User talk:BarrelProof/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

References

Please have a look at WP:RS to see the sort of references I'm calling for. Own sites can be used for extra info, but outside reliable refs are needed. Peridon (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I kind of tend to work incrementally. I think I do a pretty good job of adding good references eventually, but my initial focus may sometimes just be getting something decent written as a best current understanding. –BarrelProof (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia

Best to you. Welcome. You might want to consider adding something (anything) to your WP:User page. It gets the red out of your name in edit summaries. If I can be of assistance, feel free to call. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Stan

Done. Thanks. –BarrelProof (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

New Bourbon or Whiskey Pages

Hi BarrelProof,
As I mentioned two weeks ago and since you have done such great work both ORGANIZING and adding to articles, I wanted to help contribute in some way to make the Bourbon section better. Well yesterday I started contributing. I started whiskey stubs for the following 7 brands and included Photos of the bottles, they are: Kentucky Gentleman, Bernheim, Elijah Craig, Fighting Cock, Old Taylor and Hancock's President's Reserve.
I also added Photos of whiskey bottles on some existing pages such as Basil Hayden, Woodford Reserve, Maker's Mark, Evan Williams Single Barrel, Ezra Brooks, Old Ezra 101, Four Roses Small Batch, Elijah Craig 18 yr-old, Heaven Hill, Old Fitzgerald, Old Grand Dad, Virginia Gentleman and George Dickel.
Please feel free to add any information you know or can find out on the 7 New Pages above. Right now they are only stubs and desperately need to be expanded. I hope this is too much at once. I have even more to contribute.

I will be starting pages for the following as whiskey stubs (a few by Tuesday and a few more next week): Old Forester, Rock Hill Farms Single-Barrel, Old Heaven Hill, Henry McKenna, Very Old Barton, J. W. Dant, Johnny Drum, Willett Pot Still Reserve, Old Rip Van Winkle, Russell's Reserve, Old Weller, Jim Beam Rye and Benjamin Prichard's.
I will also be adding the following Photos to existing pages: Jim Beam Black, Jim Beam White, Jim Beam Red Stag, Wild Turkey Rare Breed and McAfee's Benchmark. --Craiglduncan (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks – and, by the way, I like the photos. –BarrelProof (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Master of Malt page

Hi there!

One of my first wikipedia edits was a page for the independent bottler master of malt. It's been repeatedly vandalised which is incredibly annoying! I saw you made some valuable edits, and apologise that I undid them when reverting to a pre-vandalised version of the page. Sorry for this, and I hope you wouldn't mind giving the page a once over again and making any edits you see fit. Huckleberry113 (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I have made some modifications – please take a look. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I put in back where it was. Some good third party sources would make it stronger and quash the naysayers; but I think you deserve an "Attaboy" for the effort. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Stan

Old Forester (and other whiskey pages)

GREAT JOB on the Old Forester page. Love It! This weekend I am looking to add a few more Bourbon pictures to any that we have missing. I will also put up about 12-20 Canadian Whiskey pictures to Existing Canadian Whiskey pages. I also have about a dozen American Blended Whiskeys in my Collection.
Should I put them up as well? Some don't have pages yet?--Craiglduncan (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Sorry for not previously noticing that you had recently created an Old Forester (bourbon) page – I just merged the infobox from that article in today. I love the photos. I'm sure that more of them would be very welcome – you must have some collection! More KBD brands would be my personal top request. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that the two of you think about merging the pages before somebody else does it in a more officious way. If you haven't done it already. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I already did that (just a couple of hours ago when I noticed that the other one existed). There wasn't much in the Old Forester (bourbon) page. The only thing I found there that didn't already seem superior on the Old Forester page was the infobox, so I copied that to the other article and replaced Old Forester (bourbon) with a redirect. I thought about making the merge in the other direction, but the Old Forester page had a rich edit history, while Old Forester (bourbon) had only a single first draft upload. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Kudos. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Impending WP:DYK for Tobermory (distillery)

Some info I ran across that might be on interest. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I couldn't find what you were talking about. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know talks about the impending WP:DYK for Tobermory (distillery). Hope that answers your question. I know you have an interest in spirited articles, so to speak. Not trying to be a bother. Hope all is going well. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Thanks for the heads-up. (Although it doesn't seem like especially intriguing information to me.) —BarrelProof (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Not a heckuva lot there. But there is a need for new distillery articles, and I imagine they (like almost everything else) can be improved if one wants to devote the time and effort. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the touch up. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for thoughts on Stellar page

Hi BarrelProof -- not a problem! I expected that I may make some missteps at first. However, I'm very interested in hearing your additional thoughts on how to address the remaining issues. I posted a response on the Stellar talk page. Thanks in advance.

