User talk:Berean Hunter/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Stay off my talk page and do not abuse warning templates.

There was an explanation in the edit summary. Go away and stay gone. Shajure (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing your edit history... perhaps wp:no ownership of articles and a general review of wp:pillars might be a good idea. WP works by being wp:bold, not by "mother-may-I". Reviewing the wp:BRD might be good too. Again, to be clear: you must not abuse the warning templates as you did on my talk page, where you and all other editors are unwelcome.Shajure (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"...where you and all other editors are unwelcome." <== Sorry, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. We are a collaborative project and the talk page is to facilitate communication (you don't own it). I would hardly consider you a regular and since you flagrantly removed sourced material from an article when there was a discussion of the matter on the talk page, I left a template message...there is no abuse. If you feel there is, go file somewhere and solicit the opinions of others.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"Sorry, Wikipedia doesn't work that way." - You continue to show your ignorance of WP. That is exactly how WP works. You might seek guidance from a more experienced editor.

On the removal: I removed unsourced personal opinion *about* a quote, which was sourced... to the quote. As I am sure you are aware. Your template was indeed abuse. Do not do it again.Shajure (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you removed a whole section with ref. So put your money where your mouth is and go file somewhere if you think there was abuse. I find you to be uncivil so stay off my talk page.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

PhanuelB

Further to your post at User talk:JamesBWatson#PhanuelB block review, you may like to know that I have received an email from PhanuelB, and my response to it is at User talk:PhanuelB#Further email. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In response to a comment from Deskana I have now removed my reply from there. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

GAC reversion

Hello BH - Just wondering about your revert on the George Armstrong Custer page. I rv'd the vandalism (Nickname "Sheridan") back to "Autie," which was in fact his childhood nickname and one that his immediate family (including brothers Tom and Boston who died at LBH and his wife Libbie) used for hm throughout his life. Easily sourcable if necessary - just curious about your reverting of it. Regards, Sensei48 (talk) 05:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Right. That IP placed two accounts of "Sheridan" in there and I saw that you only reverted one. I took out the other occurrence here and left "Autie" in there. I know the edit summary makes it look like I was reverting you but I was restoring the article to the version before the vandal touched it. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Your imput is appreciated

Hi, Berean. There is an editor who is suggesting the removal of translation of royals' names from the paratheses in the lead. This means that there would be no Anglicized form of the name of Wilhelm II, German Emperor in the lead as there is now. I'm against this editor's proposal. What do you think of it? --Lecen (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion at this time. I'm aware of the dispute that resulted in a couple of blocks and have been watching from a distance.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Barbecue

Whats wrong with bbqing fish and vegtables? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keiron200 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've opened a thread on the article's talk page...we should have the discussion there.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My name is Craig "Meathead" Goldwyn and I am pretty widely thought of as one of the world's leading authorities on barbecue. My website, AmazingRibs.com is by far the most popular BBQ website in the world according to rating services comScore and Alexa. I am a certified BBQ judge, and a consultant to an author of the Oxford English Dictionary on the definition of barbecue. I have long been frustrated that the Wikipedia definition is inaccurate but I have decided that I did not want to get into a fistfight over it. But yesterday I wrote to a Wikipedia staffer "Adrignola" and asked if he could add a link to my article with the world's most complete and accurate definition of barbecue because I felt it would be inappropriate for me to do this. He reviewed the page, agreed, and added a link. You promptly removed it. So let's discuss this. I do not know your credentials or barbecue expertise, but if you can defeat me in a debate over the points I made on this page, if you can match my expertise, then leave the link off. Otherwise, I think you should give Wikipedia readers the opportunity to benefit from my expertise. The page in questions: http://amazingribs.com/BBQ_articles/barbecue_defined.html 67.186.80.37 (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I will leave a notice on your talk page here ==> User talk:Quedude

1 Who is MichaelDamianJeter?

2 Why are you using David Letterman's top ten lists on your website?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

MichaelDamianJeter is a FB friend. I asked my FB friends if any of them were Wikipedia editors and would they consider adding a link to this page because I felt it would be a conflict for me to do so. He said he would do it. I have never met him. He is just a fan of my work.

Letterman is sometimes funny. I try to educate with a sense of humor and occasionally scatter humor on my pages. CBS allows people to post Letterman's Top 10 lists because they view it as good for business. Videos of almost all his top 10 lists are posted by CBS to YouTube. The Top 10 Lists I posted to this page are humorously in support of my argument that common usage of the word barbecue is MUCH broader than the revisionist argument that barbecue is limited to low, slow, large cuts of meat with smoke. Have you read the page? Can you dispute my arguments? Do you wish to get to the, ahem, meat of the discussion? Look, I am just saying that a link to a contrary point of view belongs on the Wikipedia. I really should be arguing that most of what Wikipedia says is just flat wrong. We really ought to be talking about rewriting the page to make it accurate from a historical standpoint, from a culinary standpoint, and from a lexicography standpoint.

I am qualified to make these arguments. I have authored books on food and drink, written weekly columns in the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post food sections, I have taught at Le Cordon Bleu in Chicago and Cornell University's School of Hotel Admin, Certified BBQ Judge, etc. etc. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.80.37 (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion to the barbecue talk page as it really should involve the other editors there. Please resume there. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Much thanks for removing that little addition the IP was nice enough to add to my user page, would have been unfortunate to have had that just laying around. Thanks again. Kindly Calmer Waters 03:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

We just couldn't have that...your very welcome. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

And another thanks

Thanks for your efforts in responding to the message at ANI that I left just before heading off to see the sandman yesterday. Since they seemed to be using WikiP as Facebook (but not performing any major vandalism) clearing their over the top user and talk pages looks like the best thing that could be done. I appreciate the time you took looking into this. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad to be of assistance. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

origins of the expression "the real mccoy"

"the real mccoy" perhaps comes from reference to the Mackay regiment of the seventeenth century which was commanded by the chief of the Mackay clan who was called the reay Mackay.

Bill McCoy wcmbeehive@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.96.91 (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you happen to have a reference for this? If so, we could integrate that into the article.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the Reay Mackay is noted and referenced in the article already. Toward the end. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

CS Army

If you would read CAREFULLY, that is NOT a "self-published source." The citation to 7,000 service records of black Confederates is citing TO THE ACTUAL SERVICE RECORDS in Record Group 109 at the National Archives (or on Footnote, if you subscribe).

That "self-published" listing is merely the FINDING AID for verifiable primary sources at the N.A.

Would you prefer I list all 7,000 names individually? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.67.66.5 (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that you open a dialog on the talk page and inquire whether the additions are appropriate or if there is another way to remedy it. Someone else may have better sourcing which is allowable. The proper way would be to attempt to gain consensus there.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

blacks in CS Army

Thank you for your suggestion. I appreciate the poitn you are trying to make, and must make apologies. My knowledge of the intricacies of Wikipedia is admittedly wanting, and I apologize for my ignorance of form and any resultant frustration expressed.

The paradox I'm faced with is that the statement of incontrovertable fact I'm trying to add to the article (there ARE 7,000 such service records, I'm staring at several of them at the moment) is supported only by the existence of primary evidence.

If I understand your interpretation of Wikipedia policy, I can't point to that primary source until someone writes about it in a secondary source.

The existence of 7,000 records is prima facie evidence of the existence of the 7,000 people to whom those records relate. It would seem that rejecting a "self-published" accounting of those 7,000 entries is akin to rejecting the telephone book as a "self-published" source when citing someone's phone number.

I understand this is a delicate topic. Note I NEVER said these are "soldiers." Reasonable people can disagree as to whether or not the term "soldier" should apply only to combat personnel -- but I would point out that the more restrictive definition would purge thousands of white personnel -- surgeons, adjutants, chaplains, commissary sergeants, ordnance sergeants, etc. -- from the rolls as well. And whether or not they are soldiers, these white non-combatants were assuredly recognized as MEMBERS of thier respective units.

I wasn't saying there were "black Confederates." I said the National Archives HAS RECORDS for 7,000 black Confederates.

I don't know how to support that statement other than by directing anyone who wishes to question it to see for themselves (hence my citation to the finding aid of the names -- with which one could then check the individual records for themselves -- a simple task, particularly for Footnote users.)

But per your advice I forwarded the question to the talk page. Perhaps someone else can bridge the epistomological gap between us.

At present, it seems that if a tree falls in the woods and the fact isn't recorded in a secondary source, it doesn;t make a sound. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.67.66.5 (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

(cross-posting) I believe you that there are about 7000...and I'm not taking exception to the material in a controversial matter. I'm simply wanting such material to be properly sourced and following our policies. One of the underlying reasons behind our policies is that if a topic has significance then it will receive coverage in secondary reliable sources. If it doesn't, it isn't considered significant relevant to the articles. Wikipedia isn't about finding the truth but rather on using verifiable material found in secondary sources.

