Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

I warned you [1] SFBB (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Great. I'm looking forward to resolving this. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:BarrelProof reported by User:SFBB. Thank you. Mr Eat (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

There exists a Draft:Urban Milwaukee. Not sure whether the editor who produced it is going to follow up. Skyerise (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi BarrelProof, Thanks for engaging on the RfC here. You are invited to participate in a ranked-choice poll at Talk:Cross-country skiing (sport)#Ranked-choice poll of alternatives offered. I've entered your first choice, based on your comments to date. You can check that I did so, correctly, and rank other choices, as you see fit. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to replace the related sources in Irish whiskey by independent sources comnfirm WP:RS?? The Banner talk 19:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

After your revert yesterday (which I respect), I have started looking around for more sources, but most of what I have found has seemed promotional or potentially unreliable. Some of the better sources might be offline. As I'm sure you're aware, companies tend to stretch the truth in their marketing efforts (and some sources, even seemingly reliable and independent ones, don't carefully check everything that they print for factual accuracy). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi BarrelProof I noticed you collaborated with my former colleague in the past, FacultiesIntact. I recently created two new beverage related sandboxes for a new article and proposed edits for a existing article. Would you be open to review this content? Thanks in advance. --Chefmikesf (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

At first glance, some aspects look very nice and professional (e.g., very pretty pictures – almost overly so for Wikipedia), but some of it also seems to have a touch of promotional tone. I'm not sure whether I'll really take an interest in those or not. I might need to conduct some personal research involving a bottle of Lohr Cab! (Just to clarify, that's not a request for assistance with the research, in case you're wondering.) Unfortunately, I can't recall the subject(s) of my prior interaction with FacultiesIntact. Could you please remind me? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi BarrelProof Thank you for the feedback, I know wine publications tend to be promotional, so I'm open to edits on the draft. Please let me know where I can make edits to make it more compliant. Second, I took another look, and I apologize; I must be mistaken. I swore you worked on the Louis XIII (cognac) article with him, but I was wrong. THB, I see your edits all over Wikipedia, and I think that's how I made the connection. Anyways, I appreciate your input regardless.--Chefmikesf (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I've seen that you moved several articles for iriver players, such as iriver Spinn, to iRiver Spinn with a capital R. I know this has been done because the main article iriver was moved to iRiver. But I should say that I disagree with these moves because, these devices in question were made during the time when the brand was iriver. Therefore, naming it iRiver Spinn or iRiver E100 is technically incorrect - they were not made or released under iRiver branding, but instead under iriver.

By the same logic: articles like iPod Shuffle are called that instead of Ipod Shuffle. The same way iriver Spinn should be used in place of iRiver Spinn. --Morita Akio (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think of the iRiver / IRIVER / iriver question as different names; they are different stylings of the same name, and WP:independent reliable sources do not seem to have followed along with the company's twist and turns of capitalization. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I cannot find the opening parenthesis. Eagleash (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

It's just to the left of the "a.k.a.". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I've found it in the meantime; looks likely to be deleted anyhow. Eagleash (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, just notifying you of this ANI thread connected to a discussion on the MoS talkpage. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Usually I'd click thanks, but wanted to stop by to articulate that I (stupidly) never stopped to ask myself "what's the difference between assault and battery" and thanks to you, now I know! Mucho gracias NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. It's a good thing to know, especially in case you or someone you know gets assaulted someday without getting battered. People need to realize that assault is considered a serious crime by itself. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I wonder how many murdered people, mostly women, would still be alive, if everyone took the distinction seriously? Nice to meet you, carry on. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, just a heads up ... can get around the paywall on New York Times articles if you use the Tor browser! This also works for some of the other big papers as well, but not all of them. The Times has intentionally made it possible to view content with the Tor browser.

Also, articles from The Times that have been saved at archive.org are also viewable that way. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't know about the Tor possibility, and maybe I'll try it. There are probably other ways to deal with it as well, and maybe I should just buy a subscription or at least sign up for an account – it's certainly an excellent newspaper. But usually, I just give up when I encounter a paywall. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, clicking the archived links is effective as well (though sometimes images or pictures aren't saved properly, but the text is complete, which is usually the most important part!). That's one reason why I always add the archive.org links to citations, because those sometimes get around the paywalls for papers like NYT, and others. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey, just a quick note re the "by whom" tags you added to this page. They were added to verbs "is aged" and "is distilled", in that kind of sentence (a passive verb relating to an action with no agent) then "by whom" isn't correct. That tag is meant for situations where someone is passing off an opinion as fact without saying whose opinion it is, like: "Donald Trump is thought^{[by whom?]} to have the worst hair of any president." Not a big problem on that article, because it has so little sourcing that a couple of wrongly applied tags is the least of its worries. Which leads me to my second point...

