User talk:Mikebe

Welcome! Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

 bibliomaniac 1  5  00:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

BJCP proposed deletion
I deleted the proposed deletion from the talk page of the article because the tag should go on the main article and not the talk page. I didn't initially endorse the deletion, which is why I didn't move the prod to the article page.

I still don't see where there's a POV issue in the article. What I do see is that they don't talk about any outside media coverage they've gotten, and that fails the notability criteria in WP:ORG. I've noted that concern but have now decided to endorse the proposed deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to your comment:
 * I read your note and thanks for the explanation. My reason for the NPOV violation is that the article is very one-sided in a positive way. A non-positive edit was made on 24 August, for example, and removed on 1 Sept.

The 24 August edit was, IMHO, non-NPOV and skewed to the negative. I think if there were citations for criticism of the group, it should have been allowed to stand. Other than that deletion, I think the article stays pretty objective. To me, the biggest weakness is that the only supporting sources for the article are the group itself -- not inherently a NPOV violation, but certainly not providing good, verfiable sources (not to mention independent sources!). —C.Fred (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Triumph Brewing Company
Could you please take another look at the Triumph Brewing Company? The references to the article seem to be the sort of independent published articles contemplated by [{WP:CORP]]. I think the article passes. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read what I posted. Please cite even one article that meets this requirement: "1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." And please be so kind to explain why you think a purely local business (a green-grocer in Hilversum, for example) deserves to have an entry in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Mikebe 18:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Mikebe, I presume this is the article you requested me to look at in your comment on my talk page. While the general rule of thumb is that local restaurants don't pass muster, this one 1) is a minor chain of 3+ locations, 2) has gotten major media coverage (Philadelphia Magazine and apparently the NY Times), and 3) is notable for being behind the legalization push in NJ. I took a look, and for this one, I had to recommend keep on the AfD, based on 2) and 3). —C.Fred (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In reply
Generally, a discussion on the talk page or an AFD is needed. If you want details on speedy deletion, see WP:SD for more details on articles that can be speedily deleted. However, it is easy to support a business article by eliminating POV and spam, and introducing independent sources. As for adhering to policy, some people are staunch "word-for-word" policy followers, while some go for a looser explanation. Personally, I take the latter, but don't let my decision influence you much. Does this relate to the Triumph Brewing Company AFD?  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Notability
I think you misunderstand notability. Reading Uncle G's essay "On Notability" as well as guidelines on notability for some good ideas. A glance at What Wikipedia is Not may also help, especially the idea that Wikipedia is Not Paper. Your comments on the Triumph Brewing AFD discussion are welcome and quite good, but I think you are missing the point on notability. Notability is NOT the standard, dictionary defintion of such. It is a subset of the policy on verifiability; in that it establishes what sorts of verifiable information is valid to establishe a writable article. We can debate what non-trivial means, but largely, the standard, as has been applied for some time now, is that non-trivial means that it is more than "directory information". The fact that reliable publications have cared enough about this business to write extensive reviews about it means that we have sources outside of Wikipedia that have cared enough to note this business; thus it is notable by Wikipedia standards. At issue is largely: Thank you again for your continued comments, and please note that I am not trying to attack you. Your comments are intelligent and relevent, and very welcome. I just feel they are a bit misguided. --Jayron 32 17:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we write an NPOV article about this subject, that is referenced to information in reliable, third-party sources, such that the article contains more than trivial (address, phone number, establishment dates, etc.) information? If yes, the subject is notable.

BJCP AfD incorrectly formed
The AfD you tried to nominate for this article was incomplete and incorrectly formed. Please see Articles for deletion for instructions on how to properly list an article for deletion.

Text of the incorrectly formed AfD is below for your convenience:


 * This article fails to meet the requirements of WP:ORG It includes no sources and no references and should be deleted. Mikebe 11:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

—Doug Bell talk 11:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Beer Judge Certification Program
Hi. I noticed that you've opened an AfD on this article but seem to have forgotten to place the template at the top. I'll do that for you now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

American POV
Perhaps, instead of deleting a valid comment which just happens to be from an American source (which wouldn't necessarily be US-centric), you could add in addition, information from other sources. If other sources are not available, we simply have to do with the sources we have. If something looks like it would not be universal, you preface it with something that says so. As for your complete disdain for the BJCP, so much so that you put that article up for deletion (and are calling it a "homebrewers groups" without acknowledging that its purpose is obviously much more wide-ranging), again, they have a valid point of view that is understood by many, and so if the information from them is available, it would be useful to include it. Nobody is claiming that style guides from the BJCP are the be all and end all of beer. We are including the information because even if it's not accepted by every beer drinker (nothing ever will get such acceptance). I would envision an infobox in beer-style articles that has guidelines from several well-known beer-related groups, side-by-side. Instead of deleting, do the hard work and instead add style information from other groups. As for "Belgian Dark" not being a Belgian definition, that's irrelevant. If it is a definition that is understood well enough by enough people, then it's a definition. The article might need a note that says this style or style group is not recognized in Europe where it would be understood to be a catch-all that includes many different beer styles that might not appear to fit together well in a single supercategory, but once that comment is made, then how can you find fault with the article, simply because you or your beer group does not recognize such a category? I hope you're objecting to the article simply because the name has the word "Belgian" in it because the Belgians don't recognize such a category. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, thanks for the "adult" response. I'm very sorry, but I don't agree with any of what you wrote. For example, "deleting a valid comment" -- what valid comment? The BJCP guidelines? Sorry, I see no purpose in having them on Wikipedia outside of the home-brewing article. I have no disdain for the BJCP, I have disdain for its followers, adherents or whatever who misunderstand its purpose. Please don't tell me that it is not a homebrewers group, because that is exactly what it is. While the group may have lofty goals of beer education (and I wish them well in that), all they do is train volunteers to act as judges at home brewing competitions. At least, according to their site, that is all they do.


 * Their guidelines are meant to help these volunteer judges standardise their evaluation of beers at home brewing competitions. OK, fine. Now, please explain what relevance this has to someone drinking a professionally brewed beer. I have been drinking beer since before you were born (I looked at your user page) and until I came to Wikipedia I had never heard of the BJCP or style guidelines. And do you know what? I have been enjoying beer for years without having the foggiest idea what the style guidelines for that beer might be. For me, and millions of others, the question is not does this meet BJCP style guidelines, but, do I like this beer? Does it taste good? Style guidelines from the BJCP or any other organisation do nothing toward answering those questions and they are the only relevant questions for some one tasting a beer.


 * I'm afraid I don't understand your comment that it's irrelevant that "Belgian Dark" is not a Belgian style. Then why call it Belgian? If you want to call it a Dark beer, fine. The fact that there is not a single valid example of it should be proof enough that it is not valid.