Please don't get discouraged. The material is interesting and if someone has a good source, it makes it all the more a stronger point. Since it is the weekend, a number of our editors on that article may be busy...I'd suggest a bit of patience and let's see if someone can offer up better sourcing. Btw, I'm looking myself...:)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Newspaper spam

Hi, noticed your templates on that editor's page. I left one in the beginning, when I noticed that an anonymous IP who'd been spamming that page converted into an editor and began leaving the exact same links. He erased my message, as I see he has done yours. I reverted him, but he's restored the spam links again. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see that while I was typing this you were leaving him a new message. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reported him at WP:AIV but they seem to be asleep. I've just warned him about 3RR which he has already violated. If he reverts again, he should be reported to 3RR NB for edit-warring.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Fastily has blocked him now. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I changed the title from "Arbcom personal attacks" (which is misleading, as it's just one guy on the arbcom) to what seemed to be the broader topic, which is "Arbcom e-mail leaks". Tarc reverted, with some nonsensical edit summary, and I put my version back. Which, if either, do you think is the more appropriate title? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it wouldn't matter now. I was trying to close during those reversions and getting edit conflicts...I was just happy to get it closed finally. I think we will be seeing more threads entitled Arbcom email leaks for some time. I'm all for reducing the drama.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You may be right about that. The unfortunate thing now is that the arbcom may be giving the appearance of stonewalling, when I suspect they're simply in chaos right now. Obviously, whoever leaked the info has to go - assuming they've even figured out for sure who did it. And their operating procedures probably need some serious revamping. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:GUNS

[1] Thanks a lot. I specifically stated I wanted to discuss the issue with neutral, uninvolved editors rather than the WP:GUNS clique. I simply wanted to gauge whether the larger community thinks that the guidelines are ok or not, not "challenge" them. You ruined any chance of that happening. Thanks again. You're a great guy and I appreciate what you have done. --84.44.182.35 (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. There is no reason to not have the project members aware of your posting which despite what you say here is designed to challenge the existing guidelines. To say that you are not challenging them is a complete falsehood. You've described them as departing "significantly from the spirit if not the wording of our core content policies." and called them "completely arbitrary demands".

There is nothing to stop you from discussing with the larger community in that same thread. You don't get to exclude those who might disagree with you, however. They should have the ability to present logical counterpoints. If you have an argument that would prevail with the community then it would prevail regardless of the presence of counterpoints.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to gauge whether or not there are valid arguments that speak for leaving the GUNS Guidelines as they are. If there are such arguments and reasononings, I want to hear them. My willingness to assume that I may have overlooked those arguments was the basis for my post at VPP. Of course I do come from a certain angle. Who doesn't? But what you wrote above amounts to saying that I cannot or (do not want to) differentiate between (i) the specific example situation which provided the occasion I first even noticed WP:GUNS, (ii) a discussion at the WikiProject, with its members, about that guidelines section and (iii) a thread which I started at VPP to see whether or not uninvolved editors interested in P&G issues could explain how the GUNS guidelines and their Criminal use section in particular is compatible with site-wide policy.

All I can say is that I am neither a troll, nor "asking the other parent", nor am I stupid. I know full well what VPP is for, and my thread is exactly it.

• I tried the article talk page (several years back) when and where my goal was to include that bit of info.
• I tried WT:GUNS (also several years back) when and where my goal was a discussion with GUNS members about the Criminal use section.
• I'm now trying VPP where my goal is solely to see whether I am right or wrong about this issue which I see with the Criminal use section in the first place.

You don't get to exclude those who might disagree with you, however. -- In my experience, the members of GUNS did never provide any valid feedback. Instead, they simple stonewalled any of the very valid arguments I presented. They contributed nothing of value. I do not want to exclude them because they "disagree", but because of the manner in which they simply stonewalled any attempt at serious discussion (much like you happy-IP-slapping folks are doing now at VPP, which tbh kinda defies my point in wanting to exclude GUNS members -- maybe they would actually raise the standard of debate at VPP with people like yourself around who basically call me an ill-intentioned liar and/or an idiot). My intentions are pure, and please do not call me a liar again. --87.78.55.135 (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Same here. If your reluctance to reply is related to my tone, I hereby apologise. I'd very much appreciate your input and response to the points above. --87.79.225.139 (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Copyvio

So you know, I reverted your revert on Phanuel's talk page regarding the offer to send videos a copyright violation. I don't see the issue, but I could be wrong. Could you explain it on his talk page (just to keep everything in the same place)?LedRush (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

MoMK Tag

I just proposed a compromise to get us around the MoMK tag issue on Errant's talk page (User talk:ErrantX#MoMK Tag)

Because you've been the only one discussing this with me in the last two weeks, I thought you might like to weigh in before I bring the suggestion to the talk page.

Cheers.LedRush (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I just posted on MoMK talk...let me have a look.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Needling the SPAs

Your comments about the SPAs at the MoMK seem aggressive and unnecessary to me. If they say they support the plan, why would they need to say that they specifically agree with the time frames? Why would they need to give specific wording suggestions if they agree, but SMM, Errant, or you wouldn't? Of course, your comments aren't uncivil at all. I just think they are minor examples of the very types of comments which foster the battleground mentality on the talk page.LedRush (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not needling and the questions/comments certainly aren't aggressive. I'm testing to see if they are onboard...when I say "Until when?"...I'm looking for a response like until the concerns LedRush have raised are addressed. I'm looking to see if they are still backing BS responses like this...or if they even know what they are voting on. If the SPAs show up with a "me too!", it has the appearance that someone just emailed them and asked them to do it. Two of them admitted precisely that at ANI today.

As to giving wording examples, the onus is on those who would place the tag or support placing it. That is Wikipedia-wide. When the tag is placed, they are asked how might things be changed (if they don't state it up front). We can't be expected to know their minds. It doesn't work where you throw up the tag and say "fix it" and expect others who have no problem with it to guess at it. Please see this.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not supporting either of your "sides" on this issue here :) but Berean does have something of a point that it is interesting to see if the SPA's are interested to committing to the compromise that you (and me and Berean, etc.) have committed to or whether they are simply supporting it because it gets what they want (in the short term, anyway). This is why I hate that blooming tag :) The meatpuppetry is a major and concerning issue; and a disappointing one for those of us who work hard and independently on the article. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It just seems that we are being unnecessarily skeptical of them, more so than the other editors. If they reneg on the agreement, we have a written record of what they agreed to. It just seems like there wasn't an existing problem, but the needling of them increases the chances of problems down the road (while also cementing the idea that this is a place where every edit they make is criticized and attacked). The whole thing was unnecessary.LedRush (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

We're up late, eh? Watching Rush's Chronicles....Perhaps, to put it into context, the agitation of two mea...SPAs proxy-editing for PhanuelB today at ANI didn't help. Don't worry about the SPAs. Ideally, they add something. If not, no matter.

Somehow, I see you telling a drill sergeant, "hey, do you have to shout?" and "you should be more polite".....LMFAO! Give me the latitude to work and I might coax some constructive edits out of them. They might be picking up beans from you that you didn't realize. Some of them need to be challenged without having a protector...otherwise, they will never stand up for themselves. I've been placing my trust in you, now, please do the same. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk: Robert Graysmith page

On this page under the heading "Weasel Words and Crumbling Pillars of Wikipedia," there is a lengthy piece with accusations about Michael Butterfield and to a lesser extent Jake Wark. The piece isn't just "unsigned" but even fails to have the writer's IP address, which I guess was his intention. What is Wikipedia's policy on such material? I put this on your discussion page because further up Graysmith's page, you asked about Butterfield and had been given a derogatory and at least partially incorrect answer by another party. For the record, I'll state that Michael Butterfield and Jake Wark are two of the most knowledgeable individuals I know outside of law enforcement concerning these murders and I've followed this case off and on for thirty-six years. I believe the Zodiac Killer article receives a significant amount of traffic at Wikipedia and needs to be cleaned-up but there's going to have to be a serious discussion about what constitutes a legitimate source. If an objective person invests a little time, I think they will be astounded by the number of errors, principally deliberate ones, in Graysmith's books. Unfortunately, I guess that would qualify as original research.TL36 (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm back again. The external link, "Facts about Arthur Leigh Allen" has been deleted again, possibly by the same person who wrote the comments I referenced above. This does link to an article on Mr. Allen by Michael Butterfield. I'm requesting your help in keeping it from being deleted provided you think the article is informative and NPOV.TL36 (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I found the IP and signed it but have subsequently removed the post as the accusations are BLP concerns and is also outdated since the article was since reworked. I haven't looked at the external link yet. Generally, when authors devolve into taking shots at each other, I personally prefer pulling any links to their sites so that Wikipedia doesn't become part of their battleground.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

More: I don't care for Butterfield's site because he turns towards taking shots at Graysmith. This seems inappropriate. If Butterfield has facts regarding the Zodiac case, he should simply present them without resulting in character assassination of another author in the same field with which he just happens to disagree. There is no need. Facts should speak for themselves.