From your handle am I right in thinking you are a bit of an expert on Whisky related matters? I am worried that the sourcing on that article is not good enough to justify the article's existence according to WP:GNG. Is it typical for a whisky article, or undersourced? And if it is undersourced, do you think better sources exist?

All the best, and sorry for the bombardment of questions.

Boynamedsue (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I agree that the sourcing is weak, but I haven't really checked for sources myself to determine whether I think the topic meets WP:GNG. I have an interest in whisky, but I wouldn't call myself an expert. I seems unfortunately common for whisky brand articles to contain echoes of marketing messaging that are not fully truthful or at least not fully objective and lacking in clarity. It is also rather common for a company to call itself a distillery and "produce" a brand of whisky for which the company was not actually the one that distilled or aged or even bottled the product. Another common scheme is to introduce a new product that uses the brand name of some former product that's been off the market for years, and thereby claim that the whole history of that brand name as your new product's history, and in some cases there is no continuity of brand ownership or production location when that happens. That might be OK if you're in the business of selling a product, but I think an encyclopedic article about the product should strive to be more objective and less vague. There are some federal labeling requirements, but they fall short of requiring full clarity on those issues. Perhaps those tags aren't really intended for the purpose for which I used them, but I think they serve to highlight the lack of clarity about the production process. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I see yeah, so you were worried that it was dubious whether this whisky was in reality a continuation of the popular brand from the pre-60's period? I have looked through the article again, and I would certainly agree with you that this seems plausible. In effect the article is detailing the history of a trademark, not a whisky. The history of the whisky seems to recount the same events in two different ways on two occasions and the sources are really quite shocking, the article certainly needs work. Would you have any suggestions of reliable sources related to bourbon that I could consult which might establish notability for the brand?

Boynamedsue (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Please see also my remarks on the article's Talk page and in "|reason=" comments in the article's tag entries. I did a quick web search to find reviews of the product(s). Note that brands also have different "expressions" (i.e. variants) that are labeled slightly differently, and the production practices can vary as time moves on. I found a review of "Yellowstone Select" at https://www.breakingbourbon.com/review/yellowstone-select-bourbon. That review does not look like marketing puffery. It's nice that it shows pictures of the product labeling. It confirms that the label says the product is only "bottled" by the company. It is not distilled by that company, and the only information provided about where it is distilled and aged is that this happened somewhere in Kentucky. Another review is at https://thewhiskeywash.com/whiskey-styles/bourbon/whiskey-review-yellowstone-select-bourbon/. That confirms that "Limestone Branch has no connection except a familial one with the original Yellowstone distilleries." It also confirms that it "is a sourced whiskey" (that's a way of saying the true source is not the company that bottles and markets it). Both of those reviews are not particularly complimentary about the taste. Another article is at https://prestigehaus.com/blog/post/yellowstone-bourbon-review. It confirms that the brand is actually owned by Luxco and that "Paul and Steve Beam didn't have prior involvement in the distilling business." I guess that explains the partnership – they didn't own the brand name. Probably Luxco produces the product from its other sources.

On the other hand I just found this magazine article from a few days ago https://www.pastemagazine.com/drink/whiskey/yellowstone-limited-edition-2022-review-bourbon-marsala-cask-flavors-price/. It says "After years of selling a variety of sourced [i.e. not self-produced] whiskey, 2022 was the year they debuted their first in-house distilled product in the form of Yellowstone Family Recipe Bourbon, effectively starting a new era for the company." It says it's distilled in Lebanon. That seems newsworthy. That doesn't mean that everything branded as Yellowstone is produced in-house, but at least that "Family Recipe" variant (currently) is. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Following the change of capitalization at Modern paganism, I'm in the process of making changes that follow from that. I've changed Neo-pagan (disambiguation), Modern paganism and New Age, List of neo-pagan festivals and events, Criticism of modern paganism, Modern pagan views on LGBT people, Eclectic paganism, List of writers on modern paganism, List of modern pagan temples, and Template:Neopaganism. I'm not yet being systematic about it; I started by editing Modern paganism and followed links from there.

