjoy such funny things. Stay blessed! Zeruiah Michael (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

SPI aftermath
All three of those accounts have been blocked per the SPI. If you come across any more, feel free to to start a new SPI or contact the blocking admin. You can if you want also go through and revert any edits made by the accounts per WP:EVADE; for reference, some people revert every edit regardless, while others might keep those that appear to be constructive. If this person comes back and starts posting on your talk page or somewhere else trying to get you to respond, probably the best thing to do is WP:DENY or maybe at a minimum advise them of WP:UNBLOCK if you want to be kind. Engaging them any more than that will likely only encourage further EVADE and SOCK behavior. It’s unfortunate things ended up as they did, but was not a new editor making a first time mistake who didn’t know any better. — Marchjuly (talk) 04:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! —BarrelProof (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Best Cask
Ardbeg Uigeadail. Now you go. Ocaasit &#124; c 22:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Killing of Manuel Ellis
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Schnatter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Associated.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Multiply Church
You seem familiar with Concord First Assembly Academy. Would you say Multiply Church is notable enough for an article?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the answer is probably no, since I was not able to easily find in-depth coverage of the Multiply Church in independent reliable sources. See WP:NCHURCH and WP:GNG for the guidelines. My impression is that Wikipedia is a bit more generous about having articles about schools than articles about churches. See WP:NSCHOOLS and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Apparently, the guideline for schools was made more strict in 2017. I only developed a passing interest in the article about the school because it was the subject of an earlier WP:RM discussion about a year ago. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I was afraid of that, but there are multiple locations, which would seem to make it more likely. I drove past the main building the other day and wondered "When did they do THAT?"— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  14:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to work on a draft anyway, just so the information will be there. At some point the church may be notable. You may not be the person to ask, but I was wondering if there was any benefit to describing how they worship, because it's nothing like my church (when we could still go inside, although it's still very different). What they do is probably very similar to a lot of churches and a similar description would probably be covered in Contemporary worship.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you for the compliment. Just to be clear in case you or someone else who might read this does not understand, I am not an admin on Wikipedia. I see that your account was only recently established. If you need any advice to help you learn your way around on Wikipedia, I am willing to try to provide advice. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Jonelle
Hi. User:BarrelProof, regarding one of your changes to the Jonelle Matthews page, I have to disagree with you removing the "solved cases" tag. She was a high-profile disappearance case for nearly 40 years. One of the first milk carton kids. Her disappearance noted by President Reagan in one of his speeches. The disappearance has now been solved but the case has only been considered a murder for a year. When you take all that into consideration, isn't it appropriate to keep the "solved" tag at the page? Her case was a disappearance for a long time but having discovered her remains doesn't make the disappearance piece disappear, right? Looking forward to your comments in response. Thanks! A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the discovery of remains does not solve the case. Solving the case also requires a clear conclusion about what happened. A man has been charged murdering her, but he has not been convicted and we know nothing about how she died. The fact that the police have arrested someone does not mean the case has been solved. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The discovery of the remains solves the disappearance. The murder has not yet been solved, pre-jury trial.  And we do know how she died: point blank gunshot to the forehead.  It's in the attached articles.  See what I'm saying, though?  Disappearance solved, now it's morphed into a murder case.  It's a solved disappearance and, because of that, I think the tag should stay.  Thanks for considering my comments in order to reinstate the tag.  Have a great day! A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Mastriano Page
Upon further examination of the style of writing and the kinds of edits made by the new editor I'm fairly confident this is the same editor that was banned for sockpuppetry. The other sockpuppets are listed here and the archived SPI is here. If you need assistance in building a case let me know. Hyderabad22 (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I just went ahead and reopened the SPI with the two new users. Hyderabad22 (talk) 06:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I've been rather busy with other matters. —&hairsp;BarrelProof (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries thanks for your help on the article and with taking action to stop the socks. You've added some great well written content. I think your observation about the Senate33 account is spot on. It seem to me that it's likely that this editor is working for Mastriano or is Mastriano. Either way I suspect there will be further attempts of the same kinds of edits as it seems like Mastriano is going to be running for governor in the next election. As an aside I've been thinking about the section talking about the Nolan group and I almost think it merits being moved to the Alvin York page instead and linked to from the Mastriano page. The cited book is dense and contains a lot of information about why the Nolan group believed Mastriano found the incorrect site. It's hardly mentioned in the main Alvin York page. -- Hyderabad22 (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

"The Vault (2019 film)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The Vault (2019 film). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 11 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Seventyfiveyears (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)