ShanaHerrin (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for correction of accidental changes to Bourbon-related Talk pages

Hi BarrelProof: Thank You for the revisions. Yes you were right my intension was not to delete comments. Apparently I was doing something wrong. I will be more careful. Thanks Again--Craiglduncan (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Article: Rajkumar

Greetings! Appreciate your contributions to the article: Rajkumar. When you've got some spare time, I request you to go through the language and grammar used at the entire page and suggest/make necessary corrections. Thank you. Cheers! - Niri M / ನಿರಿ 04:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"Best selling" in Diageo

To jump to the conclusion that, because I've done an edit you don't agree with, there would be an edit war, seems to me a bit of an overreacting but anyway... If you look in the talk page you will see that I express my concern (since the one given is the company itself) about the claims a month ago. On the same day of my posting another user wrote that they would look for better references. Since then there has been no update. Further, if you read the Smirnoff article, you will see that editors there expressed their concern about the lack of independent references too and wrote "In March 2006, Diageo North America claimed that...". The Baileys article do not even mention the claim. So, I don't have an agenda, I don't own articles or my copyedits but I try to follow WP guidelines, in this case verifiability.--Dia^ (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the explanation. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Pisco

If I incorrectly deleted something, my mistake. It's clear from the article that Pisco is both Chilean and Peruvian and that point needs to be apparent in the introduction. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Pisco to me is comparable to Whisky, where you have different types such as American, Scottish etc. In this case Peruvian and Chilean are both different forms of Pisco, but the origin of it can be attributed to the Spanish Empire which at the time were the early colonialists in South America before the rise of nations. That's my take at least.Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Fortune Brands Home & Security

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Fortune Brands Home & Security requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. To me it seems obvious that this NYSE-listed company that makes major brands of well-known consumer products meets the criteria for notability. However, I may not devote the necessary time and energy to rapidly improve the article enough to demonstrate that fact. –BarrelProof (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Spirit ratings

The article Spirit ratings has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability of subject not established. No independent third party coverage of any of the ratings organizations covered in this article. No criteria given for "major" ratings organizations. No indication that any ratings are notable at all.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianhe (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI

If I could have reached you by e-mail, I would have sent you the unfiltered version of this article from todays NY Times on Bourbon. Happy holidays and cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Bourbon’s All-American Roar 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

[Long quote removed for brevity]

Single Pot Still

Hi there Barrelproof,

i work heavily in the whisky world (I was the American correspondent for the Irish Whiskey Socitey in Dublin, worked for Diageo for two years as a whisky expert for their bushmills and classic malts line at various conventions, worked as a whisky educator for the Bourbon and Branch beverage academy program, taught a class at UC Berkeley for 4 semesters on the history of whisky and am currently writing a book on behalf of the IWS on the history of single pot still whisky) but, despite loving the topic passionately and despising the brand-vomit that too often becomes the main source of information (or misinformation) for consumers, i'm thoroughly new to the world of wikipedia editing and, as i saw your name on a number of edits and you seem to be passionate about protecting the quality of the information on wikipeda's whisky articles, i thought it might be worth asking your help. The article titled "Pure Pot Still Whiskey" started out inaccurate, and then due to a few coincidental misunderstandings of the term, became completely divorced from its original topic and now, due to changes in the industry, should be deleted anyway and replaced with a different article, if not two. The term "Pure Pot Still Whiskey" historically refers to a style of whiskey that arose in Ireland after the hike in the malt taxes during the Napoleonic wars. It does not refer to the theoretical concept of whiskey made in a "pot still" but rather the style resulting from the distillation of malted AND unmalted barley in a pot still. (Historically, the unmalted or "green' section of the wash sometimes included small amounts of other unmalted grains as well. The term isn’t a great signifier for its concept, as single malts or, say a pot still bourbon, are also theoretically “purely made in a pot still” but it is the term that history has coughed up.