One which will require an administrator, and perhaps a requested move is List of Pagans to List of pagans, which exists as a redirect.

If you've got other ideas on this, let me know. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm out of steam for today, but I've found these two lists of categories which will need to be fixed. See "Modern Pagan" and "Modern Paganism". Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! List of PagansList of Pagans has already been moved to List of pagans, as one of three WP:RMTR requests I submitted a few hours ago. I also see that you already commented in the RM I submitted for Celtic Reconstructionist PaganismCeltic Reconstructionist Paganism. I've also done a little bit of lowercasing within articles as well as in article titles, but I don't plan on trying to be very comprehensive about it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: Please note that there are other related terms I have noticed being sometimes capitalized and probably inappropriately, such as Heathenry/Heathenism and Druid/Druidism. "Druid" is not capped in the main article on the subject, but is capped in some other places. And I wonder about Wicca. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I've been aware of that, and wondered too about Druid and Wicca. Heathenry seems like a sure thing for lower casing, but I've been concentrating on one thing at a time, mostly. I'm reading a book now which lower cases puritan, which sort of makes sense to me as it's not a religion but a movement within one, but I've always seen it upper case before. So much confusion. SchreiberBike | ⌨  12:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello BarrelProof

You have asked for a clarification of the reprimand given to Head of Department of the Ministry of Justice, Johan Legarth, after his actions in the Minkgate.[2]

The reprimand was given by the employment authority, the Ministry of Justice, following advice from the Danish Employee and Competence Agency on the basis of the Commission of Inquiry into the Case of the Culling of Mink's report, in which the commission found that Johans Legarts had committed misconduct of such a seriousness that there was a basis for the public authorities seeking to withdraw the person in question to responsibility.

The types of disciplinary sanctions against officials are found in Tjenestemandsloven § 24 (Section 24 of the Civil Servant Act) and can be uplisted as the following:

List of the types of disciplinary sanctions against officials
Level	Sanktion	Translation
1	Advarsel	Warning
2	Irettesættelse	Reprimand
3	Bøde på op til en halv månedsløn	Fine of up to half a month's salary
4	Overførelse til andet arbejde eller arbejdssted eller anden stilling inden eller uden for ansættelsesområdet	Transfer to another job or place of work or another position within or outside the employment area.
5	Degradation, herunder helt eller delvis bortfald af anciennitetsbestemte løndele	Demotion, including full or partial loss of salary components determined by seniority.
6	Afskedigelse	Dismissal

1 and 2 are similar. They are both given in written form, but 2 expresses a stronger disapproval of the misconduct.

4, 5 and 6 can only be given after official interrogation have taken place if the official has not been convicted for the misconduct.

Relievement of duty can be used as a provisional measure while the disciplinary case is being processed. This is typically only used when there is reason to suspect that a higher level sanction can be applied and most often followed by official interrogation.

Best regards Asger (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Of course, it is best for clarification to be in the article rather than in a personal response. I think I added that clarification request because I did not understand the difference between a "warning" and a "reprimand" – e.g. which is a stronger expression of disapproval. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