 * I sincerely hope that despite our disagreement, we can make the beer articles on Wikipedia better. I was glad to see that you like Belgian beers -- so do I. Please understand that style guidelines contribute absolutely nothing to a newcomers appreciation of the beer world and factual articles do contribute a good deal. Imagine, for example, some one reading your Belgian Dark article, travelling to Belgium and asking for one. What do you think would happen? Mikebe 16:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The thing, though, is that there are style guidelines laid out by all sorts of beer organizations. Personally, I had never heard of the BJCP before this conflict either, and I don't particularly care what their definition for a particular style is (as you say, it's what you like that matters).  But someone might care.  Someone might also like to know what the style definitions are as understood by other organizations as well (and your argument of homebrew versus professionally-produced beer  is fallacious--many would argue that a good homebrewer can make beer of exceptional quality, and the style guidelines of the BJCP are supposed to describe the beer styles in general, homebrew or professional).


 * I'm sorry to say this but your first statement is simply not true. (And, btw, I hope this is a discussion between two reasonable and intelligent people and not a "conflict"!) In Belgium, there is a beer organisation called Zythos. I cordially invite you to visit zythos.be and find their style guidelines. Or go to pint.nl and show me the style guidelines there. Please believe that as a European, I know beer here much, much better than you do and I can assure you that style guidelines are practically unknown here. Secondly, your comparison of home-brew vs professional is not valid for one very good reason: I (or you) can walk into a store and buy any professionally brewed beer. There is no way we can sample home-brew unless we know the brewer. And, as I said about the BJCP, their style guidelines are only for home-brew competitions, so I don't understand how you can say that they are also for professionals.


 * There are certainly other style guides out there. Others I have found in quick checks are also American, unfortunately, like this.  Even if nobody has written out an authoritative European (as though Europe were united) style guide, tasters and breweries obviously have their standards that they will judge a beer by.  While the BJCP's guidelines can by no means be considered universal, they can be considered to be understood as the BJCP's guidelines. As for your continued insistence that the BJCP's guidelines cannot be considered to work for commercially-produced beer, I fail to see why.  Surely they came to their style guide by looking at the beer on the market as it was labelled.  Not happy with the actual guidelines?  Think they're not right?  Then mark the links as giving the point of view of an American organization.  Don't outright delete them.


 * And I would be much happier with the BJCP guidelines if they would stick to beers they know -- American beers. But, as I said, the Belgian Dark is a "style" that exists only in their minds and some of their other style guidelines (Belgian Tripel, for example) are simply not accurate. As I've said, as long as they use the foreign styles only in home-brew competitions, I don't really mind -- it's when people come here and try to say that they are accurate that I have a problem.


 * American beers are the beers they know?! Honestly, you think that?  Despite the massive amount of piss put out by the big (and small) breweries in the United States, many American craft brewers can make "European beer" (as though any beer really gets stuck on a continent) as well as European breweries.  I'm sure you can't find any good American beer in Belgium with all the amazing Belgian stuff there is, but I assure you, there are some just fabulous "European beers" made by Americans.  It is the height of arrogance to claim that you have a monopoly on good beer made in just about any style other than "piss lager".


 * This is an encyclopedia, and while you might not agree with or care for a particular definition of a style, that doesn't mean that definition has no informational value. Obviously there are criteria for what makes a beer a certain kind of beer.  A witbier is obviously not a tripel, and there are certain things that make a witbier a witbier and a tripel a tripel.  These criteria differ from group to group and person to person, but they obviously exist.  You cannot market a witbier as a tripel (or you can, but that doesn't make it one).  These style descriptions are useful for an attempt to probe the differences.


 * Now, here I think we are not that far apart (at least I hope so). I agree with you in principal, but I would much prefer that the contributors writing the articles could put in a few tasting notes themselves. This would obviously require that the contributors really know about the beer before they write about it, which, sadly, is not the case now. Furthermore, the BJCP guidelines encourages this lack of expertise because people can write about a beer they've never tasted or perhaps even never seen and just use the BJCP guidelines instead of contributing from their own knowledge or experience. I refer you to Cream_ale as an example of this.


 * Unfortunately, tasting notes by editors of their own experience is original research, which is one of the things we, as an encyclopedia, simply are not allowed to include. Tasting notes would have to come from a published reliable source, such as a beer magazine, in order to be included.


 * As for your not understanding the "Belgian Dark" comment, perhaps you can just mentally insert the word "style" between "Belgian" and "Dark". Obviously, the classification is intended to describe beers of a dark colour brewed in the "Belgian style".  If it turns out that the term is used commonly by a large portion of the beer-drinking world (and I don't even argue that that's the case, but the article is certainly not a speedy delete candidate), whether it is accurate is irrelevant.  Encyclopedias, like dictionaries, describe usage, they do not prescribe it. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said before, come to Belgium, walk into a pub and ask for a "Belgian Dark" and see what happens. In fact, other than the BJCP, I don't believe it is even a style recognised in the US! If you don't believe me, go to Ratebeer and try it. As I said above, I don't have a problem with BJCP making up styles for home-brew competitions. If the point of an encyclopedia is to bring people knowledge/information, doesn't that knowledge/information have to be correct? We're going to tell people that there is a beer style called "Belgian dark" when there really isn't? That's not very responsible, is it? Mikebe 19:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * All you're arguing is that it's not a type of beer you can ask for in Belgium. Simply rewrite the article to call it a "beer class" that includes several actual (and somewhat dissimilar) styles of beer, which is used in the United States.  You have then made the article make sense, and you have not attempted to censor information because you think it's "wrong". └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please explain we are not the same person
I see User:Osgoodelawyer is talking with you in a much more civil and less accusatory manner than he is with me. Can you please make clear to him that you and I are not the same person. I did suggest that he ask you who you are, but I see that he hasn´t bothered. So I´ll make the request directly: can you tell him your name so we can put an end to his silly accusations.Patto1ro 08:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Email
I would suggest seeing dispute resolution which suggests a variety of procedures to handle these sort of situations. I would look into the matter myself but I'm very busy right now. However, please keep me informed of what occurs and if there are any specific details that you think I should know feel free to email me or put a note on my talk page. JoshuaZ 13:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You may want to be more specific. In particular, what policies are being violated? Are there WP:NPOV,WP:NPA,or WP:CIVIL problems? From your brief description those sound like what might be most relevant but without more info I don't have much to go on. You mentioned that the editor in question was overemphasizing American beer - this would certainly be an WP:NPOV problem and getting other editors to look at the topic (possibly getting a 3rd opinion as described at WP:DR) would be best to deal with that. JoshuaZ 14:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Latest email
It may be best to give both the American style summaries and whatever the European style summaries are as well. That at least would seem (given my admittedly minimal knowledge of the subject) a reasonable way of handling issues. JoshuaZ 21:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Beer
Hi Mikebe. Yes, I'm still active, though I haven't made any posts to the beer project page lately, and it seems no ones else has either. I've been busy cleaning up a few San Antonio related articles plus articles on beers (High Falls Brewing Company, Champale, Shiner, etc.). I've also been busy looking up information for the article on Pearl Brewing Company. Pearl really seems to be an endless task that I'm never 100% with certain sections enough to move on. Things have been pretty quiet around the project page, maybe its just because of the holidays, with everyone being too busy to post. Hopefully things will pick up around the project when the new year rolls around. Feel free to drop by my talk page any time though for a chat. :) Cheers! --Brownings 11:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yea, it was 6 or 7AM when I was posting. I'm in San Antonio, Texas, but I post all times of the day and night since I only sleep 4 or 5 hours a night.  As for chatting, well this is it as far as Wikipedia goes.  Nothing fancy like an IM or anything, so I guess it's more like a semi-private forum than anything.  As for what to chat about, well, any articles you'd like help with or an opinion on, just let me know.  I'm more of a history person than anything, which is one of the reasons I redo the background on breweries more than anything.  I've adjusted some of the beer styles, but nothing major in that area outside of my changes to the article on Malt liquor.  If you need any help though, I'm willing to help.  --Brownings 14:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again Mikebe. Sorry that I haven't gotten back to you sooner, I've had a few issues recently with my computer, so Wiki time was limited.  At any rate, I read your message on my user talk page, and I can see where you have a point.  Articles shouldn't have a slant toward one country in particular.  The article should give a general or in-depth explanation of the subject, and then have any regional or country specific information in a sub-section or a whole other article.  Take for example the Wiki article on Prohibition.  If that article was written in the American only POV, then a lot of people would probably thing Prohibition was only tried in the US.  Instead it's broken up into sections and sub-articles on the different countries (i.e. Prohibition in Russian Empire and Soviet Union).  Honestly, if not for Wiki article I would have never even though of other countries having a Prohibition period.
 * I have no clue on home brewing and only a weak knowledge of the styles, but if what you're saying about the Belgium beer style is correct, then I think it should definitely CLEARLY state that its not a widely recognized style and usually only found in home brewing competitions. In addition, listing other styles or beers that are part of the "Belgium Style" could be very misleading to someone who's reading the information and trying to learn new things.  Instead of saying an example is PART of the style, say instead that the example is close in color, taste, etc. of what is considered Belgium.
 * As for your problems with Goethean and Oz I'm not sure what to say. I just hope the situation will eventually be resolved amicably, and doesn't drive contributors away from editing articles.  I say that WikiProject Beer needs all the help it can get, and while we'll never all be able to agree on everything, article discussions should never turn nasty.  --Brownings 17:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Belgian Strong Dark Ale
You stated: There seems to be a misunderstanding about Belgian Strong Dark Ale: it is solely a classification for home-brewing competitions.