From an editor's perspective, Butterfield's assertions have no more or less merit than Graysmith's because I haven't seen what Butterfield is citing when he is trying to refute Graysmith...it boils down to a he said / she said situation.

I am now familiar with Butterfield and have seen him on a documentary or two with Voigt.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how familiar you are with the case, Berean Hunter, but to me there is a difference between the two authors in that I haven't seen Butterfield creating evidence out of thin air. I'll give one example of Graysmith's fabrications: In "Zodiac Unmasked," Graysmith states that he checked the registry at Lake Berryessa for the day of the Bryan Hartnell and Cecelia Shepard stabbings and the last person to sign for that day was Arthur Leigh Allen. In fact, such a registry never existed at Lake Berryessa either before or after the stabbings. Unfortunately, there are many more examples of this in Graysmith's two books on the case and they're still a principle source for at least two Wikipedia articles.TL36 (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm well-acquainted with the case. As I recall, Graysmith states that Allen received a speeding ticket after leaving Lake Berryessa that day...that would be a great documentary find for a researcher if so.

You (and Butterfield) may be right concerning Graysmith's claims but how can the average Joe know this. At the present, it still looks like a he said/she said. It would probably take third party investigative vetting by a renowned news source or law enforcement agency to establish. At Wikipedia, our best course of action would be to remain neutral and not become involved.

Also, it is worth mentioning that authors may sometimes be wrong. That doesn't necessarily mean they were making such mistakes in bad faith and deserving of being attacked. Invective against Graysmith seems unwarranted...one may present their version which oppose his version(s) without castigating him.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Sorry I'm late in replying but treatment for my ongoing illness was an occupying force this past week. I'll agree there is an element of "he said/she said" in the link you gave. As far as a 3rd party investigation, ABC News has called Allen "exonerated" and the program "Cold Case Files" has said, "the killer is apparently not Allen." The Vallejo Police Department has egg-all-over-their-face concerning their late 1980's preoccupation with Allen as a suspect and is unlikely to ever announce he's been cleared. Since Allen's dead, they don't have to do anything.

I certainly agree with you that authors can be wrong. I readily acknowledge it is difficult for an outsider like Graysmith to write a four-hundred plus page book on the Zodiac Killer and not make some errors. An example of Graysmith just making an error occurs in "Zodiac" where he both cites and draws a map for the incorrect location of the Lake Berryessa stabbings. However, in the registry story I cited above, and there are many more examples, he is clearly fabricating stories to make Allen look guilty. There never has been a registry at Lake Berryessa so Graysmith couldn't have possibly checked it and seen that Arthur Leigh Allen was the last person to sign it on September 27, 1969. Yet, he wrote in "Zodiac Unmasked" that he did just that.

Concerning the possibility of Allen having a speeding ticket on the day of this murder, check out the first post by "Bullitt" at http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=12 If nothing else, note how Graysmith contradicts himself with what he wrote in his first book, "Zodiac," and his second one, "Zodiac Unmasked." I'm referring to Graysmith's quotes outlined in yellow that are near the bottom of this long post.

Forgive me for turning your talk page into a chit-chat. I don't like it that Graysmith's inaccurate publications are sourced numerous times but I understand Wikipedia's rules. Please don't get the impression I'm blaming you in any way.TL36 (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Berean Hunter,

Are we going to let the external link to Zodiac killer's Arthur Allen file remain? Also, should Allen be called the "primary suspect?" After the SFPD "cleared him" in 1972 by fingerprint comparisons, there was virtually nothing done for the next 15 years with Allen by law enforcement. That doesn't sound like the primary suspect in a multiple homicide case.TL36 (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the operative language applies that he was the primary suspect as far as the most notable focus was placed on him. In that sense, it still applies. I have no objection to the external link being there..not enough to remove it anyway.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive problems again

Hi Berean Hunter. Hate to bug you about this again, but the auto-archive on my talk page hasn't worked since the last time you were able to get it working. If I have the parameters right, it should have archived a few threads a few days ago, but so far nothing. If you have a chance, can you talk a look? No rush. Thanks. Singularity42 (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that it worked today. Two things are working in tandem here. The first is that there is a minimum-threads-to-archive parameter which is defaulted to the value of two when not stated explicitly. That means that at least 2 threads must be ready to archive by datestamp or it won't archive at all. The other thing is that with your switch back to 31 days from 14, it has simply taken a good while before Miszabot has gotten around to it. If you want, set the parameter ( |minthreadstoarchive=1 ) which will archive the threads as single entries. Let me know if you still have problems.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It was the 2 threads minimum parameter I forgot about. Thanks. Singularity42 (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

WP Firearms in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Firearms for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

A pie for you!

I DIDN'T STEAL ANYTHING!!! LIAR!!!! ALSO, MINE HAS "TALK" :P Cerejota (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Cheers!
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Crossmr (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Good grief. You must be bored. Can't say that I've missed the party.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where someone pointed out how you could ensure that your signature doesn't break without forcing a new line every time completing invalidating your given reason for doing so?--Crossmr (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are referring to Coren's suggestion, the &nbsp takes five characters each. With a limitation on length, I don't see how adding that (those) would help. TreasuryTag's request involved shortening the length and I met with this request. Next, I decided to drop the font size further reducing size. As seen on Firefox 5.0 on Ubuntu, my signature appearance is now less length than the required UTC datestamp. I'm assuming this too be true on other browsers & OS's as well but it may not be. Your insinuations at AN/I that I wouldn't work or compromise in this matter are unfounded. I had already been compromising before you tried to tell me what I'm going to do. I don't know you nor recall ever having interacted with you so I find your approach both uninvited and lacking in manners. Who are you to me? I removed the posting because there are certain kinds of posts which seem to invite petty bickering by leaving them out there.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I first asked you nicely, you flat-out stated that you would not change it. I simply pointed out the reality of the situation as a follow-up and you blanked the conversation. Other than Ohm's Law, who has had his signature questioned as well, no one else does what you do that I'm aware of. and a technical complaint that "my signature will break in a small tiny amount of situations if I don't new line it every time" is hardly a good justification for doing it every single time. That's why it went to AN/I. If you're signature is too long and unwieldy to properly use then you should consider changing it. It's there to quickly identify your post and provide a link to your page, not show-off with.--Crossmr (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

File:MooresKnob.JPG

Hello, I had just noticed you're nice picture at File:MooresKnob.JPG. It is a good image of Hanging Rock State Park; however, I believe that is Cook's Wall, not Moore's Knob in the photograph. Moore's Knob would be behind and blocked from view of the ridge line shown. I've seen both faces many times, but three things specifically lead me to think this is Cook's Wall:

1. The Moore's Knob observation tower is not discernible in the image, and at this distance, it should be.
2. Moore's Knob has a distinctive rock face that bulges out of the ridge. This image lacks such.
3. Cook's wall has a distinctive, descending rock ridge, which looks much like the left side of the image.

I think the image should be renamed Cook's Wall. –Sparkgap (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right. I'll try to get this corrected.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Changed to File:CooksWallHangingRock.JPG.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

MedCab

Please see and list your comments there. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Reportedly haunted locations in the United States

Why did you undo four of my edits? Sources are referenced on the main page for Reportedly haunted locations in Pennsylvania. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated that category for deletion. We don't need to litter our Civil War battlefields by promoting non-academic fruit loop fringe ideas. Wikipedia shouldn't be a playground for sensationalism. Further, the actual articles that you placed that category in do not have any mention whatsoever that would relate to the category.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 11:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I could add a section to those pages if it will alleviate your concerns for inclusion in the category. As for deletion of the category, good luck. Try religion next and tell me how that goes. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Anthos

I think that was a great collaborative effort! At least one person had a need for some really obscure information to be untangled, and we managed to do that. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

...and who would have thought that the answer was in a 1969 comic book?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Carlos Hathcock

Carlos Hathcock CLAIMED he shot through a scope, where is the actual evidence? The references are just his word!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.147.4 (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

He had 93 confirmed kills - referenced. It isn't up to you to criticize based on your opinion. You need reliable sources...and more importantly, you should be using the talk page to form a consensus.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

He might have had 93 confirmed kills, but that does not change that the facts of this kill are in question. It was his CLAIM with no other evidence!!! Prove me wrong, please where is the evidence that he shot down a scope (not just his or his spotters word). physics theory shows it is imposible and practical experiemnts (at closer range) have shown that is it probably impossible. So excuse me for trusting evedience over somebodies word. You know a CLAIM!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.147.4 (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Mythbusters episode? That is just a claim. Why are you willing to accept that as gospel? How many ballistics charts have you analyzed? As I have asked you, what are the reliable sources that you cite? Mythbusters said that his shot was possible.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Discussion moved to talk page
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing

I'd like to hear what you think at Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik#Proposed_compromise. causa sui (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Compromise accepted. Replied on article talk page.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Hi. There is a request for mediation at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_mediation:_Non-lethal_weapon_page.3B that mentions you.   — Jeff G.  ツ 01:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that this was rightfully rejected as the user skipped past all other forms of dispute resolution.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Now there is a request for mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-08-20/ that mentions you.   — Jeff G.  ツ 12:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Berean Hunter. You have new messages at Talk:Non-lethal_weapon#Mediation_case_now_open.
Message added 20:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TransporterMan (TALK) 20:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Egg Centric 19:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. 8^D
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I expect HJ is asleep so...

