This is an archive of past discussions with User:BarrelProof. 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.
Personally, I don't think a quote of the full text would be helpful. It is available in the UN press release that is a cited source, and I don't think that quoting it would really provide the reader with any substantial additional insight. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The image is of a frigate in Shanghai. There is no informtion in the file as to the identity of the ship. The way the image and caption is presented would lead someone, who does not examine the file details, to believe that this ship is the Nigerian ship in question, and that this image was taken off Gambia.--KTo288 (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, BarrelProof. When you changed the target of BMG to a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:
When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.
Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.
Fair enough, and I'll do some work on that, but so many of the articles were linking to the wrong place anyway that I think that changing the target to a dab page made the situation better, not worse. (Because it is easier to detect that an article is incorrectly linking to a dab page than to detect that it is just linking to the wrong place.) —BarrelProof (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Guinness Records :-its very surprising that you are considering guinness record as silly records , have you any such records???.and what type of publicity interest you are expecting from the page???
its very surprising that you are deleting all entries which are uploaded by some other person and also denying the notability of a person like Dr Bhanu Pratap Singh. Making a Bollywood film which shows its presence in 7 International film festival its elf is indicating Notability of a person . Three guinness records also have the same effect alone , and you are dleting source refferances too. We have copy ofbcertificates of kentuckey colonel and you deleted that too. why ??????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laura1948 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for raising your concerns for discussion here. I notice that you seem to be a relatively new editor on Wikipedia, and I assure you that I do not wish to discourage your participation in developing the encyclopedia. It is possible that other people here may have a different opinion about these issues than I do, and I look forward to seeing what the consensus ultimately will be. You can find some guidelines about the issues I am concerned about at WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:RELIABLE, WP:GNG, and WP:WEIGHT. On particular aspects that you commented about, I think that people who are reading an article like the envelope or screwdriver article are primarily interested in things like the history of the development of envelopes and screwdrivers, the methods by which they are manufactured, and how they are used, but may not really be interested in the world record of someone making the largest envelope or the largest screwdriver. To me, I also can't think of why someone would set out to try to break the record of making the largest envelope or largest screwdriver unless they are doing it simply as a publicity stunt. That, of course, is just my personal judgment. Regarding Dr Singh, my concern is that we require what is known as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" – please see WP:GNG. This is no judgment of the value of Dr Singh's contributions to society – it is merely a matter of what sort of information we need in order to be able to write articles properly for an encyclopedia. Regarding the Kentucky Colonel issue, there was a web page cited as a source for that information, but that web page did not contain that information when I checked it. It should be possible for the readers of Wikipedia articles to verify for themselves whether something is true or not. In that case there is also the question of weight as well. Would someone who is reading about what a Kentucky Colonel is really be interested in whether Dr Singh is a Kentucky Colonel or not? Most people have never heard of Dr Singh, and we don't want the article about Kentucky Colonels to end up with a list of thousands of people in it. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Can I Know How to put images of various news paper cuttings , who covers work of him ? Plz inform so that I can Upload them and put a link in his web page . Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laura1948 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there is any way to do that. Uploading copies of newspaper articles to Wikipedia would presumably be a copyright violation. Aren't these newspaper articles available on web sites? Incidentally, when you make a comment on someone's User talk page (like this one), you should sign your comment at the end by typing four tildes like this: "~~~~". That will be converted into an identification of who made the comment and the time of the comment. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Medicinal licenses
It's probably not the most reliable source, I mean, not exactly wining any Nobel prizes or anything, but this book does mention six distilleries who were granted medicinal licenses. I'd give you a page number but there aren't any in the e-version. Just have to use the search function. Anyway, I saw it mentioned on your to-do list and figured you might be interested. TimothyJosephWood18:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
A lot of it is online, but yeah, it looks like you'd have to buy the book to cite the page numbers correctly, I'm... just kindof taking the lazy route. TimothyJosephWood19:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I reverted your move of Distilled beverage to Distilled drink. While it may be true that "drink" is generally more common than "beverage" in most uses, that does not seem to be the case for this particular multi-word phrase. When I saw your move, I immediately reacted by thinking that the phrase "distilled drink" seemed rather awkward. At first I wasn't sure why. Then a search using Google Ngram confirmed my suspicion. The term "distilled beverage(s)" seems to be more common in reliable sources than "distilled drink(s)". In the context of (distilled) liquor, my impression is that a "drink" is a single portion served in a glass, not the bulk substance that comes in the bottle. A "drink" might also typically refer to a mixed drink rather than one of its constituent liquids. It seems to me that a drink is not something that is distilled. Something is distilled first, and then it becomes a drink later. (See also the similar comments I just made at Talk:Alcoholic drink.) —BarrelProof (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I'll try to primarily continue the conversation at Talk:Alcoholic drink rather than here to avoid duplication and engage the broader community. However, regarding whether it is my aim "to get total acceptance for using beverage across Wikipedia in place of drink", I would not say that is the case – at least that is not my current thinking. This just started with a gut reaction that "distilled drink" clangs rather oddly in my ears. My suspicion seemed confirmed by a Google Ngram check. I don't really have a grand plan. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in H. H. Gregg. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you.
During the RM discussion, the issue of compliance with MOS:TMRULES was discussed. You deliberately edited the article away from the MoS during your edits changing HHGregg to H. H. Gregg. This is unacceptable. The MoS section to which I am referring states specifically that editors must not change the 'spelling, punctuation, or grammar of trademarks'. By adding spaces and full points, this is exactly what you are doing. Full points/stops are punctuation marks. Spaces are used to punctuate sentences. I very much hope that you will read the parts of a discussion to which you actually respond: [1]. –Sb2001talk page16:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for engaging in a Talk page discussion of this matter. As you may have anticipated, I do not interpret the WP:MOS guidance in the same way that you do on this topic. I suggest that the discussion of the issue should take place at Talk:H. H. Gregg, so that others who are interested in the issue can also participate. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Personally, I haven't noticed much of an effect from "a few drops", at least for a whisky that was already diluted to ~40–45% ABV in the bottling process – although I don't claim to have the most sophisticated palate or to have experimented extensively with the question. The story also doesn't sound too conclusive, to me. I'd put more faith in a double-blind tasting experiment than the speculations and simulations of a computer model from a "computational chemist". —BarrelProof (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Tornado titles
The logic applied to renaming the outbreak articles does not, I think, necessarily also apply to individual tornadoes, as individual tornado articles do not include specific days but merely years. Master of Time(talk)20:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I hadn't thought of the difference, and in another recent RM discussion that I initiated (at Talk:Tornado outbreak of April 14–16, 2011#Requested move 19 February 2017), someone commented with "I don't see why you'd want to discuss it again. Just revert this and do it." And I think that was before the RM I filed at Talk:Tornado outbreak of April 1880. So I thought another RM should not be necessary. Personally, especially after a few years have gone by, I would be more likely to want to look up a particular tornado by its location than by its year, as I'm not very likely to remember the exact year. But perhaps I should do a formal RM for the next one. I haven't noticed any reverts so far. (Redirects are also helpful, of course.) —BarrelProof (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I see nothing ridiculous about being skeptical about the quality of reporting for the death of someone whose death has been falsely reported before in seemingly reliable sources. I think it is good to be cautious and wait for confirmation. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a "hot news" rumor site. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ammarpad (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
FYI that I had to decline this PROD because the article was kept at an AfD 11 years ago. If you think it isn't notable, it might be worth testing again since our standards have changed a lot since 2006. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:BarrelProof. 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.
Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail.
.jpg)