 * If this is so, then why does, for instance, BeerAdvocate use the term in its list of styles: ? The term may have originated from the BJCP, but that obviously does not preclude its adoption elsewhere. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As you know, I tried talking to you on an adult and rational level before. As you also know, that didn't turn out too well. I am willing to forgive and forget, but I have a condition: my condition is simply that you talk with me with an open mind. I want to have the assurance that the possibility exists that you can change your mind. As I said on the tripel page, I am not willing to contribute to Wikipedia so long as you act as you have in the past. And, as I hope that conversation on the tripel page proved, there are contributions to Wikipedia that I am, in a sense, unique to make, especially since you have chased Ron Pattinson away. If you agree to this, I will reply to you. Mikebe 17:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Despite what you may think, I actually have quite an open mind and have certainly been convinced by reasoned intelligent argument to change it on many occasions. You can take it to the bank that I am open to being convinced that I am wrong. └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 18:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, it's not my goal to prove you wrong. It's my goal to improve the beer pages because some of them are pretty awful and to try to have you at least not fight with me over everything. One of the problems, and I may have expressed a lot of frustration about this, but it is a genuine problem, is that most of the contributors can only read English and for some of the European beers this a real problem because the accurate information seems only to be available in the local language. The tripel article is a fairly good example, the Märzen article is an even better example.


 * Another problem here is that many Americans see beers in terms of style, whereas Europeans don't. Here in Europe there are two ways of looking at beers: one is geographic, the other is the type. Alt is an example of a geographic name, kerstbier is an example of a type. A Trappist beer is a geographic "style" because the name describes where it came from.


 * You raise an interesting point with the beeradvocate link: this is, in a sense, the problem with all this style business. If you go to ratebeer, they have no such style (Belgian Strong Dark Ale). Furthermore, if you look up one of the beers (Alvinne Balthazar, for example) listed as a Belgian Strong Dark Ale on beeradvocate, on ratebeer they call it a Belgian Strong Ale, which is a much more commonly used description among English-speakers than Belgian Strong Dark Ale. Secondly, the beeradvocate is clearly very sloppy: they list Drie Ringen Bok as a Belgian Strong Dark Ale, when it is a bock beer, not strong (6.5% abv) and it is not even an ale!


 * This is exactly one of the reasons that I find the style guide links such a problem: the BJCP may call it one thing, but ratebeer or beeradvocate or Michael Jackson or Tim Webb or somebody else may call it something else. In the case of Belgian Strong Dark Ale, even beeradvocate and ratebeer can't agree, plus beeradvocate has thrown all kinds of other beers into the same category. Mikebe 18:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you weren't wrong, I was simply a little busy to respond properly, and then, gosh, I had to spend some time with my wife and then sleep.


 * You're right, there are all sorts of categories from all sorts of people and groups, and they're not all consistent. Those that are followed by enough people, though, need to be represented (correctly, of course, noting where the category is used and where it is not). BeerAdvocate obviously made a mistake if they included a Bock in their classification, and should be informed of this mistake—it does not make the category non-existent.  My various beer books use all sorts of styles for beers.  In one a beer might be a "Strong Ale", in another a "[Belgian] Golden Ale".  In one it doesn't even bother to try to classify a good many Belgian beers, even going so far as to call Duvel a "special beer"). However, the problem with pretending these classifications don't exist, as was pointed out to you on your AN/I complaint, is that instead of helping the beer drinker, it makes them ignorant of the regional variations in terminology and use.  If you have an article on a style type that is widely enough used to be notable for inclusion, and then explain the situation of that style in terms of world-wide use, you will be able to inform and educate without imposing your own definition as the correct one.


 * Europeans may not really see "style", but the vast majority of other beer drinkers do. I assure you it is not just an American thing—I have no doubt that Australia, South America, probably Africa, and at least Japan in Asia see beer in terms of style.  Heck, I'd even hazard to guess that the "style" view is basically used everywhere outside of Europe, generally because "style" is probably the most useful way of looking at beer when most variations come from Europe.  The term "kerstbier", whatever that is, probably can't be considered to be of any use to an Argentine.


 * I see you snickering at my need to mention "the rest of the world", as you probably think (like you do of the United States) that they can't possibly put out any good European-style beer. Well, I don't know about South America and Africa (the beers I have tried from there are generally weak lagers, i.e. Bavaria and Castle Lager), but I've tried a couple pretty good beers from Australia, and I know that some Japanese microbreweries make absolutely magnificent stuff.  Good fucking luck finding it outside of Japan, or probably even the immediate region of its production (although I have been able to find Hitachino Nest, which is probably not really a microbrew, nor the best, but still pretty good).  Probably most countries with a few dedicated beer-loving individuals have a microbrewery or two that puts out some pretty good beer.  And even if these places didn't make good beer, they still get a say in terminology, both on and off of Wikipedia.


 * I'd even go so far as to assume that outside of the "centre of the beer world"—Benelux, Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic—the use of styles as a major descriptor for beer is probably not nearly as unheard-of as you make it out to be. I've seen a British beer site use the term "Belgian Strong Golden Ale", which even if more common than "Belgian Strong Dark Ale" is no different in actuality (it lumps together a bunch of beers by country, strength, and colour).  Since styles are so prevalently used in the beer world, they absolutely have to be an important part of the beer articles on Wikipedia).  To ignore them would be something akin to writing the history of the American Revolution from only the English side, or the War of 1812 from only the American side (most Americans think they won the war of 1812, which is an insult to a Canadian like me).