I don't know if you noticed, but the same vandalism that you asked HJ about on his talk page had showed up on his talk page a few hours earlier, with a threat about hacking his account. He reverted the vandalism. Just in case this is helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 00:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that after I left the post. I figured he deleted with a CTRL-X which placed it in his clipboard and then accidentally got pasted in when he composed his post. Thanks for making sure that I was aware.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Cheesecake edit

Sorry if I don't use the right terms about the wikipedia enviroment. I am pretty new about this. Regarding the "Revert good faith edit" made on 01:31, 9 September 2011 in the cheesecake article, I will like to say that I found there is a direct relation between cheesecake and recipes, pictures, history and trivia all about cheesecake. I understand that main article is restricted to the most confirmed and important information and that is why I think that an external link could bring some good information that is not supposed to be in the article. Yet the language could be an important reason since the blog is in Spanish. Is there some particular reason about this revert that you will let me please know?

Thanks a lot for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamox (talk • contribs) 14:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. According to linking guidelines, we don't allow links to non-authoritative blogs (Rule #11).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 13:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sherman Minton

Please check the last few edits. In particular, an earlier edit. I was trying to get it to go to a subsection of See Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States. It doesn't link right. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Never mind. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(went for a cup of java) I see another editor is there now. I'll see if I can improve this article later.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It's todays FA. So sooner is better than later. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to break for now with a hope to return today.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice additions and corrections, so far. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

re: hi chad

174.88.241.238 (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Hi, Just so you know. I do not hold any grudge against you or your comrades. I do think my link should be added to the aeroponic page. I donated to support wikipedia only 5 bux but everything helps. I appreciate that you and the other editors are trying keep site spam free. I do feel you all should analyze and change the linguistics you use when replying to people who have edited pages. Words like spam and vandalism are very negative and quite frankly insulting. I do not care you know my ip, i know how to use proxies, i have no reason hide. My real name is posted on the articles on the link i was adding too. If you google im sure you could even find a picture of me on linkedin or facebook or http://chadpeterson.org there is a pic of me and my son. Anyway, have a great day and good luck in all you do.

Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. :)

It's kind of funny that people take offense to the word "spam"...especially since it was Monty Python who inspired its use on the internet. I believe that I did use that word in relation to your site but I'm not aware of using the word vandal with you. I try to reserve that word for obvious cases where the perpetrator has earned it.

Yes, I know that you know how to hop IPs through proxies but take care not to do that too much. When the abuse level from proxies becomes overbearing they can be blocked, too.

Wikipedia just isn't the place to try and promote websites. Damn the SEO strategies and the web engines who caused them.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by user:Andymcgee

Hello. I don't know much about wikipedia editing, but I do know vandalism when I see it, and I noticed some by user:Andymcgee on the page for Biotin. I believe I successfully reverted it, and then noticed that you'd warned him against vandalism several times, so I thought I'd let you know that he'd done it again. I assume you have privileges to block a user from being able to edit articles, and I definitely don't, so I thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to take action.

If you want more information, please feel free to contact me at fiduch@gmail.com

Thanks,

--Fiduch (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by Kuru. Thank you for letting me know. In the future, if I'm not available, you may report persistent vandals to the Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard. (...and no, I'm not an admin so I personally do not block other editors). Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Dispute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Non-lethal_weapons You are notitified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andering J. REDDSON (talk • contribs) 02:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Bradley manning

please go and read the logs between manning and lano and also article referenced in the main text, also please read about the definition of transgender. The initial description at the start page on transgender is always in flux as their big bun fight in relation to transexuals, however it covers the main areas and manning clearly falls with transgender. go read how wikipedia deals with transgender naming. Also be aware that manning identifies herself as a woman, I personally know her real name but i am not at liberty to discuss it. I know manning via friends in the hacker community. I chose to use they and their because it was LESS controversial rather than editing through and simply replacing he with she.

please respect manning wishes about herself no matter what your personal views are on the issue.

thank you

X-mass (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Replied on article talk page.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

NLW Talk Page

I am requesting you remove your post-13 September comments to get the section back on-track to get it hashed out. (It would help to approach the matter with the idea “Andy might be a crazy a—hole, but I could at least try and hear it out before I say no.”) Remove this section as convenient.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Additionally: Mr Stradivarius went a bit further than I thought. let’s try doing this tthe RIGHT way from here on, ¿ok? I have proposed a preliminary text for presentation. Mr Stradivarius also stated one of the anti-pepperspray sources has issues; For the interim, I propose keeping that source until a better source can be presented, and in the interim using the “Citation Needed” tag behind it (so it would look something like [23/No Pepper Spray Source][Citation needed]). The source in question has been ruled not neutral, but I would not recommend using a neutrality dispute tag there; I “get it” there’s an issue and you have to use the sources available, not always the sources you WANT. (Hey, I wanted an FBI article as a source for misuse, but I can’t find it and apparently no one else can either.) Ok, let’s get the section OFF in the meantime and get this thing fixed properly. And let’s end this BS and start cooperating.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for moving forward constructively and glad to see you adopt this stance. As to removing comments, we don't do this on Wikipedia (unless it is vandalism, copyright infringement, personal attacks) because it messes up the flow of conversations. However, my previous comments would not prevent forward progress.

I have seen you state that you don't know how to do citations. If I may help, you may want to look at WP:CITE and these examples to learn how.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Aloe Vera

First about promotional material have you at least read what kind of a site it is? I am studying medicine and I would advise adding certain material. At least read things before deletion You delete first http://naturaldatabase.therapeuticresearch.com/nd/Search.aspx?cs=&s=ND&pt=9&Product=aloe+ver&btnSearch.x=0&btnSearch.y=0 this is the site by witch it was written. Or delete this one from references too ^34 "Korea interested in Dominican ‘aloe vera’". DominicanToday.com—The Dominican Republic News Source in English. Retrieved 2008-07-19. Cause this info has absolutely no significance nor use or credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilvijusAidwort (talk • contribs) 19:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I looked at it before deleting. You are here to promote this website. You have a conflict of interest.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

40 Whacks listing in Lizzie Borden page

Hello -

You commented that listing 40 Whacks could not be done because you don't allow promotion on wikipedia pages. We aren't looking to promote it but have it listed. It was a well received avant garde musical that ran for the better part of a year at one of the most famous and well respected fringe theaters in Chicago.

Thanks, Irene — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.252.47 (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sniper rifle page edits

Negative. Adding a telescopic sight to a rifle does not necessarily make it a sniper rifle. Simo Häyhä is a prime example, the most successful sniper in the world used iron sights on a standard issue infantry rifle. His rifle however is a sniper rifle.

My argument is that the rifle itself does NOT necessarily make it a sniper rifle. It is a sniper that makes a sniper rifle, regardless of caliber, accessories, form, or function. An air pistol may be considered a sniper rifle if the sniper deems it the most appropriate choice for the mission at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.98.120 (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I see where you are going with that now and can agree somewhat. I actually thought that you were trying to make the argument that the addition of a scope wasn't sufficient and that the rifle needed to be more exacting (in other words, require greater specs on the rifle such as the modern notion of a sniper weapon). Thank you for explaining,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but I thought the article on Simo Häyhä was very informative and fascinating. I didn't know he existed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No, you aren't interrupting. If you aren't already familiar with him, you may find Vasily Zaytsev fascinating along the same lines...although his kills are not as numerous as Hayha's. I'm also a fan of Carlos Hathcock. The wiki articles may read rather dryly about their experiences, however.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Vasily Zaytsev is old news, but a meticulous craftsman nonetheless. I thought he wikipedia article ws nicely done. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hathcock I knew something about, but had not looked at the Wikipedia article. Seemed thorough. Thanks for the recommendation. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Please remove these listings

Hi Berean

Can I ask you please remove these listings. Found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berean_Hunter/References in spammers section

aeroponichowto.com (*|search current)

chadpeterson.org (*|search current)

bedbug-toronto.com (*|search current)

prosperityhealth4life.com (*|search current)

dysonairmultipliers.com (*|search current) waystohelptheenvironment.org (*|search current)

weed-love.com (*|search current)

Since the violations I have not tried to "spam" wikipedia. It has been a few weeks. All these sites belong to me and I would greatly appreciate if they could be removed. Please consider my request. Just so you know, when I did add links it was not to gain seo benefits. It was to gain traffic. I am reformed. 70.31.157.2 (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

you have been nice enough to ask...which is better than the stupid bastards that usually make the list. :)

As long as you stay away from spamming these links on Wikipedia....then yes..I'll remove them. You have potential....I wish you well.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

You are right, after looking at the reliability page on wikipedia, that source was not as credible as it could've been. I will try to find a better source if I have time.

David — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.167.103 (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. You may find something at Google books.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 07:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support

Specifically, thanks for tagging the "Baseball Bugs Block" discussion as archived here. As I suggested, the original discussion seemed to have finished, gender differences between WP editors is a whole 'nother issue which could be discussed until the cows (and, of course, bulls, for fear of accusations of gender bias) come home. I thought I'd leave it open rather than start a whinging war about "archived it, shouldn't have archived it". Again, thanks. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. :) I didn't want the thread to spiral into something else as they often can at AN/I and saw that you were onto a good idea of archiving. With the thread's purpose accomplished, there would have only been extraneous commentary to follow.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for your help! :) WhiteWriter speaks 14:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you...let's hope it works. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Moriori

The Incident has been reopened as there have been some comments made on it by myself and another editor based on what was left on my talk page. Fastily even had to get involved. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 09:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

My Signature Guestbook

Hi there! Would you mind signing my guestbook? You can reach it here. Thanks! Pinkstrawberry02™ ^talk 13:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hooker's Railroad Extravaganza

I put the mention of Hooker's grand railroad exploit back into his article WITH citation this time. I will continue putting it back in every time you remove it.

Rebels moving less than 4,000 men a mere 14 miles on rails proves nothing in comparison to moving 22,000 men nearly 12,000 miles in 7 days. Most history books, both military history and rail history, consider the rail use at Bull Run insignificant at best, a mere footnote to Hooker's efforts. Even the training material for the railroad brigade at Ft Eustis completely skips Bull Run to focus on Hooker's railroad extravaganza.

Also, who left you in charge of deciding if Hooker's rail use adds nothing to his list of achievements? It is quite literally the most important thing he ever did in the entirety of his military service, and one of the only things that occurred during the ACE that still has any bearing on the military today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.221.122 (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

We will need to discuss this on the article talk page.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Do me a favor

Go ahead and post the AN/I and get me blocked you'd be doing me a favor. I'm done. I ain't playing no victim. I got enough on my plate with my brother going into surgery that I don't need the "Wikidrama", all I was doing was making my stand and walking away from it and ending it and I just wanted everyone who was on there to back off and let it go so it'd end already, half the users that went and commented on there I don't even know or have talked to. I don't know how so many people got involved in this and I felt bad about it cause all I wanted was an apology for the strongly worded statement on my talk page and the forcing of me to apologize for something I didn't need to apologize as the user was doing the wrong thing on more then one page. So please just file the report get me blocked, I don't want anymore to do with Wikipedia and it'd be doing me a BIG favor. JamesAlan1986 (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"I don't know how so many people got involved in this and I felt bad about it cause all I wanted was an apology for the strongly worded statement on my talk page..."

When you file at AN/I, you are making yourself high profile which is why you got so much attention. Try reading the other threads there. When you file there, it isn't to get an apology. I don't see where you asked for just an apology in either the ANI thread or anywhere else. Could you provide diffs please?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Berean Hunter. You have new messages at Misza13's talk page.
Message added 14:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just considering that you are active there, might as well leave a talkback for you so you can reply. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 14:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Walther PP

What's your source on the Walther PP being chambered in 9x19mm? It's always been my understanding that 9x19mm it too powerful for straight blowback. Funkychinaman (talk) 06:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. I made a mistake when reverting you and thought it was for Walther PPQ and not Walther PP. Thank you for pointing this out...you are quite right; the largest caliber that I know of that the PP was chambered for was the 9mm Ultra.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Funkychinaman (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ed Bishop Photo

So far I have nowhere (!) seen a valid fair use rationale, it's just the say-so. This photo (as the prior one) was appropriated from the website of ISOSHADO without even properly naming the copyright owner and is not following three of the necessary fair use policy points:

It very likely harms ISOSHADO commercially (because they do use their photos in fan-items, which are sold to support their extensive collection), free photos or images can be procured with some really basic amount of work (e.g. asking ISOSHADO, or Mr. Bishop's widow Jane Skinner, or one of his daughters), and lastly, there is really nothing in these photos which cannot be added textually. Why a photo has to be enforced now onto this article, without even the slightest attempt at seeking for a properly licensed or donated one is beyond me. This is not endearing Wikipedia to any of Bishop's fans or family. Grainsofsalt (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

But is the use of this particular image financially damaging to ISOSHADO? Do you have any evidence that it is beyond it being "very likely"? SuperMarioMan 23:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not making the argument that the image is or isn't properly supported by the uploader's rationale. I'm trying to point out to you, Grainsofsalt, that the proper procedure for this kind of dispute is to nominate the image at Wikipedia:Non-free content review and state your case there. The way that you are going about it may get you blocked if you edit-war to change the uploader's rationale. I have no opinion regarding the image at this time and am trying to help steer you in the right direction. Wikipedia has policies and procedures that must be followed. Hopefully helpful,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit War Notice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Berean.E2.80.93Hunter_reported_by_User:Andering_J._REDDSON — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andering J. REDDSON (talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 September 2011‎ (UTC)

Ummm...

I'm blocked and can't edit anymore (you can check Solowing106 to see for yourself.) I know I created an account for my friend, and that he was not using it anymore. I figured I'd edit the page, put down my IP, and use his account's watchlist to track that page. However, when I made the edit, I was already signed into his account his signature got there instead. I then cut out that part and 'followed the plan'. What I'm trying to say is, there is no other user. If you could give me some tips, since I never did really contribute to the wiki, that would be wonderful. Thanks. 67.1.81.250 (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I am new here and appreciate your input. I hope I don't make too many mistakes. --Keepemhonest2 (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

PS. Ut-oh, not a good sign, I've already had to correct a mistake in my message to you ... --Keepemhonest2 (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you will do fine. We are a community here and others will also help you. Correcting each other's mistakes is what editing on the Wiki is all about.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, and yes, thank you

Oh you wonderful person... believe it or not I have never figured out how to archive, and have never found the time ... always seems to be something more interesting to do than deal with my own pages. Thank you. I'd love it. If you set it up I think I can figure out faster by seeing what you did than doing myself. (olive (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC))

Thank you so much. i'm very grateful for your help. The page looks great.(olive (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC))

You're quite welcome. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

22's that go thipppppt

I changed it to past tense.  :) Funny because High Standards, the Colt Woodsman/Huntsman, and others were used by SF, Recon, etc in Vietnam and up to the 80's (I'm writing a semiautobiographical piece and one of the bad guys in question uses a Suppressed Woodsman stolen from the armory...and that part is based on a true story), but the SEALs then used Suppressed SW M39's (Hush puppies). Looks like they went back to a bigger bore, probably because they don't need to worry so much about shooting guard dogs these days. Hmm, maybe they'll run a sale on those used Mk2's with the internal can? :) --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a nice one you've got...my buddy works at AAC, I'll have to see what they offer. I try to get the most out of my cans because I hate the tax...but I've been thinking about a Ruger like that off and on for a while. Maybe I'll break down and sell one of the Uzis to swing it!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

M14 film

Thanks for the help with the M14 film. The web site you found is much better than Youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. Archive.org is a preferred site on Wikipedia as the projects have similar goals and there is no advertising.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Dreadstar talk

Thanks for completing that revert. I wasn't watching carefully and didn't realize I hadn't reverted all of the trolling comments.(olive (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

You're welcome. I've just requested page protection from the trolling and gravedancing.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Blog Link

Hi, I've edited a hyperlink for the words "pecan pie recipe" and "green bean casserole recipe". The link directed to just that - their recipes. I just read that my edits have been rejected and I'm on my last warning for spamming? I thought that I was properly referencing users to resources... this is my first time actually editing wikipedia so I'm confused. The message also said it was blocking it because it doesn't link to blogs or social media websites - well it's not a chat page or anything, it's a Recipe reference with no personal information but it is utilized on a free "blog" website. The stories are the recipes, 100%. It discusses the common ingredients and how to prepare them for the named food and that's all - is that still not allowed?

Anyways, sorry about almost getting banned from wikipedia in the first 15 minutes of "using" it!! :S — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassyleeripper (talk • contribs) 06:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. We generally don't allow recipes to be used because we actually prefer reliable sources that are publishing something about the subject matter. You might try looking at google books for more scholarly material (which is what I'm doing at the moment).

I took pause before giving you a level 4 warning...I tried to issue a much milder level 2 but received a notice that this was already done within the last 24 hours and the same thing occurred when I tried a level 3.

If you are wanting to contribute recipes then you may want to take a look at Wikibooks where recipes are welcome...I see one on the front page today. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any pecan pies there but here is a pumpkin pie as an example. You could create one for pecan pie. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi again,

Thank you for your suggestion. I guess I just wasn't putting it in the right section after all! :) I'm so new!

Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassyleeripper (talk • contribs) 23:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Note

Thank you for fixing the page. My little girl wrote it and I was fixing it same time with you. Thank you for keeping Wikipedia sharp! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.124.130.104 (talk) 05:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

:)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 13:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

hook me up with some good shit, man!

Could you give me smilies? Don't send me to instructions, just edit my skin or whatever it is and make it happen, please.TCO (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is just simple instructions and getting the template usage right. It is Template:Smiley.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(disregard, will use template)TCO (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Natalie Wood

Alright, I'll calm down. I'll go away from Wikipedia for a while after saying something that's relevant. Weird, isn't it, that there is a consensus that the article should mention Natalie's dates with Raymond Burr and Nick Adams in the 1950s but it should leave out the time she spent with Christopher Walken in North Carolina a month before they had so much trouble on the yacht? Those decisions are weird. People are hinting that a 1950s movie studio arranged dates for closeted gay men, so what's wrong with stating a fact about a man whose closeness to Natalie at the very end of her life led to a lot of trouble?Gertrude Lawrence (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I think you will appreciate that more a little later on. You can take some solace in realizing that the decision wasn't set in stone. Consensus can change.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

My edit.

What did you find that was not constructive? Please Answer Elsaisdabest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsaisdabest (talk • contribs) 06:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Archive question

Hi, I modified the archiving code ever so slightly by copying a little bit from another page. (Hope that doesn't screw it up, cause I don't really understand it.) Does it automatically make a second archive when needed, or do I have to do something?

Also, I get your point that I should have used diffs instead of copying parts to the talk pages. It was a big mistake to do that. I learned from this and won't do that again. Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry that I came across to you as questioning your good faith. In fact, I have no doubt that you are contributing with the purest of motives, and I regret that I seemed to say otherwise. I did not express myself well, and my failure clearly upset you and others. Mea culpa. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Your words had probably struck deeper because you are one of those that I value highly and still do. No harm done and your apology is meaningful to me. A few days off the wiki have helped, too. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Way to go! (Not ;-)

Nice job enabling a sock! In all seriousness, I had a gut feeling about "Gertrude Lawrence" and that Wwwaaa1234 was also Gertrude Lawrence. That was a big part of why I was communicating as little as possible with that user so he would "out" himself as a sock eventually. In the future, I'd appreciate it if you'd be a little more trusting and give me the benefit of the doubt (I felt you were taking sides). I've been here long enough to see a lot of behavior that means more than what may meet the eye. And in the end, I'm usually right. I hope we can work collegially together in the future, as I know I'm more than willing to do so. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course! :) I wondered if they were a sock because it was clear that socking was going on but I felt the need to AGF in the possible event that I was wrong. Better to err on the side of caution and not drive a possible contributor away.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

All firearms are not weapons

All firearms are not weapons as some are not designed to be used as weapons for example blank firing firearms and specific target firearms like those used in shooting details during biathlons or ISSF competitions. Flare guns are another good example of firearms that weren't intended to be used as weapons.

From dictionary.com

Weapon

[wep-uhn] Show IPA noun 1. any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon. 2. anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire. 3. Zoology . any part or organ serving for attack or defense, as claws, horns, teeth, or stings. verb (used with object) 4. to supply or equip with a weapon or weapons: to weapon aircraft with heat-seeking missiles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theskylinegtr (talk • contribs) 12:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Tool

[tool] Show IPA noun 1. an implement, especially one held in the hand, as a hammer, saw, or file, for performing or facilitating mechanical operations. 2. any instrument of manual operation. 3. the cutting or machining part of a lathe, planer, drill, or similar machine. 4. the machine itself; a machine tool. 5. anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose: Education is a tool for success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theskylinegtr (talk • contribs) 12:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's explanation of a weapon.

A weapon, arm, or armament is a tool or instrument used with the aim of causing damage or harm (either physical or mental) to living beings or artificial structures or systems. In human society weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, fighting, self-defense, crime, law enforcement, and war.

This is why I think firearms should be described as tools.

Theskylinegtr (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Moving this to the article talk page where it belongs...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin Piatt Runkle

I've significantly expanded and, I hope, improved the Benjamin Piatt Runkle article. I believe he's notable not only for his military rank, but also for his positions with the Freedmen's Bureau and his Supreme Court case, Runkle v. United States. While working on the article, I came across this reference that may convince you to change your opinion at WP:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Piatt Runkle. After examining this reference, I'm not convinced Runkle's military rank was purely honorary — even though it appears he was brevetted after the war, he was still in the army and he is repeatedly referred to as Brigadier General Runkle in period citations from the book referenced. For example: p. 289 "Brigadier General Benjamin Runkle suggested in his testimony before the congressional invesigating commitee..." and p 291 "before I let any of them leave the hospital I reported them to General Runkle...", etc. If he was brevetted to Major General, why the references to him as a Brigadier? I don't know if that's enough to sway you, but he appears to be more than a Colonel of volunteers who founded a fraternity — pretty much the state of the article a week ago. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed that you have been diligently improving the article. Your efforts are commendable. Let me review this article tomorrow and discuss further.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Argh! I'm running out of time. I'm going to have to take a short break for the holidays. I will comment at the AfD.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. If you read this before (or during or after) your holiday break, here's a question to mull over: I think the "Breveted Colonel, Brigadier General and Major General of Volunteers, November 9, 1865, for 'meritorious services.'" quote you mentioned at the Afd that had been in the article previously may have come from here: [2]. In any case, the wording is a bit confusing. I would interpret that as meaning he was brevetted Colonel of Volunteers, Brigadier General of Volunteers and Major General of Volunteers, but it could also mean mean Colonel and Brigadier General regular Army and Major General of Volunteers, however the latter seems unlikely. He had already been Colonel of Volunteers in the 45th Ohio. He would've been Lt. Colonel of Veteran Reserve Corps at the time of the November 9, 1865 brevetting. And why, if he had been brevetted to Major General of Volunteers, would he be referred to as Brigadier General Runkle during his time in the Freedmen's Bureau during the Memphis Riots in 1866? That seems strange. Any thoughts? Mojoworker (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

new section

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		good works Puffin Let's talk! 23:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you; I appreciate it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy Christmas

	Season's greetings!
	I hope the holiday season is relaxing and fulfilling, and that 2012 will be fruitful for you. --John (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I hope that it has been for you as well and that the coming year finds you blessed in all of your endeavors. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Patented invention info box

We are working on Abraham Lincoln's patented invention. I don't think an infobox like this exists, and it obviously should. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me look next week. I've tried looking through some of the other infoboxes and found Template:Infobox invention but I'm not sure if that would meet the criteria that you are looking for.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Will add it to the article, as for now it will have to do. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln's patent I don't know why, but the infobox doesn't seem to be displaying correctly. Not idiot proof. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It needs spaces for *Dates of invention *Date of application *Date of patent *Image (I think that has been added, I might have done it.) I don't like messing with templates as it is above my pay grade. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to work something up and get back to you with it. I imagine it will be a work in progress with the idea of eventually running it past WikiProject Law for ideas as well. I imagine that *Country* will be a field for the box to make it a global use infobox.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"Grandfather's Clock" edit

For some reason, my Talk page post about the error in the Storyline section of the entry isn't showing when I look at the page, though it shows in the revision history. Short version: someone failed to notice the actual title, author, and (most important) date of the use of "grandfather clock" in a Google-digitized book. Aside from being OR, this is a rookie-researcher error, which I noted. I edited the entry before posting the explanation. Sorry if this seemed to violate protocol, but I think I'm right on this one. RLetson (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I concede that the work by John Joy Bell was dated later. I'll respond on the article talk page.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

For reasons I can't figure out, the Talk page still isn't updating on my system (though I can see the entries in the revision history--go figure), so again I'll post a response here.

About the "Ovid, John Dryden" attribution: That format translates as "an author named John Dryden Ovid." Google's automated process for producing attributions is clearly flawed, but a look at the title page of the scanned volume would have revealed the nature of the book--and finding Scottish dialect sketches in a volume of translations of Latin literature would have raised a red "there's something wonky here" flag. I apologize for the snark in my Talk page comment (I didn't track back to see who contributed the edit), but in literary and linguistics scholarship that really is a rookie error.