The article was originally a bit of a lackluster stub but some well-meaning editors unfamiliar with the term seemed to stumble on it and, with the best intentions, said that there was nothing uniquely irish or mixed mash about the concept of a pot still and, on the strength of that conviction, deleted the small amount of information that there was. As it stands, the current article neither describes the historical style nor the actual process of theoretical pot still distillation. An article on the latter should be given a name like "pot still distillation" and should outline the chemistry of the pot still in comparison the column still. (Come to think of it, this would be a very worthwhile article as the old pot still/column still divide has relevance not only for whisky but for brandy and other craft distillates...)

Although the original PPS style was widely popular during the victorian age, it was almost wiped out in the early 20th as a result of the convergence of the Irish War of independence, the economic war with Britain, the subsequent civil war in Ireland, and the untimely declaration of prohibition in the U.S. As a result, Ireland's once vibrant distilling scene fell almost completely silent over the space of two decades and, as this unfortunately happened at the same time as the actual creation of the independant Irish Free State and, eventually, the subsequent Republic of Ireland, there has been no law written in Ireland explaining the specific definition of the term. As a result, the cooley distillery started labeling some of their products as “Pure pot still single malts” during the 90s but have subsequently ceased the practice and have even recently begun experiments to produce genuine pps whiskeys of their own to compliment their single malt line.

Anyway, this is all rather irrelavent as the industry and major critical bodies thankfully have come together in the last two years to lobby the EU for a new official definition (I spoke with the IWS president Leo Phelan (who can be contacted on their website) a week ago and he can offer more information about this legal process) and the style, under its more rigourous specifications has been renamed “Single Pot Still.” This new name is presumably meant to put it in more obvious contrast with its “Single Malt” cousin and also to satisfy American liquor laws which have a prohibition-old distaste for the word “pure” being written on an alcohol label. The industry, the IWS, and the early stages of the long EU certification process have all accepted the new term (not all that historically diferent from the clarification of “Single Malt” decades ago, as old bottles of SM scotch used to use all manner of terms like “pure malt” “all malt” etc) and, in light of such changes, I would like to recommend the speedy deletion of the existing muddled article and the construction of a more thorough article on Single Pot Still whiskey. However, I have no idea how to go about this as I am entirely new to Wikipedia. However, just while perusing the talk pages, I saw your name crop up again and again and I was very impressed with your commitment to the subject so I thought you might be the man to contact on this front.

Yours sincerely,

Trestarig

p.s. if you’re curious, the IWS have a website as does Middleton Distillery’s Single Pot Still line up, although the latter is obviously drenched in all the familiar self-promotion and brand vomit.

Trestarig (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the note. Your knowledge of the subject seems to be far superior to my own. I try to help improve the accuracy, depth, and objectivity of various articles, but my expertise is limited. I would certainly be happy to try to help with improving the quality of articles such as the "pure pot still whiskey" article (or renaming it or deleting it, as appropriate). The one important tip that I would like to provide it that it is very important to find reliable sources to substantiate the edits we are making. Too often, people just write whatever they think (or whatever they want other people to think), and it is impossible to figure out whether what they have written is really true or not. Sometimes what people write is also rather vague, and references are essential to try to clarify the intent. It may sometimes be annoying to need to find sources to cite to substantiate what you know is the truth, but providing citations is really essential to establishing the objective truth of what we are writing. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey BarrelProof, sorry for the late reply! Any help would be brilliant and, tedious as it is, just tell me how and i'll be glad to cite every sentence as goodness knows i have to many whisky resources lying about (can we use books or do they have to be internet links? either way should be fine.) I'd like to suggest that the pure pot still article be renamed at the very least and then we can go from there about giving it some real information and removing the garbage.

cheers

Trestarig (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to review (and perhaps respond to) the comments made recently on the Talk:Pure pot still whiskey page. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Scotch whisky

Nice to see a collaborator on the page. I've been staring at that article for weeks now—since I have a stack of good books, I figured I'd take a stab at improving the article. I'll be working on the labelling section next, and then probably starting on History. I have MacLean's Scotch Whisky: A Liquid History. Do you think there's anything you could do with the Methods of Production section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laser brain (talk • contribs) 19:16, 16 March 2012‎ (UTC)

Multiple accounts?