 * Anyway, back to the issue at hand: When there are several styles that are exact or close matches, it would probably be a good idea to redirect the style names to an article which is named that of the most common of the lot, and then note the name variations (and any small variations in the criteria for those other styles) in the article. Also, other styles which are different enough to warrant their own articles, but which may overlap (or entirely include the other) should be noted and linked to, i.e. your comment about "Belgian Strong Dark Ale" and "Belgian Strong Ale" ("Strong" obviously includes all those some might call "Strong Dark", as well as anything someone else might call "Strong Golden" or "Strong Pale").  In fact, doing it this way actually gives enough substance to grow a useful article, instead of a five-sentence stub (it can inform the reader much better about not only the term they were looking for, but the general styles it is kin with).


 * I hope at least some of that was useful. └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 14:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that common names for beer groupings should be redirects to a significant article. SilkTork 10:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

reply
Thanks for the update. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

my agenda
I would appreciate it if you would expand on your comment here and tell me what you perceive my agenda to be. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And I would appreciate if you would stay out of beer project discussions since you don't contribute to the project. Mikebe 17:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I wish that I could say that I am surprised to have my extremely reasonable request countered by an outrageous one. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Outrageous? Strange, I thought it was true. Tell me, what have your contributed? Mikebe 21:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * On reflection, I think that it would be irresponsible of me not to warn you that saying that a user has an agenda is a violation of WP:AGF and that asking a user to stay away from certain pages is a violation of WP:CIVIL. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're going to lecture me on civility? After attacking me personally. Thanks for the update. Mikebe 21:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Imitation is most sincere form of flattery. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

imp st
So add some British examples. The US is a more notable producer of imperial stouts than Scandinavia. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

AMA Request
Hi Mikebe,

Give me a few moments to look over the talk pages so we can begin your case. \/\/slack (<i style="color:#001E6E;">talk</i>) 00:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems there's been some back and forth involving this. I'm not going into the content dispute: I know little/nothing about beer and its seems that that discussion didn't provoke your request since you only filed Goethean as the other party.


 * Saying "And I would appreciate if you would stay out of beer project discussions since you don't contribute to the project." wasn't very constructive and did violate WP:AGF. He is obviously contributing (being a part of the editing process), but his work is such that you don't view it as constructive in my view. Does that sound right?


 * I'm also seeing references to a personal attack that I can't find. Could you enlighten me? Respond here so we can keep it all together, please. Thanks! \/\/slack  (<i style="color:#001E6E;">talk</i>) 00:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Mikebe, ZoshuaZ, a fellow-admin friend of mine, suggested I might be able to help you out here a bit. Do you want to talk about your problem with another user?  Not that I'm an expert on beer, just a consumer (of English, French, Belgian, some German and American beers.  Beeer! Mmmmmmm!). Guy (Help!) 22:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Beer style
Hi Mike. You edited this sentence in Beer style: "While the systematic study of beer styles, as exemplified by the BJCP, a non-profit home-brewing organisation in USA, is a modern phenomenon, the act of beer differentiation itself is ancient and widespread." and removed "as exemplified by the BJCP, a non-profit home-brewing organisation in USA." Would you read the sentence again. I think you'll see that the sentence makes sense, and that BJCP is one of the organisations most responsible for promoting the notion of a systematic study of beer styles. The description of BJCP is - I think - fairly accurate: "a non-profit home-brewing organisation in USA" - and puts them into context. This is not a promotion of BJCP at all, but an accurate and honest reflection of the situation. If you feel the sentence is in some way honouring or promoting BJCP would you explain it to me. I could use the word amateur rather than non-profit - though both words carry about the same weight and meaning in this context. I have said home-brewing, which gently points out where they are coming from. The systematic study of beer styles is a neutral term - how the reader responds to that would depend on how they view the concept of putting beers in beer style boxes. If the reader is against such an approach, then mention of BJCP as being one of the leading organisations responsible for such activity would be seen as a negative comment - like saying Beecher was responsible for reducing the number of railway branch lines in the UK. I understand your concern to make the beer information on Wikipedia more accurate, though I think you might be better employed at ADDING material to articles rather than REMOVING them - especially when the stuff you remove is attempting to put a large and influential organisation into context. Attempting to white-wash any event or organisation out of history is not what Wiki is about. Take care. SilkTork 08:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

O dear
I see you've removed a big chunk of history. I just came to that article to check some details and reference it, and I can't find the information. You've deleted a huge amount of text. Mike. This is not a helpful thing to do. I'm not in favour of reverting stuff without first talking it through with people. If you have problems with that article, lets talk about it. Make it right. Do the work that you feel is needed. At the moment you have simply removed huge chunks of text but haven't added anything. Talk to me. I'm concerned. SilkTork 08:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Response

 * I'm sorry, but those assertions: that I'm "obsessed" with homebrewing, and that the "world at lerge" doesn't share an interest in it, are simply false. It is a prominent activity in the US, but I don't live in the US, I live in Britain, where homebrewing has lots of history; in fact for a long time, as I'm sure you're aware, there was little distinction between homebrewing and commercial brewing. So too elsewhere in Europe; all these farmhouse ales (sahti, saison, kvass) are predominantly produced at home today.


 * Finally, I'm not edit warring. --Stlemur 21:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Help request

 * Hi Mikebe, do you need help with something? --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. A friend of mine has been personally attacked by an editor here, as I have in the past, and I think it is time to take serious action against the editor. How do I do that? Mikebe 13:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You can give the one that personal attacked a warning via WP:WARN, and if he is past his final warning you can report him via WP:AIV, hope thsi helps. TheBlazikenMaster 13:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. Mikebe 13:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Beer styles
Mikebe,

I didn't create that template, and I don't know enough about beer styles to determine exactly which belongs where -- I mostly just added the template to a number of articles. If you want to change the template, assuming there's reasonable consensus about what category things belong in, then it's fairly simple: just go to any page that has the template on it, and click the little "e" (for edit) in the template box. The "d" is for discussion (talk page), and the "v" is for view, i.e. the main template page. You can also go there directly at Template:Beer Styles, and from there you can edit the template.

Finally, I think that template is still a work in progress, so if you're aware of any other articles that belong in it or any items that belong in different groupings, please be encouraged to improve it! --Daniel11 21:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Tripel Article
Well, it looks like you completely removed my additon and didn't just change it. I never said any of the breweries have recently started brewing beers stronger than tripels. I just sated that they DO brew beers stronger than the tripel. There's a big difference. You cite a source above that says "The tripel was meant to mean that of a range of beers, it was the strongest". This is confussing with respect to Chimay and La Trappe because they produce beers stronger than their tripel. This is a fact, not disputable. Why then did you delete the statement? --

Also, I don't know where you see me claiming that Westvleteren and Rochefort beers are new beers. I guess I'm all confused by the message you left on my talk page.Beakerboy 19:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Beer template
Mikebe,

Thanks for your comment, and I'm glad you appreciated the help and made some changes. I believe the template could still use a significant amount of reworking, as I indicated on the template's talk page. The whole thing might be reorganized along different lines than the current division by country. About ale and lager specifically, it's ok to include broader groupings than just styles, for instance the beer by country template shows not just the different countries, but also more general links to beer by continent and even articles that apply to beer globally. I think if the template were organized by style, then it would be even clearer, as one would see the various styles under the appropriate categories for ale, lager, lambic, etc. Also, you mentioned a worry that if all styles are included, the template would grow quite large, but that's nothing to worry about, as a very large amount of information can reasonably be fit in a template and remain readable. So, we should definitely aim to include all styles of beer that we can amass.