The OED isn't infallible, but it remains the most reliable single source for etymologies and dates-of-publication for words preceding the 20th century. I would vet evidence contradicting its conclusions very, very carefully, especially if my primary tool is Google. RLetson (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You can probably see the updated talk page now but in the future you can try to bypass your cache on your browser which will force a purge and reload (different from just hitting the reload button) and you should see the newest changes. (It's an internet rookie mistake )

Google books wasn't/isn't my only research tool but it certainly is the most expansive. I should have examined more closely in my searches. Mea culpa. Thank you for finding the error and my apologies for reverting you.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	You have been a consistent and beneficent force for good. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Berean Hunter. You have new messages at Lhb1239's talk page.
Message added 01:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(talk→ LesHB ←track) 01:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For doing the right thing, having the right motivation, and bravely stepping in to help work toward a peaceful resolution to an issue on my talk page. I appreciate the smoothing-the-waters effort on your part. Wikipedia needs more editors like you. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 01:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully things will be peaceful for you. Editing should be a pleasure although I realize that sometimes it isn't. It is best to let things roll off your back and ignore what you can -- that virtue will serve you well. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Happy 2012 !!!
		Dear Berean Hunter, May the Year to Come Bring You Great Happiness. Very Best Wishes, SuperMarioMan 02:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ronald Spiers

You never go by a shadow box to decide what awards a person has. You go by the DD214 or the rules of the awards. Unless you can show proof otherwise, there is no way possible he would have three awards of the National Defense Service Medal. The NDSM didn't come into being until Korea and was not retroactive. The only wartime service it would have been awarded to him would have been Korea and Vietnam. His service during Vietnam would have been the second award, thus the bronze star.

I am finding this mistake on a lot of WWII veterans pages and it is simply wrong. The medal did not exist and was not retroactive.76.177.47.225 (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I would rather see the DD214 than anything. That would help. In lieu of that, other reliable sources would work.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for 1877 U. S. Patent Office fire

The DYK project (nominate) 15:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Apache

About the viet-sniper is up for deletion, thought you might want to weigh in as you helped on it. But be warned, it's a lying piece of war propoganda made up 20+ years after the war by me to insult billions of asians! Not mentioned in any of the sources used, etc! gotta love wiki--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been sick and haven't been on much. I'll have a look.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 13:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Floating Batteries

With the intent of removing my duplicate posting and cleaning up your talk page a little, and to avoid possible attention to exactly the same wording, I have removed all of the comments I had put on this page because they are all on the talk page for Clement H. Stevens. It is really no different than moving them, I suppose. The bottom line is that there is some confusion in some sources but the fact seems to be that Stevens's Morris Island battery was not a second floating battery. Also, it was on Cummings Point, so only two batteries are involved in the immediate discussion. Stevens is given credit for at least designing the floating battery in some sources, including Eicher, p. 509. The Harper's article quoted in the Floating Battery of Charleston Harbor article refers to the "Stevens floating battery," which may have contributed to some confusion. In any event, the most certain and best way to handle this now seems to me to leave the Clement H. Stevens and two floating battery articles, with respect to Stevens role as to floating batteries, as they are. I have found a few other bits of information about Stevens that I will probably add. Sorry for the confusion and extended posting on the talk page and imposition on your time. Thanks for straightening this out. Donner60 (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. I regret that I don't have more available time right now to research further because I do find it interesting and I've tried to sort out the emplacements in the "ring of fire" surrounding Charleston Harbor. Not to confuse things further but here is a Union battery on Morris Island called Stevens' Battery which is yet a different battery of same name but in 1863. I haven't figured out if this was in "the parallels" below Battery Wagner or the marsh side facing Sumter after Wagner and Battery Gregg were abandoned. I suspect the latter.

Many of the early Confederate batteries were dismantled after they took Sumter in April 1861 with the remnants being deployed into seaward-facing batteries or the metals of armor being provisioned for ironclads. There was so much transition that it becomes difficult to track. I understand your confusion especially considering that batteries were called by multiple names and those also changed as they were dedicated to the fallen like Battery Gregg and Battery Bee.

Btw, your efforts on ACW articles is greatly appreciated. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It is a challenge to try to get the Charleston batteries and defenses exact and to give the various officers the proper credit. I think the articles are in a good enough state to give the topic a rest and for me to move on with articles on the remaining Confederate generals. The next one is another Stevens! Donner60 (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Arthur Leigh Allen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Times-Herald (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr A (talk · contribs)

This user made a lot of pro-communist edits as well. Keep changing the name of VC to NLF in some VNW battle articles. Get him. 134.139.71.248 (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

At first glance, I see him making a few comments in edit summaries which raise eyebrows concerning civility/personal attacks but I also noticed that it isn't one-sided. I will look into this more when I have the time to see if there are serious issues. It is best not to advocate anything particular on Wikipedia except good writing and editing. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

About that IP warrior

Since he's becoming more abusive I've opened this. Magic♪piano 18:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Please page-protect article on South Vietnam & North Vietnam

Hi, can you please protect the articles on South Vietnam and North Vietnam? There has been consistent biased, partisan, historically-incorrect, one-sided POV-based edits on the articles, partically by the user "Mr. A". He constantly made edits calling South Vietnam a "military dictatorship", "puppet state of the U.S.", and called the country "fascist". These edits are historically incorrect, as numerous users have reverted edits like these, but user Mr. A continues to reimpose his edits. South Vietnam was not a military dictatorship throughout it's existence, only for a short period between 1963 - 1965, between the assassination of President Ngo Dinh Diem and election of President Nguyen Van Thieu, who by the time of his presidency, was not a very active member of the South Vietnamese military. South Vietnam was not, at all, a puppet state of the United States, it was only a staunch ally of America, and the U.S. provided much needed assistance, militarily and economically, to South Vietnam. The presidency of President Ngo Dinh Diem (1954 - 1963) was clearly nationalistic and free from any "control" of America, which was probably why the CIA sanctioned his assassination (even the Vietnamese-language article on Ngo Dinh Diem mentioned this). User Mr. A also called South Vietnam "fascist", which is wrong, defamatory and offensive to the Vietnamese people. S. Vietnam had a democratically-elected government (albeit was corrupted), it's ethnic minorities were not persecuted, discriminated or ëxterminated like what the Nazis did to the Jewish people and others in Germany (in fact, there were guaranteed seats in the national legislature for the Khmer, Cham and Tay Nguyen minorities), culture and expression was not tightly controlled by the government, like what the Nazis did in Germany by trying to impose "Nazi culture" in German society, or what communists in the Vietnam, USSR, China, North Korea did by trying to brainwash their people with communist propaganda and ideas, and at least human rights was respected in the South, unlike the Nazis or the current Vietnamese communist regime today. Mr. A, which can be seen on his user page, is 'strongly opposed to South Vietnam" and has a long list of support for authoritarian communist and sepratist parties, and is the wrong person to be editing articles on Vietnam, as he imposes biased, one-sided commentary, not recognized facts in articles, and insists that his comments are supported with references, where in reality those references are not valid, as there's a difference in obtaining citation from scholars and professors as opposed from citing from some random person in the public, which was also why Mr. A's edits are constantly being undone. What this user is doing is contrary to the values of Wikipedians, which expect all articles to be properly sourced, unbiased and neutral/non-partisan, exhibiting all sides and point of views on all topics, and be free from superimposing a certain P.O.V. (letting the reader themselves to decide what to support, not leading readers to a certain side). As well, being born and raised in Vietnam and seeing the country inside-out, seeing both sides of the War (Viet Cong vs. South Vietnamese democrats) and knowing the views and actions of both sides, living under 2 different governments (South Vietnam and and under a communist-unified Vietnam), I know that whatever Mr. A is editing is grossly wrong, biased, and false, but that user insists that he, someone who never even step foot on Vietnam, is right and knows more about Vietnam and it's history, than native-born and raised Vietnamese. As well, being a political refugee (Boat People) from the oppression, death & destruction, fear and poverty caused by the communist regime, I feel it is very important that the world knows the truth, and only the truth, about Vietnamese history, so the world can learn prevent another exodus of 3 million boat people in the future. I hope you can please protect these 2 articles. Thank you for your time and concern — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.193.213 (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The place to make page protection requests is at WP:RFPP however such a post as the one you left above wouldn't work. I note that this has gone to ANI now and I will try to follow along but my time is limited at the present.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 12:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Linkspam

Hi. I had seen a few of these, but never such an onslaught. There are (at least) two problems with these. First, although they are generally well-written little articles, the external link standard says that we should not be linking to information that could have been provided in a fully developed Wikipedia article. I recently had an extended discussion with Brett Schulte about links to his Siege of Petersburg site, so he is now conforming to the Wikipedia guidelines. Second, I am annoyed that this guy is using maps (usually mine) from Wikipedia without attribution. I deleted one of the links the other day for that reason alone. I will probably delete ones that I come across, but if you have a more systematic approach and mine, go ahead. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Second Battle of Bull Run

Howdy. I am interested to hear why you think the Medal of Honor list for a battle is considered a tangential issue. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is off focus and undue weight. If you started to make a list of MoH recipients or other awards for that matter for every battle in ACW or other wars, we would be opening up a can of worms. Do we list the Purple Heart recipients at Pearl Harbor next? It is a slippery slope. The article is about the battle; not the medal recipients. Now, if what the individuals did was noteworthy then that should be developed in prose but not in a list form as that is just trivia. Most sources that I read on the various battles do not give treatment to medal recipients.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Do not Stalk

It is better you do not stalk new users as the occasion most the of information is usually unsourced. Yes they are haunted and if I don't have the right to use the category then why is there a need to use a category for Reportedly haunted locations in the United States.--74.34.81.235 (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You can't go and add that kind of label on articles because you had feelings that they are haunted. We require sources...but even at that, it would be undue weight and a fringe theory. I think it is a bad category and just reeks of cruft. It should be deleted.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What I posted to Hotdogs was not "nonsense".....