Hi. If (as it sounds like you're saying on your user page) you have more than one account for a legitimate purpose, it is generally recommended that you disclose the identities of the alternative accounts so that people will know what your "main" account is and which other accounts you are using. See WP:SOCK#NOTIFY for more info about this. — Richwales 06:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you think I have exhibited a pattern of edits that appears unconstructive, POV, unsupported by reliable sources, or particularly controversial? I value my privacy. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I haven't noticed any "problem" editing on your part. However, the policy (as I understand it) recommends such notification in any case. I was simply making a friendly suggestion along these lines. Note that single-purpose accounts are described in the policy as attracting scrutiny even in the absence of problematic editing behaviour. Also, if privacy is a concern, the policy suggests you can consider directly notifying a checkuser, or a member of ArbCom, in lieu of posting a public notice. — Richwales 14:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

On further thought, there is one other issue that may be relevant here. You said (on your user page) that you created this account in order to categorize your whiskey-related edits under a separate identity. But many of your recent edits under this account have been on other topics having nothing to do with alcoholic beverages (such as citizenship-related issues, which were what brought you to my attention). This could bring into question whatever privacy concerns might have led you to set up the separate account, and it suggests that you really should either consolidate your activity onto a single account (the expected normal situation), or else disclose the relationship between your accounts (either publicly or privately, depending on the circumstances). Additionally, some of the citizenship-related articles have been targetted by banned users reappearing under new identities, IP editors refusing to get accounts (or possibly refusing to disclose that they already have or had accounts), etc. — again creating a situation where any out-of-the-ordinary editing activity could reasonably be attracting scrutiny. — Richwales 16:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly true that I've let my interests wander lately. I remember that I ended up in citizenship-related articles after wandering from whiskey to Kentucky-related articles (nearly all bourbon whiskey is made in Kentucky), which led me to the Kentucky colonel article, where I noticed something about Yahya Jammeh (the president of Gambia) becoming a Kentucky colonel, and then read the article about him and learned that his child had been denied birthright citizenship in the U.S., which I found interesting since I didn't know there were exceptions to the U.S. birthright rule. So that's how I ended up in citizenship. This account has somewhat drifted into becoming a grab-bag of my aimless wanderings in addition to whiskey. Maybe I should rein that in, although I have a tendency to want to fix little problems when and where I happen to see them, and I think that it should be clear from my edit history that my edits are generally straightforward constructive improvements. I've never been blocked. I don't think I've ever even gotten a warning. I really have other (higher-priority) things to do with my time, and should cut down on my wiki-activity. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey BarrelProof, I think that you have done some good work on that article and I hope to work with Sebastian Lake to help improve it. That being said, I agree with sebastian and Richwales above that you should identify your other account. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I understand your concern. However, my understanding of WP:SOCK#NOTIFY is that it acknowledges that privacy may be a valid reason not to reveal editing IDs, and does not impose an absolute requirement to make such a revelation. I have chosen not to do so. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, and perhaps more to the point, I also see legitimate uses of multiple accounts acknowledged in the WP:Multiple Accounts policy article. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

John Henry Browne

I wanted to compliment you on the improvements you made on this article. It reads much better and addressed several concerns I had with the article (regarding edits I made last month). I wanted to add information to the article when he took on the Bales case, but really struggled with trying to write without personal bias, as one of the firefighters killed in the Pang warehouse fire was a friend. I believe I may have over compensated in being too flattering (I think you called it puffery - great word!) and spending too much time on the Pang case. I agree completely with your observations and just wanted to share that with you as often I find articles I edit get changed for, in my opinion, the worst and happy this was not the case! I have little desire to work more on the article, I think you demonstrated my weakness in being biased and I actually can't really be bothered anyway, but if you were so inclined there is a comprehensive article in today's Seattle Times you may or may not want to read. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017933125_browne08m.html?prmid=4939

I hope you have a great day and thanks again for the improvement and comments about why they were made so I can be a better editor in the future!! OneHappyHusky (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the compliment! Yes, that new article in the Seattle Times seems like it should be helpful to improve the article (although I'm trying to cut down my editing, so I won't promise anything). Please accept my condolences for the loss of your friend. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I read the new Seattle Times article, and ended up making substantial edits based on it. Please take a look - I hope you find it an improvement. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent work, again! I think the article is much more comprehensive now. Why I initially edited the article, despite my negative feelings about Browne, was due to the fact I knew he would be getting national and international attention from the media which would almost certainly increase the traffic on his article. When I went to check it out I found it was quite limited in information, specifically his clients (did not even mention he represented Ted Bundy), and what was there was pretty much limited to his successes. The article as it appears now is a much better representation of the man, his career and (even more important) is now up to the Wiki standards...as my young niece would say, "You done good, Dude!" OneHappyHusky (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again! And thank you for finding the additional citation and for maintaining a constructive attitude toward the article in spite of your feelings about the man who is its subject. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for clarifying this. The way it was presented in the article made for a slightly confusing cite-error fix. I'm just pleased to see that it has been addressed by someone who knows the article. Have yourself a great day, and happy editing! :)  -- WikHead (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit of Sweet Revenge (liqueur)