As for the homebrewing content, I believe it should remain in the main articles. It's inappropriate to create separate articles on the same topic to address it from different points of view. If you believe that a particular article requires more material of a certain kind, the best thing is to add that, rather than to try to balance it somehow by removing other parts of the article or splitting it into different versions of the same article aimed at different audiences.

Hope this helps! --Daniel11 06:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Cont'd
Mikebe,

Thanks for the note -- gimme a bit to get back to you. I hope you don't mind if I reply here. --Daniel11 15:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Beer cans
Good catch; I hadn't noticed the footnote that cans were lumped in with bottles!!!! -- Orange Mike 13:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Beer issues
Mikebe,

First of all, I apologize for not getting back to you in so long. Life happened, as they say, and I've been out of town a fair bit and generally busy, and haven't had the time to compose an appropriate response to your initial e-mail. I didn't really want to send a half-written response, so I kept putting it off, and never got around to it -- but it's still on my list of things to do.

As for the most recent edits, I don't feel particularly strongly one way or another about beer styles/beer types and quadrupel, I just feel that we (i.e. the whole beer project community) are nowhere near a consensus on these issues, and that therefore it's more appropriate for us to discuss these issues than to make edits about them.

While no one may have objected to one particular post you made, you should bear in mind that a lot of people are on-and-off and haven't yet seen it, and with other proposals people did disagree. As I said, I think it still needs a bit more time and discussion -- and in the end we may agree to go with something altogether different than the current proposals, so I personally don't feel like there's anything to get stressed about yet.

I'll try to get back to you re your initial comment, although I expect I'll probably be fairly busy for the next little while so I can't say when, but it's definitely on my list of things to do, and once again I'm sorry about my delay in responding to you. Cheers! --Daniel11 04:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Resize image/Belgian Beer
I would appreciate it if you would reconsider/revert the miniaturisation of the image in the Belgian beer article. There are two reasons: 1. the image is now so small, it is very unclear what it is, and 2. the size reduction has left a large empty space on the page. Thanks. Mikebe 10:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. However it is Wiki guideline that images are not forced because users can select their own viewing size. Images Image use policy Manual_of_Style. The guidelines do allow for adjustments in size if the image is not readable. Though, in that case, it might be advisable to find another image that is not going to cause other users a problem. Incidentally, I didn't shrink or miniaturise the image - I simply removed the size forcing.

If you'd like to see images larger: Go to "my preferences" then "files" then select a thumbnail size of 300px and the image will appear larger for you. I hope that helps - if not, please get back to me with some beers and a doughnut! Regards SilkTork 13:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As it happens, I know the people who made the picture (after a long discussion). They are Belgians and were not happy to see a picture of Leffe representing their country. IAC, if you look at the main beer article, you'll see that there are not one, but three images that fill up the empty space nicely. Also the images are of objects large enough that reducing the size leaves them still recognisable. However, below these images are two other photos, both at "normal" size. I understand your point about setting my preferences, however, my concern is for the average visitor who will only see a small, indecipherable image. I can go back to the Belgians and ask them to use another picture, but if you could force it up a few sizes in the meantime, that would be nice. Thanks. Mikebe 16:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Leffe is a popular, notable and well made brand of beer brewed in Belgium. The Leffe Triple is bottle conditioned and fits in well with other brands of Belgian beer. It is fairly typical of the beers for which Belgium is well known. Are your Belgium friends indulging in a bit of beer snobbery? Wiki is not a platform for the POV of beer geeks (and I'm certainly a beer geek - but on Wiki I am a Wiki editor first and foremost). However, I have changed the image for one of Westvleteren beers. The 12, as you might be aware, attracted world wide media attention for being acclaimed as the best beer in the world. A little tongue-in-cheek maybe, but also, I think, an appropriate compromise between the unclear and cluttered labels image and the contentious Leffe image. What do you think? SilkTork 13:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm pleased. I have no problems with Leffe myself. I drink it and I enjoy it. Nor do I have the problems with InBev as some beer geeks do. Business is business and many breweries which have been around a while have been ivolved in merges and takeovers. Westvleteren's termination of the contract with St Bernardus was a business decision that didn't go smoothly and so lost them the notable yeast (which St Bernardus still use). So be it. SilkTork 15:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Roggenbier
Hello;

You just removed the references section from the Roggenbier article with the edit summary, "rm unnecessary reference". Why is that source unnecessary? It was the sole source used in the article and the article had already been tagged with a sources tag by another editor before adding it. Neil916 (Talk) 15:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Very simple: how is an American home-brewing organisation an authority on a German beer type? Mikebe 18:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wheat Beer
Hello, Mikebe. Regarding your recent edits to the Wheat beer article, please refrain from removing material which is pertinent, verifiable, and properly cited. Calling such material "nonsense" and "non-authoritative" in descriptions of your edits is not productive, and can only hurt people's opinion of you. If there's something which is pertinent, authoritative, and properly referenced in an article which you disagree with for some reason, you may wish use the discussion page. Thank you! Lovibond 21:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion
Hi. We meet again. :) Just wanted to let you know that the conversation at Talk:Wheat beer seems already to involve three editors, which makes it inappropriate for Third opinion. Hopefully, if you guys can't reach consensus, Requests for comment will be able to help. That process seems to have become more complicated since they've subdivided it, but I doubt that anyone will object too strenuously if you list something in the wrong place there, as long as it's not obviously misplaced. (Like under "religion" or something. :)) Good luck. --Moonriddengirl 17:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Quadrupel Merge
There was no consensus, your merge was illegitimate. Please revert or I will escalate this. 1Z 09:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Be my guest. Mikebe 09:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Beer stuff
Hi,

Sorry again about the huge delay in getting back about the beer stuff. As I'd mentioned before, life's been busy. I've now had a chance to think through some of the issues (although I don't have anything even remotely like a conclusive opinion on most of the subjects you raised). Also, I guess the delay's at least given us all a chance to cool off a bit and work on other less contentious topics, hopefully.

I still believe (in my opinion rather than in any capacity as an arbiter or anything like that) that some brewing information concerning beers does belong in the articles. First of all, it's of a general encyclopedic interest how beers are made, not just how they're consumed. Second, beer drinking is as much a hobby as homebrewing, so by that criterion they'd both be out, but I think we have to recognize that important and relevant information has come from the homebrewing world which bears interest to the general encyclopedia-reading population. As I believe I mentioned before, I myself am not a homebrewer and have no knowledge of or devotion to homebrewing, so I myself am speaking from what I consider this general perspective.