User BarrelProof, why are some of my edits not constructive? I have created a new disambiguation page titled Hatnote, and it turned back into a redirect! Please, I want the redirect to be a disambiguation page. Please add a message soon. 2607:FEA8:FD04:8132:3085:9554:1F37:BF97 (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to something I said? I do not see any messages from me on your User talk page. It is possible that you have a dynamic IP address, so perhaps you have gotten comments for other IP addresses. I like your edit of Lord's Prayer. That edit shows considerable knowledge of Wikipedia syntax (better than my own, at least for that template), assuming that edit was made by the same person. I see that there was some relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6#Hatnote, but I was not involved in that discussion. Your redirect is what is known as a cross-namespace redirect, which is not something that is typically done. On Wikipedia there is generally a pretty strong distinction between the content of Wikipedia and the guidelines and discussions that are taking place behind the scenes. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I possibly think that you should stop correcting the redundant phrases on many snake articles (and dab pages). Phrases that are equivalent to "Like all vipers, it is venomous." are usually not acceptable, because I never like the "Like all..." phrases, and I am hoping for edits like this improved article at [3]. For example, consider the family Elapidae. Most species in the family are venomous snakes, with the exception of the genus Emydocephalus. Please also consider the Viperidae family, because as it said in the article "List of venomous animals", most rattle snakes are venomous. Please accept these changes, and thank you. 2607:FEA8:FD04:8132:D90A:8690:B70C:A720 (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be mixing up some different concepts, but I thank you for the correction. The first sentence of the Elapidae article said the Elapidae "is a family of venomous snakes". It does not say the Elapidae are vipers. As far as I know, "vipers" refers only to the Viperidae. If the genus Emydocephalus is in Elapidae and they are not venomous, then the first sentence of the Elapidae article was incorrect, so I have started working on correcting that problem. Similarly, the second sentence of the Viperidae article says that Viperidae/vipers are venomous. Are some of them not venomous? If you can identify any viper(s) that are not venomous, then I will work on correcting that too. I believe the use of "most" in the List of venomous animals was basically incorrect – all rattlesnakes are venomous, not just some of them – so I have removed that word. Please also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles/Archive 8#Annoying redundant phrases about venom (a discussion opened by me 3 August 2022). I only wish to remove redundant aspects. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi BarrelProof, I work for Tezos and am working to improve the accuracy of the article. Since you've worked on the page in the past, I was hoping you may be willing to weigh in on an ongoing discussion on the Tezos Talk page. I would appreciate your thoughts and assistance in implementing the changes, as I'm not editing directly due to my COI. Thank you, Marko at Tezos (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi BarrelProof, as one of the main editors on the article five years ago, can I ask whether you agree with the idea of opening a WP:DRV regarding Draft:Donald Trump and handshakes? I have put some of the sources which have been published since the deletion at User talk:HJ Mitchell#Donald Trump and handshakes. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:. Thank you for the note. I continue to think the subject is worthy of an article. However, I suspect that WP:DRV might not be the appropriate process, and perhaps WP:AfC is. I see that you also had some discussion about this with another editor, and that the situation has already evolved further at User talk:HJ Mitchell#Donald Trump and handshakes and Draft:Donald Trump and handshakes, which seems appropriate. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you.

@HJ Mitchell: do you agree that AfC could be the right venue here? Having read in more detail, I agree with BarrelProof that WP:DRV is not really for this kind of thing.

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

AfC depends on the judgement of one editor and is only really set up to screen articles for obvious sourcing/notability issues, much like new page patrol. DRV might be helpful or might just summarily tell you to re-create it. You might just have to do that, being careful not to fall afoul of G4, and see if someone takes it to AfD again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe DRV is the right process after all. But its instructions seem to say that it should not be used to revisit the merits of a previous deletion discussion (it says "Deletion review should not be used ... to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion"). In principle, Wikipedia is supposed to acknowledge that WP:Consensus can change, but I don't see any acknowledgment of that possibility in the instructions for what to do after a deletion discussion. (Improving the article in draft space would certainly help in this case, but as a matter of policy, the guidance should consider the possibility that consensus can change even without that happening. Other processes, such as WP:RM, include some allowance to reopen discussions of the merits of an old discussion after a suitable period of time such as a year or several years.) Really, I think DRV should be like WP:MR, which is something to review a recent RM outcome – not a process for dealing with something that happened years in the past. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi BarrelProof, I have significantly improved the article with a variety of academic sources. See Draft:Donald Trump and handshakes. Please could you take a look and make any changes you see fit? Per HJ Mitchell's advice, I suspect the best route it to move the improved version to the main space and see what happens. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

An article you recently created, List of male action heroes and villains, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

That's fine with me. As you probably know, that was created as a split resulting from an RM. Another editor has begun a new version in article space. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Blue Lagoon Water Park, which you proposed for deletion. I have removed the PROD as the concerns were the lack of sources and dead links in the article at the time. I have since added some sources and archive links addressing that, although an AfD may be set up to discuss more whether it is truely notable, as I do accept it is not obvious, but a merger into Bluestone, Pembrokeshire should at least be considered as an alternative.. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! DankJae 18:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)