Hi, BarrelProof,

I am a complete Wikipedia newbie, and so will ask that you be patient in our first conversations, as I am incredibly naive to the nuances of gaming the Wikipedia labyrinth of process. However, I am not a newbie to the things I write about, and have a long career in editorial and creative production in consumer magazines and a leading international newspaper.

I saw that you had some concerns about "nonsense" in an entry that went up last night, and that several well-versed Wikipedia vets have had a hand in mentoring over the last few weeks. While I certainly appreciate the input of anyone who is well-qualified, I want to ask you please to take a step back and rein in the rhetoric.

For example, sure, most or all American bourbon may be yielded from a sour mash process, and maybe most Tennessee whiskey. But sweeping statements about "all-American" anything are probably best shied away from. In the entry, I believe you may have linked the word "shot" to a Wikipedia post about "shooters", and that's something that takes the reader off-track, and not necessarily correct. Your feelings about the use of the word "mash", or not using the word "mash", are intriguing and I'd love to hear about them. But please understand that I am a reporter first, and my sources are very, very authoritative. Rather than simply react harshly, or overreact, could I invite you please to enter into a conversation about some of the things you may perhaps presume true, or hold dear, before you rip into other's work?

With respect to your critique of the Britishisms in the text: are you able to see the hours, and many many inches of Talk conversation about this subject, surrounding this entry for Sweet Revenge Liqueur? (I frankly don't yet know how it works at Wikipedia, but I assume that you can easily "see" and access all of the conversation that has gone into this, particularly the professional help from a fellow called Ryan Vesey, and a European named Night of the Big Wind. The reason I'm asking if you've had the chance to review any of this content, prior to posting your comment, is that we've all been discussing exactly that. I think the consensus is, sure, I suppose we can go back through and make the piece colorful, not colourful, but understand that the changes to Britishisms came from Big Wind's engagement. He's done a great job to fine tune and finesse many other details, and my feeling was, what the hell, we've all got bigger fish to fry than to fuss about this. Plus, maybe it sounds snazzier. Who knows. If for some reason it is really bothersome to you, please start by getting your own house in order, as I see all kinds of boo-boos when it comes to the inevitable (given your penchant) whisky v. whiskey inconsistencies. Knock yourself out, my friend!

That being said, if it turns out that you actually do have some expertise in this area -- and by this "area" I mean spirits, cocktails, food, etc. -- I'm happy to make your acquaintance and invite you to enter in and make this a collaborative, not adversarial, opportunity. As Big Wind, and Ryan Vesey, will attest, I am no less assertive and protective of my work than the next guy. And probably come off as a lot of hot air, to some. But I'm genuinely getting into this with a sense of calling and mission. I really want to bring Wikipedia up to speed in these areas that are right now weakly covered. One reason, I suspect, for this inadequacy is that there vocal and harshly opinionated people waiting to pounce, and shred, and call things "nonsense", when in fact it is quite likely that if we do a bit more listening, taking deep breaths, and discussing-in-advance, we can all help one another do better.

With respect to the Sweet Revenge post, if you've got an axe to grind about that piece, let's talk about it together, shall we?

You mention that you've got some expertise with respect to whiskey. Is it possible that you are unfamiliar with Jaquin et Cie, and the legacy there? If you know of an older producer of liqueurs in the US, could you please share that information? I certainly can't find it.

Many thanks, BarrelProof!