I thoroughly agree that any instructional information about homebrewing does not belong in beer articles, for instance a how-to on brewing some specific type of beer. Although I don't think I've really seen much or any of that around in my browsing.

As to the correctness of information provided by different individuals (some homebrewers and some non-homebrewers), I generally don't know enough about beer to answer decisively whether one side is wholly ignorant, or if each side makes similar numbers of mistakes, or something else entirely. I'm not a beer expert at all, so unfortunately I can't really help to resolve those issues. I would suggest that each side make a concerted effort to work through things as calmly and rationally as possible, make deliberate attempts to avoid conflicts even when some ongoing issues are disputed, etc. I think the regular Wikipedia channels would probably be the most effective tool to resolve these disputes -- i.e. 1) try to work to consensus on the beer talk pages among the differing editors; 2) solicit third-party consensus from the beer project; 3) if that still isn't working (as has happened in at least a few cases), persist a little harder in trying to get everyone to make compromises and then go to the non-beer Wikipedia dispute resolution mechanisms. I believe that a non-beer observer would be able to put things in perspective where disputes get extremely detailed and seem "never-ending."

As for people leaving the beer project or Wikipedia, I think that's regrettable no matter which side of any argument they're on what their reasons are. I would encourage everyone to make an effort to be gentle when issues get heated to the point that people are leaving, and to put aside partisan conflict stuff at least until things cool off. It's not worth getting upset over Wikipedia, people just do it for its own reward, i.e. when they find it enjoyable etc. I can understand it's frustrating to deal with a lot of hard-headed people with whom one disagrees, especially if one perceives them to be wrong (or if they are wrong). I personally think it's still worth editing, and making an extra effort to be polite even with such people, but if others would rather leave, then as regrettable as it is, it's up to them.

I'm sure you'll find at least some of what I wrote disappointing (or worse). The fact is, I don't have any more authority or knowledge than anyone else in the beer project and can't really resolve any of the major issues myself. I personally feel that they can be worked through by people taking a cooperative attitude and looking for areas of agreement, and accepting that even then some frustrations will remain. However, if it's so unpleasant for an individual to edit beer articles, then I would recommend just not doing it for a bit, work on other areas, and consider coming back to beer again later. That might mean that some beer articles won't have perfect information for a period of time, but that will be the case no matter what, and this way it becomes more likely to reach the ideal balance in the long term, and for everyone involved to be happy.

Let me know if you'd like any further opinions, but as I think should be clear by now I can't really offer to solve all the problems anyway. Still, I'd be happy to continue discussing this if you would find it worthwhile.

Cheers! --Daniel11 05:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Deceptive edit summary
Here you removed a block of text, but your edit sumary was "removed dead link". Please make your edit summaries reflect the changes you make to articles. Thank you. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Beer category decision
A discussion has been opened on changes that have been made to the existing Beer category system. The changes reverse the decision made by the Project in April 2006. The changes were based on agreement by only two people, and by a discussion that took place outside the Beer Project. There may be some merit in the changes, and to prevent future conflict it is important that there is some discussion of the matter. If you're interested, please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"Rv last revision by ClockworkSoul"
Just FYI, this edit, which you reverted here, wasn't me. It was an anon reverting my edit. – ClockworkSoul 21:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

American barleywines: why continually delete additions to this section?
Looking over the history of this page, it appears you and one other user have deleted several attempted additions to the section listing examples of American barleywines, citing "enough US examples" as the reason for their deletion. My basic question is "Why?" One would think that an encyclopedic list of examples of the style would only add to the quality and utility of this article.

How does removing legitimate style examples improve the quality of the article? Moreover, there are currently twelve examples of English Barleywines and eight examples of American barleywines in the article. Is it your contention that there should be more examples of English barleywines in the article? If so, what is your rationale?

More specifically, I see you removed my addition of Old Ruffian the last time I placed it in the article. That particular barleywine belongs in ANY discussion of American barleywines. That's not a matter of my personal bias or preference (it's certainly not my favorite brew). But Old Ruffian IS the most widely available, best-reviewed American barleywine currently in production (see beeradvocate.com and/or ratebeer.com for evidence of these facts).

It could be argued, then, that Old Ruffian is THE seminal example of an American barleywine right now, which would almost mandate its appearance in any discussion/list of examples of the style. Why not allow its inclusion in this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by UGADawgGuy (talk • contribs) 04:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Authoritative material in Mãrzen
Dear Mikebe: I've restored the Daniels reference in the Mãrzen page. Mr Daniels's credentials are impressive; he has, among other things, founded a beer sommelier training program. Regardless, your blanket statement that "American homebrewers are not a reliable source on foreign beer styles" is not only inaccurate, but violates Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPOV. Please refrain from such destructive actions, and help make this a better place for all. Thank you. Lovibond (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Mikebe: I've read your comments on my talk page. I find it disturbing that you saw fit to delete the reference to Mr Daniels's work, in spite of your statement that you are familiar with neither him nor it. It meets the criterion of WP:RS, perhaps you'd like to familiarize yourself with them there? It is also disturbing that you claim as fact your opinion of "American home brewers on foreign beer styles" as fact. First of all, this violates Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view; secondly, you seem rather anxious to identify North Americans with whom you disagree as "homebrewers." You made this unsubstantiated statement about me; you did the same with Mr Daniels. Your justification for such statements, please? Both Mr Daniels and myself are familiar with German beer, and we understand the relationship between Dortmunder Export and Mãrzen: both are export-strength (between 12.5 and 14 percent original extract); both were traditionally brewed from dark malts (Dortmunder and Mũnchner or Wiener, respectively); both may express both hop and malt in their flavor and aroma in relative balance...aside from your point that both are bottom-fermented. I cannot speak for the Deutscher Brauer-Bund as to why they did not mention this obvious relationship, but I would not expect to see there every fact relating to these beer styles. The omission of such a comparison does not constitute proof that there is no relationship. In closing, I urge you to respect (or at least tolerate) the learned, well-researched, and scholarly opinions of others, even of those with whom you disagree, and to refrain from attacking other points of view because you disagree with them. Thank you for your cooperation, Mikebe! Lovibond (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Styles vs. Types of Beer
You recently edited a beer page to change the word style to type. What's the difference? Isn't a style just a type? Or is there more to it than that? philosofool (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that a "style" is a description of characteristics of a beer (colour, taste, etc.), while a "type" is just a classification system. In Europe, "type" is the preferred term (for example: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_biersoorten and http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie:Biersorte) because there are not "styles" here in the sense that there is a common formula for every type of beer. In Belgian beer, lambick, tripel, dubbel, etc. have very little in common with each other as far as "style." As I'm sure you will agree, lager and ale are not styles, but types. Types is therefore inclusive of all beers, while styles is more limited. Again, that is how I understand it. Mikebe (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. You are definitely right that lager is not a style and that ale is not a style, but that each are types. So all styles are types, but not the other way around. However, I don't think that style implies a great deal of homogeneity of flavor at all. American beers labeled IPA is probably better classified by the process used to make the beer rather than the sensory results, for example. American IPA ranges from solventy, over-bitter, super bubbly almost acrid smelling stuff to lushiously hoppy, bitter with a malt backbone, floral, and citrusy stuff. What unifies the group is that they are all-malt (or nearly so), usually including crystal malt and not including roast malts, with high levels of bitterness and alcohol, any american brewer will tell you that handling the hops and fermentation in IPA is a difficult matter and that there is no one "formula" for making IPA. There's also a clear historical descent that gave rise to American IPA. But I wouldn't say that homogeneity of flavors is a feature of these beers at all. Certainly no one in the U.S. says that lambic and tripel are the same style, nor that styles must be homogeneous. philosofool (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

