This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
Some info I ran across that might be on interest. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 21:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the touch up. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 01:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The article Spirit ratings has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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)
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]
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)
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)
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)
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. — Rich wales 06:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Ping, you have replies. -- George Ho ( talk) 17:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
See reply. Simply south.... .. eating shoes for just 6 years 21:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
Here. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 21:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
Some info I ran across that might be on interest. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 21:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the touch up. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 01:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The article Spirit ratings has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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)
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]
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)
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)
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)
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. — Rich wales 06:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Ping, you have replies. -- George Ho ( talk) 17:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
See reply. Simply south.... .. eating shoes for just 6 years 21:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
Here. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 21:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)