Sebastian Lake (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Sorry if my edit description was a bit flippant. There are quite a few comments above. I think I agree with you that my link to shot (alcohol) was not a good idea. I should have checked the link target for that. My understanding is that all whiskey is made from a mash, so to me it seems unnecessary and undesirable to refer to something as being made from a "mash whiskey", as that would be a bit like talking about having a "mammalian cat". My comments about British versus American English on a Talk page were meant to be helpful advice, not adversarial – I didn't actually make any change the language or spelling in the article. However, since this is an American product that says "Proudly made in the USA" on its label, I suggest that U.S. English may be the appropriate choice for the article under Wikipedia article conventions (see MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:SPELL). I didn't say "all-American" (with a hyphen and without a qualifier). What I said was "Essentially all American whiskey is sour mash whiskey". To me "essentially all" means "the vast majority" or "nearly all" or "practically all", but not exactly "all", and I certainly would not put the hyphen there. My wording may be somewhat more informal and less precise when making an edit description than what I would actually say in an article. I think my comment about "nonsense" was about the claim that this 2012 product "is the first sour mash base liqueur". My understanding is that many liqueurs are based on sour mash whiskey. Again, sorry if my edit description was too casual. I'm happy to engage with you on the Talk page of the article if there is any disagreement over the article content. I do not claim to have any special expertise in the area of spirits, cocktails, food, etc. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, BarrelProof, the distinction is dough, vs. sourdough. Anything distilled has something mash-like going on, for sure, just like any bread starts with dough. But the "sour mash" process is something different, just like sourdough is not Wonderbread. I am no distiller and I think you are likely not either, but my elementary understanding really is about this idea of sourdough, which I do get. The idea that some of the mash, the "sour" mash, is set aside and utilized for the next batch as a means of maintaining consistency in flavor, based on the chemistry. So we're talking about two different mammalian cats. Sebastian Lake (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Not all mash is sour mash. But I believe that all whiskey (in the usual sense of the word "whiskey") is mash whiskey. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

As someone who knows nothing about alcohol/liquor/liqueur at all, I find the sour mash information useful. I would have had no clue that every whiskey is mash whiskey or that all American whiskey is sour mash. In fact, without enough information, I would have assumed the drink had a sour flavor. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree about that. Since the product emphasizes "sour mash" on its label, it is useful to have some information about what the term means in the article. Strictly speaking, not all American whiskey is sour mash whiskey – but most of it is (especially Bourbon). —BarrelProof (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Barrel and Ryan,

I had a good conversation with a couple of absolutely authoritative sources with respect to the specifics about "sour mash" included in the original draft. Without drilling into all of it, not all American-made whiskey by any means is made in this manner, although the assertion that most American bourbons are, is somewhat correct. There too, there is a lot of flux because of the surge of interest in developing craft, small batch brands, which can be unique (not using the "sourdough" method.)

Of greater concern to me, however, -- and maybe Barrel, you could offer some reassurance in this regard -- is my perception that there is some, for lack of better words, interference or even just intentional sniping going on here. Specifically the link that has been identified as not working -- pertaining to the trademark registration information for Sweet Revenge -- works perfectly fine. I have that link open now on my monitor, no problem. And as I have invested a tremendous amount of time and effort in benchmarking this subject matter on Wikipedia in preparing to file this entry, I do not understand the claim that the article is poorly cited or backed up. Rather, it is accurately reported, the sources are strong and specific, and I would like to have your help in understanding how it could -- or should -- be differently structured.

As mentioned, because of my background professionally, I have very deep and strong story sources and a journalism background. I would appreciate it if we could discuss together, rather than drop bombs on one another's work. I will move swiftly for intervention if I sense that there is simply arbitrary or obstructionist behavior at work. I'm not about to engage in Edit War. So help me out here with some clear communication, Barrel.

And again, please advise if I am communicating with you in the wrong place. I'm so new to the Wikipedia rabbit holes, I'm never quite sure if I am "Talking" or messaging where i should be.

Ryan, I have some additional developments about the photos, and would like to share that with you. Love to hear your thoughts, too, BarrelProof.