American sources for non-American styles?
To answer your question: well, it depends. It's always frustrated me that we have to use any brewing guides to support historical discussions. As an academic, I wish brewing history attracted more scholars. When non-scholars write about an historical topic, they aren't subject to the kind of scrutiny that keeps the consensus balanced. I haven't seen Cornell's book, so I don't know how I would categorize it. What we're left with, though, are brewing guides--some of them for hobbyists--that are often wrong, as well as well-researched (but O.R.) blogs and the like. I don't mind the brewing guides as long as we treat them critically. That is, we follow the footnotes and judge the author's interpretations of the sources with a critical mind. To summarize my view, I think weight should be placed on the most scholarly sources available, and that otherwise we just have to do the best we can with what we have. Dunkelweizen (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

We can do this by e-mail. I've enabled my address and will disable it as soon as I hear from you. Just a warning, though--I won't be able to work on this very quickly, as I have work that has to get done soon. Dunkelweizen (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hoegaarden glasses
So which other brewer supplies hexagonal glasses, Mike? 1Z (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Beer style & edit warring
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Look, the page was protected for two weeks, and as soon as the protection was lifted you're back at it. The other guy's an obvious vandal, his page history's loaded with warnings, just let him get banned. --Killing Vector (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you and your buddy vector lost the battle over the BJCP external link. How's that crow taste?Sgt dizzle guy (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

BJCP link will be included. Sgt dizzle guy (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

My POV
Mikebe, I work hard to suppress my point of view and ensure that my actions are guided wholly by the evaluation of trends in one's actions, writing styles, and editing patterns. I have looked over the discussions very carefully, and this was simply the most recent statistical quirk that was significant enough to act on, and it certainly won't be the last. If I'm wrong, which is always likely in this kind of thing, then I'll be very pleased, and you can take more easily take a high-road position. Certainly your can understand my reasoning: intractable bias and underhanded maneuvers like sock-puppetry just pollute the discourse, making any real progress completely impossible. I've seen far too many good projects atrophy and stagnate, sometimes for years, because of behaviors like those. Egos get bruised, good editors leave, and Wikipedia is worse off for it.

Try not to take the request personally, because it's very much not personal: I'll always do what I think is right for Wikipedia, and will request such queries regardless who who the subject is or what opinions they espouse. I try to be swayed neither by personal allegiances nor old rivalries. Fianlly, you have to admit, to refer to you as a rabid critic of the BJCP is not only not an insult – we all have our strong opinions and points of view – but demonstrably true. If you like, I can illustrate how I came to that conclusion.

Finally, I have a very important request to make of you. Looking over two years worth of debates, I've noticed that when challenged (rightly or otherwise), you often respond with a list of other people's wrongdoings, as you did with the post on my user talk page. I'm sure you don't mean it as such, but that makes it seem as though you're trying to justify an action with the "they did it first" defense, which weakens your position considerably. You would be far more successful by presenting evidence that the accusation is wrong (if it's available), or simply ignoring it (if it's unfounded). Try to remember the words of Jonathan Swift: "it is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into".

Finally, don't worry: questionable actions by others, on both sides of this debate, will be examined as well. – ClockworkSoul 18:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Query: any good in-depth texts?
Hi, Mikebe. I'm running critically short of reading material to help me procrastinate from my actual responsibilities. Can you recommend any good in-depth texts, preferably academic and in dead tree format, that we would find useful and relevant for the Beer Project? Many thanks, and have a happy new years! Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 17:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello again! I'm afraid that your suggesting that I learn Dutch (or German or Czech) doesn't help me much. Surely, there must be at least one decent English language resource available that you know of? – ClockworkSoul 07:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Mike. Thanks for the help. Just FYI, I never said I won't learn any languages: I am currently working on French, German, and (painfully) Mandarin, but I'm looking for something that I can delve into sooner, rather than later. Thanks again! – ClockworkSoul 18:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Hi Mikebe. Looking over his comments and your reply, it seems to be that he was actually relatively polite. Further, it's looks like he has read your arguments, but he just don't agree with them. Frankly, it looks to me like he was quite polite, and that it was you who lashed out inappropriately; and now you've just called him a troll because you haven't convinced him. I expect that you'll now accuse me of bias, since that's how these things tend to go, so instead of firing off an angry post that you'll probably regret why not submit a user conduct RfC and see what outside editors think? – ClockworkSoul 23:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Spammer
Post a request on the appropriate incident pages. Personally, I don't think she's intentionally spamming, but there's a good amount of repeated text, so it is a shade of gray. Other may disagree with me. As for 3RR, I see no evidence of it. If you can show me how I'm wrong, then I'll enforce the appropriate block. – ClockworkSoul 16:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Heya Mikebe. The exam isn't until the 22 January, and it's expected to be brutal. I believe I overheard somebody use the word "bloodbath" to describe it. Take a look at WP:3RR again; you'll see that it prohibits making more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, so she doesn't seem to have violated 3RR. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 21:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that must be incredibly frustrating. I'll take a look, but as a rule of thumb I don't get involved in edit disputes unless somebody is being blatantly uncivil or is otherwise clearly violating policies. In these cases, though, I have no reservations about taking the appropriate administrative action(s). If it's not very clear, I prefer to refer people to the appropriate boards where action can be decided upon by a group, or at posting a warning/polite suggestion and then monitoring the situation for a while. – ClockworkSoul 22:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hoegaarden
Instead of reverting Betty Logan's edits by calling them irrelevant, you might get a better result if you explained why you believed them to be irrelevant. Apparently, it's not common for beers to be suitable vegans, which makes it a unique feature of this particular brew. Why do you think it's not relevant? - Mgm|(talk) 10:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was unaware she was adding the same link to multiple pages. That is indeed a problem. By the way, vegans and vegetarians are two different things. Glue is often not vegan proof as it can contain animal products. - Mgm|(talk) 11:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I find her actions extremely suspicious. She claims to be a new user, for example, however, by late December, she seems to have already mastered at least one of the more obscure requests: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=259952086
 * From her posts on the admin noticeboard as well as elsewhere, she seems to have a rather loose definition of fact. She also displays a pattern of doing something wrong, then denying it or explaining it away afterwards. Adding all this up together, I see someone of highly questionable motivation.
 * Thanks for the explanation of vegan vs. vegetarian, however, my reasoning still stands: why call glue "Dietary Information"? Mikebe (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd call it a bad choice of words. Vegans don't need to eat it, some are so strict that its presence in the product is enough to cause problems.- Mgm|(talk) 12:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