Sebastian Lake (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you misinterpreted my edit of the trademark registration information link. The link is working fine. But if you look at the page found at that link, you will see that it says that the status of the trademark registration is "Abandoned-Failure to Respond". That's a quote from the site. To establish notability (see WP:NOTABILITY), there should be some identification of "reliable sources" (see WP:RS) such as articles about the product. –BarrelProof (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this explanation, BarrelProof. Now, please listen to mine. In journalism as in law, we use citations (particularly when they are sparse) to establish particular points and their place in time. In this case, we have hard evidence of the claims of the producer of a product, submitted under penalty of perjury, as to the manufacturer's claims about the product, and the elements that the distiller intends to highlight in the branding and marketing of the product. That's what this citation is for. There is no "gotcha" in the notice of "abandoned-failure to respond" notice. This happens all the time when a business is developing a new brand. We don't need to drill into why the TM application was abandoned. We are simply providing a piece of evidence that verifies that the brand exists (because it is so very new) and that these are the features the distiller intends to highlight. This is not an entry about investigation of a TM application. This is merely a supporting citation that clearly says that what the Wikipedia author claims the distiller is up to, is real. This is an absolutely reliable source and I hope you'll step back, breathe and agree. In my "real" profession, I would absolutely walk this citation source all the way up the food-chain, with no qualms. And I can assure you, the reporting and editorial standards I refer to are considerably more rigorous than the kinds of things that display on Wikipedia at every turn. Let's please collaborate here like gentlemen. Or Ladies and Gentleman.

Please don't forget that in good faith, I've asked you to share what other Screennames you are operating under, on Wikipedia. I have only this one.

Sebastian Lake (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I partly responded on the Talk page for the article. I think you may have gotten an incorrect impression of my attitude towards the article and your edits, so I will give the topic a rest. I am very sorry that you have gotten the impression that I have a hostile attitude. I sincerely hope that you will not find the attitude here by me or others on Wikipedia to be generally hostile – but it may take some time to get familiar with Wikipedia conventions relating to notability, reliable sources, citation style, and neutral point of view. In noting that the trademark application has an abandoned status, I just get the impression that there may not be much evidence of notability from an application with that status. Regarding your request for other screen names, I do not edit articles related to beverages under other screen names (and generally use this ID for nearly all of my editing). However, for reasons of privacy, I do not plan to reveal all screen names under which I have edited. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Some further comments, after a break of about a day and a half. (Please also note that the editing of the article and the discussions on its Talk page have moved onwards in the meantime.) Regarding the uses of citations, Wikipedia tends to be somewhat skeptical about claims that come directly from a person or company when it talks about itself. This is for good reason – people and companies sometimes tend to provide biased, misleading or incorrect information when doing so benefits their interests. Also, please note that I have not actually questioned whether this product exists or not. However, under Wikipedia policy, there are supposed to be some objective sources cited to establish notability and to establish factual statements. Notability is not the same thing as existence. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:PRIME

Hi BarrelProof. The reason why WP:PRIME and WP:PTOPIC link to the same place is because I haven't yet changed WP:PRIME to redirect to Wikipedia:Prime objective. I didn't think this would be too controversial, given there were only 25 or so uses of WP:PRIME (most people seem to use WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). So Ive gone through and corrected the links to WP:PRIME, making sure not to change the visible text itself (as that would be tampering with someone's comment), but just changing the link. Regards! -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Josh Wolf (disambiguation)

Ping, you have replies. --George Ho (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Melungeon

The melungeon page is about MY family, I'm from the vardy collins and shep gibson, these people have been coming an dharassing our family for the last 25 years trying to say our ancestors was liars when they stated clearly we are portugesse and native american. The gions family is the only family of the melungeons that had african dna. Our ancestry is Portugesse and Native american. Jack goins is NOT a real goins either..his step grand father was a goins not him. Jack goins asked many of the family members for dna samples..which they did.. these tests showed over 75 percent match to the portugesse dna results... Jack took our family dna and started trying to claim it showed black and white and no portugesse... jack goins used family tree dna for this...the same reference I used in the wikipedia article....if you look at parkwell's past wikipedia edits you will see he only edits stuff dealing with african american and disproving any ancestry but black ancestry. This is flat our racist not only to our family but to the portugesse and native american people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.68.123 (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I am really not familiar with the issues or people involved in this discussion. However, I strongly suggest to try to constructively discuss the subject at Talk:Melungeon with other editors, rather than just continuing to make confrontational remarks and continue an "edit war" over the content of the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This a formal "Cease and desist" letter to you informing you to STOP contributing to racism and malious attacks on my family, the melungeons. Further contrubutions to this wil indicate a delibrite attempt to further racism and malious embarsement on my family the melungeons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.68.123 (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Rapid transit

See reply. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 6 years 21:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Kentucky