beer style
Hi. First of all, let me say that I was rather disappointed in you that when I corrected you about the BJCP director who had made the comments, you failed to acknowledge your error. Also, there are a couple of things I would appreciate your comments on: you wrote on the beer style talk page about what you called "sensory similarities" (or the Michael Jackson) sort beer categorisation. Isn't that sort of categorisation mostly popular in the US? I know it is not particularly popular in the UK, which is more interested in traditional categorisation. Secondly, you wrote that there were several ways of categorising beer, yet the article is only concerned with the sensory/BJCP type and ignores any other type. Would you support changing the article to beer categorisation instead of beer style and instead of listing only one type, list others as well? Mikebe (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, Mikebe. Regarding your "correction," be advised Kristen England is not a BJCP Director. There are seven Directors, and Dr England is not one of them. He does not speak for the BJCP officially other than in his capacity as director of Continuing Education. I did not say Dr England did not make those comments, I simply pointed out that he was speaking as an individual. Why did I not apologize? Because I was correct. Regarding the name of the article, I would support such a change. It can better communicate the different ways of categorizing beers. Congratulations for a good suggestion! Lovibond (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Pale ale
I notice you have started removing the BJCP links again from the beer articles such as Pale ale. Since there is no consensus on this issue yet you must not remove the links, as many editors will consider it vandalism. Consider this a warning, and I hope I do not have to take further action. Betty Logan (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Help?
Might you be able to lend a hand with the discussion at the talk page of Betty Logan (talk)? All self-explanatory. And looking back at her talk page discussion this is a pattern. Everything is now even sourced, and she continues to delete my entries. Thanks.--Ethelh (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Quadrupel dispute
I suggest you take the matter to Mediation Cabal. It is fairly easy to file a Mediation request. Regards 11:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

De Struise Brouwers
Hi Mikebe! Thanks for your helpful comments on the DSB page. I'm new to direct conversation with other editors, and I hope that responding on your talk page is the right way to go. Despite your flattering guess, in fact I don't read much Dutch or French. So I'd like to update the page to accurately reflect the owners' origins, but am not sure I got the gist of the 2005 Nieuwsblad article right. If you would give my revised text at De Struise Brouwers a once-over and fine-tune it if you see fit, that would be great.--Shorn again (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point on the need to expand the article. I gave it a whack and started to add some more info and events, beers and a logo. Take a look when you get a chance and see if you can go from there, still needs improvement. It's hard to find secondary sources for these small breweries as many references to them are blogs and the like. Maybe you have access to some more good non-English sources like the Dutch-language article?--Shorn again (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Annafest! Lucky dog. Hey, maybe you can goad Ron P. into doing more editing - surely you will run into him. Then after returning from Switzerland you can start a Brasserie des Franches-Montagnes article . . . . no rest for the wicked! No, seriously, enjoy yourself. I like the good Dutch bokbiers better than German bocks myself, but to each his own! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shorn again (talk • contribs) 17:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Article ownership
Based on a few recent comments at Talk:Tripel, it sounds like you're trying to "own" the article in an inappropriate way. I also see that you're edit warring over it. This type of behavior could get you blocked if you continue. Also, your assertion that not a single word of the article is correct is just bizarre, and will probably cause many editors to simply discount whatever you say. You should try to make more of an effort to collaborate usefully with others. Friday (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You are engaging in blatant edit waring with no attempt discussion or negotiation. 1Z (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Last chance: dso you intend to edit co-operatively from now on? 1Z (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well? 1Z (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm very well. Thanks for asking. Mikebe (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you're not co-operating as various third parties have suggested, which leaves me no option to escalate, and your non-co-operation is going to look bad when this is escalated. 1Z (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, I was trying to lighten the mood, but I see you're not interested, so, fine. I would be very happy to go with third-party mediation. I see nothing wrong with the article as it stands, yet you do. I've asked you: "If there is a fact in ST article that is missing, tell me what it is and I'll check it." You never responded. So, yes, I think third-party mediation is the best way to go. I'll see how to start it. Mikebe (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you actually mean the Silk Tork article?


 * Several inverention shave already been made. Most of them recommend combining/rewriting the articles. I have been trying to find out whether you would co-operate in that process, and you have not been co-operating even in answerign the quesiton. 1Z (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that the article we're talking about? If not, please enlighten me. Mikebe (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you proposing to use SilkTork's version of the article as the basis for a re-write>? I am asking because I have already tried this. I tried incorporating your objections, and you just reverted without disucssion. I am not going to try again unless I can get assurances from you that you will not do the same again. 12:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if you actually signed your messages. I assume from the content it is Peter. Regarding SilkTork's version: there are one or two sentences that come from the older version. Other than those one or two sentences, there is nothing usable in that version since he either: 1. did not use reliable sources or 2. misquoted the reliable sources he did use. I have already asked you twice what from his version you think is usable and you have never replied to either request. Funny how you keep complaining that I won't co-operate and when I ask for your cooperation, you do nothing. IAC, as you know, I have filed a request for mediation. I hope you will be honourable enough to not make any changes until the mediation is done. Mikebe (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. If you don't intend to use the ST article why did you say so?


 * Show me where I said so.


 * "If there is a fact in ST article that is missing, tell me what it is and I'll check it."


 * 2. Your claim about there being "nothign useable" in the ST article remains completley unsubstantiated (and 'bizarre' as third parties have noted). The very small number of substantiable issues you have raised with it can be easily addressed,as I have already demonstrated. You must edit in a line-by-line claim-by-claim manner, with attention to WP:RS. Theses sweepign I-just-don't-like-it claims won't wash. Do you intend to edit properly, or are you going to continue in the behaviour yuou have been repeatedly warned about?1Z (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, the charming Peter returns. How nice. Since you want to behave this way, let's just wait for the mediation. Mikebe (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The way I am behaving is reminding you of editing principles you should have been following all along.


 * Most forms of mediation require co-operation. Are you going to co-operate? Are you going to abide by a decision? You do have a history of ignoring third-party comments for instance Friday's warning above, and Silktork's admonition on talk:Beer style.


 * Now you are back, are you going to continue the process on Tripel? 1Z (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Article issues
You might try raising your questions about sourcing and article content on the WP:article content noticeboard where other editors can consider it and weigh in. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

the pith
Hence, it seems you're more keen on getting my email address than getting help. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
I thought I had addressed the content issues. I don't see any other problems, but maybe I'm overlooking something? --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want a reply, you'll have to turn on your Wikipedia email. --Ronz (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I almost never use email to discuss Wikipedia matters. I do make exceptions if there is an important reason to do so, especially about matters that should be held with some degree of confidentiality.  However, I don't understand why a discussion about reliable sources should be done via email. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't understand why a discussion needs to be done via email. If you insist, start by explaining the situation.  So far, all I know is that you want to communicate by email and that you're upset that I'd rather not use email.  --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I found Ron's sockpuppet, now I will find yours Mike
That is all —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makemeame (talk • contribs) 01:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

MIke and Ron lost their battle with the BJCP
lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.145.107.82 (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC) Not really. Seeing as the BJCP have been consulting me on their guidlines, I'd say that was a win for me. Look at the latest guidelines: I'm one of the people credited. Unlike you, to whom no-one pays the slightest fucking attention. LOL.