Hey, BarrelProof. Thanks for helping do some cleanup on Kentucky. Some time ago, I tried to at least cite parts of the article, but it's a daunting task. Is your interest mainly in just making this article a little less embarassing to Wikipedia as a whole, or do you have hopes of taking it to the point that it could pass a GA review or something? I'm not sure how to handle a topic so massive, but if you're interested, perhaps we could give it a shot together. If not, no worries. Just wondering. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the positive feedback. Unfortunately, I doubt that I will devote much time to that article. I have just tried to correct specific problems when I notice them. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Understandable. That's about all I can do with it myself. It's such a broad topic, I don't think I could do it justice without some help from someone who has experience with that kind of thing. Most of my work is on tightly focused biographies. Thanks for your help in at least helping remove the vandalism that I obviously missed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Rocky mountain locust

If you delete new entry maybe you are sending all people wrong way fighting against locust. Plowing theory is not proofed. Normally you can`t plow everythere and never kill all eggs where plowed. Meliantriol is already used poison against locust from neem tree alone with 3 poisons. Plants killing insects is normally. Of course farmers brought <1900 new plants into USA maybe also knowing about effects with other plants adding effects normally used. I did not say it must be neem tree but that it was likely a plant like neem tree proofed enough with german WP poison entries missed in english WP. You could transfer also that. Locust is stupid searching and eating new plant from alone maybe it was neem tree or beetroot with oxal acid poison... historical research for killer plant to be asked for ! Do you really believe that you should fight locust with plowing in africa, asia....... ?

I have email from rocky mountain locust experts who said also that plants possible reason same like in references but not for inside link but to your email address if interested ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.88.228.95 (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't actually have an opinion about what is correct. However, there is a source referenced that offers some reason for the disappearance of the Rocky Mountain locust. If someone wants to say that some other explanation is more likely, that's fine, but they should cite some reliable source to support that claim. There needs to be some verifiability. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see Special:Contributions/Kay_Uwe_Böhm, the above ip has been blocked for block evasion. Vsmith (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"Florida law" in Prime Directive/Objective

I added that part because Wikipedia's servers are located in Florida, and it has a policy against hosting anything that is illegal in the state, even if it's notable or verifiable. I suppose it may go without saying, but thought it would be better to be clear. I've left that out for now, pending your response here. But I've reverted your addition of "However, it is important to...", as excess wordiness. Better to explicitly tell readers what to do than to merely say it's important. Consider the unambiguous brevity of a "Stop" or "No Smoking" sign. Same deal here. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh. OK. I suggest that "Florida law" should only be included if there's some hint about why it's there. Very few people are probably aware of the connection. Regarding the first part of the sentence, I have an alternative phrasing that could perhaps suit us both. Something about the grammar of the beginning of the sentence is bothering me. I'll make the edit and see what you think. Please feel free to change it again if you don't like it. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It's also partly a grammar issue with me. I generally avoid "that" whenever possible, but it's not a huge deal, if you'd rather keep it. But I think I'll change "applicable" to "Florida", for clarity's sake, with "(where Wikipedia's servers are located)". "Applicable" doesn't help a reader who doesn't know which laws are applicable. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed that some people avoid using "that". I don't understand why. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Much of the time, the sentence means the same without it. It's excess wordiness. "I have noticed some people avoid using 'that'." Particularly annoying in "said that..." or "thought that...". Not as annoying as when editors begin every sentence with "Also," or say "would do something" when they mean "did something", but in that same vein. Quite common mistakes. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

To which I would add the use of passive voice, e.g., 'have' and 'had' which should be excised from good writing. And which are far too common in this encyclopedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

To me it seems that (there I go again) using 'that' often improves clarity – probably I use it too much. I'll have to think more about the passive voice topic. I probably also use that too much. I wish I had paid more attention to grammar and writing style earlier in life. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A modest suggestion for your WP:User page

You are quite right that after two years, you should not have to explain your presence. Unfortunately, we have editors who don't seem to be well informed, and sometimes would benefit from some instruction. I suggest you confer on yourself the appropriate Service Award. As I don't know which one that would be, I leave it all up to you. But it would put a sign on your door, a diploma on your wall, and let those who care and are interested what the facts are. Keep up the good work. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. It's buried at the end of your page, and I missed it. Please pardon the presumption and error. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Yes, it was rather deeply buried. I had previously had some trouble with its alignment. In response to your comment, I investigated how to fix that problem and exhumed it. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Secretariat

Thanks for your edits on this article. I think most of the old hands at Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing have this page on their watchlists, and we TRY to keep an eye on poorly sourced, irrelevant or biased material. Tigerboy1966  20:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep an eye peeled

Here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)