Why are you attacking my free speech on a talk board? Are you even from the USA? If you were you would know that beef weiners here are labeled as "Franks" and the pork ones are labled as "hotdogs". Pork wieners are never labled as "franks" in the USA and beef wieners are never labeled as "hotdogs". This is because Jews do not eat pork and they truly do call non-jews (gentiles) dogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.134.236 (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If you knew what you were talking about, I'd agree with you. Try googling pork franks to find plenty of American companies selling them. The remainder of your statement is nonsense.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Tyranny

We know you are not helping any for any newcomers, but if you keep violating my rights I will call to the administration why you are erasing which were reliable anyway.--GoShow (...............) 20:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

First, I wrote something on the article talk page. Second, you can ask for help at the reliable sources noticeboard if you think that I'm misapplying policy. Please review WP:BRD...we should keep discussing. Notice that I didn't delete everything on that page? Some of those things seem properly sourced. Once you can see what I'm referring to then you will be able to provide good solid sources for things on-wiki.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, alright, I know what you mean and it is pretty hard to find what is reliable and I agree there is alot of wacko wikians out and forgive me stay safe.

P.S. Are you any good at trying to find a good source in Irish mythology, because since I have seen the green cross it reminded me, do you have any opening cites of Irish mythology, because I can't seem to search for any other than the usual "they came from the land of Portugal incidents".

Thanks, and please help --GoShow (...............) 21:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm usually pretty good at finding sources. Try searching at Google books. Even if they don't have a free preview, it may help you find something that you might get from a local library or set you on the right path. I see a number of entries for Irish mythology at Google books.

At the List of RHP article, I noticed that someone did a good job of sourcing the NC entries. That is a good example to follow. Personally, I'm surprised that there were no entries for Harden like Tarheel Ghosts or Devil's Tramping Ground. Both are excellent...I have them on my bookshelf alongside South Carolina Ghosts.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are a few to get you started:

• The encyclopedia of Celtic mythology and folklore
• A Guide to Irish Mythology
• A Dictionary of Irish Mythology
• Myths & legends of the Celtic race
• Lady Gregory's Complete Irish Mythology
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

regarding the article for OSA

Hello,

I do apologies for inserting my website www.sleep-apnea-guide.com to Obstructive Sleep Apnea page. I don't have any intention to do disruptive editing. I tried to do as correct as possible, while login in and inserting my home page, which doesn't have any advert, like Google Ads. I looked at the other websites which are on the External Links, and except American Sleep Apnea Association site, everyone is there with the intention of promotion, advertising, and even disruptive editing (like the third link from the top, which loads an error page).

If it seems so obvious that I'm doing promotional material (which is not true, my site is very useful and helpful for apnea patients and their partners), please tell my why the other websites have the right to stay there? It is not for the same purpose?

Please check my site and see how many questions I answered from people who desperately needed help. For example, please scroll down on this page http://www.sleep-apnea-guide.com/sleep-apnea-side-effects.html to see some of their questions and my answers. Or, please look at this page http://www.sleep-apnea-guide.com/cpap-machine.html, where I answered to questions related to CPAP. The most complete database with questions is in my Forums, which is easily to find on my site. I help my readers since I started my site, almost 3 years ago.

I think my site is a good source of information, and not just a site with some tests and adverts like other sites. Please make a good argument of why my site was eliminated, because "disruptive editing, soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia" is far from my intentions.

Thank you.

Best Regards, Remy Thierry founder of www.sleep-apnea-guide.com

Remy 00:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remyboy21 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for contacting me again. I have removed the others as they shouldn't have been there per WP:ELNO. You have commercial products that you are selling which is a commercial motivation. This page for example. You can see that we have conversed before.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for acting so quickly. I was amazed how those links where there for such a long time, and mine was removed in 5 minutes. I was waiting for someone to post his website in External Links, and if he has commercial products then I thought I'm allowed as well to post my site. So I'm not trying to spam anyone, but I'm learning from others. It wasn't my fault that other commercial websites were already there.

I would also like to thank you for providing me the reference about wikipedia: external links. I understand much better when a website should be included as an external link. Furthermore, I learned that is best to speak with you, than submitting my site directly.

I would like to ask you if my page http://www.sleep-apnea-guide.com/obstructive-sleep-apnea.html can qualify for submission. When you'll access this page, you'll see that I removed the links for products and the "Products" button from my navigation bar. I just removed them, so it should take a half an hour to update. There are no other ads, except those from google. I hope there are OK, conform to your reference: " Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit organizations) donations. "

To avoid the elimination from external links in the future, is it enough to delete my "products" page? Should I also delete every AdSense from my site?

Thank you. Remy 12:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remyboy21 (talk • contribs)

The other links got there when I wasn't looking. :) If you are willing to conform to our standards set in guidelines and policies then I think it would be a good idea to post your link to Talk:Sleep apnea and ask editors whether the site should be included. As a community-driven site, it would be best to get a community decision from all of the editors that watch the page. Ask if there are any objections to adding it and then give a week for replies; if there is a consensus to add (or no objections) then you may proceed. One note: sometimes we have allowed links and then the link site would be modified later to include objectionable amounts of advertising or something else that disqualifies it. If that happens, the link is removed and never allowed again. Also, if you plan to add multiple links in different articles, you should state that in your request to avoid having someone think you are spamming.

I'm also going to give you a welcome post on your talk page that has many links to help you. Hopefully, you will enjoy editing with us.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Got hacked

someone keeps going on my account i dont mean to vandalize it is not me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric1121lcs1211 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

92.x and Kennedy articles

That IP from that range has been plaguing Kennedy-related articles for the past six months. I just reverted and blocked on Texas School Book Depository, and have blocked dozens of his IPs, all from the same UK ISP. See his first edit on the Depository article for a sample of his opinions [3]. Acroterion (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I recognized him from the JFK Conspiracy theory article and knew that this was a POV issue. He's been pushing the issue of lunchtime discrepancies to advance his pet theory. It made the article look like garbage to have all of these lunchtime details. Thank you for squashing him.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Nashville

Your undo edit is spot on. Thanks for doing what I would have had to do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnBruceAllyn (talk • contribs) 21:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Not Vandalism

Sir,

Respectfully, I would appreciate it if you would stop falsely reporting me for vandalism. Vandalism is defined as "deliberately mischievous or malicious destruction or damage of property." Perhaps, for one reason or the other, do not agree with any changes I have made to articles in the recent past, but I can assure you, as could anyone else who reviews my edits, that nothing I did was deliberately destructive to Wikipedia. I only edited articles with the intention of being constructive to the community. If you merely prefered that I cite my changes, then it would have been perfectly acceptable to undo my edits, and then send me a short message explaining the situation. The fact that I did not support my changes with a source does not constitute vandalism, and therefore you cannot justify punishing me for such. To report me for the crime of vandalism, simply because you resent my changes, is to corrupt whatever position of responsibility you currently hold.

Thank you --MilitHist — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilitHist (talk • contribs) 02:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

First, I never reported you for vandalism. Second, when you decided to rewrite history, I began to send you messages which you did not respond to but kept on making such changes. At that point, when someone is doing something disruptive and fails to respond, it may be considered vandalism. For future reference, if you want to alter the outcome of battles, I'd suggest that you start a discussion on the article's talk page. Frankly, what you wrote is gibberish. You would have that the Battle of Antietam was a Confederate victory, and that the Battle of South Mountain was not a Union victory. Utter nonsense.

D.H. Lee was there to perform delaying tactics which he did successfully but the Army of the Potomac completely ran over the ground and was in full possession of it. The Union carried on towards Antietam after prevailing at South Mountain.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Berean Hunter,

(1) I have recieved two warnings, both of which were signed by you, threatening to block me from editing wikipedia due to vandalism. If you did not report me for vandalism, I am curious as to why someone would report me in your name.

(2) As a matter of fact, I had made several edits that day, most of which were completed by the time you removed my first change. You continued to remove changes I had made eariler, but it doesn't seem that you understand that I was not continuing to make changes in definace of your warnings; they were already completed. I was not continuing to "do something disruptive", you were merely discovering more and more of the changes I had made. I do appreciate the first message you sent me (telling me that you would prefer it if I cited some sources for any changes), but there was nothing I could do when you continued to sent me two more messages, each of which were because you believed I was still making changes.

(3) I do not recall exactly what I wrote about the Battle of Antietam, but I can assure you that it was not as simple as "Confederate Victory." I believe that I called the battle a tactical Confederate victory, but a stragetic Union victory. As for the Battle of South Mountain, I never said that it was not a Union victoy. This one I do remember clearly. I changed the term in the info-box from "Union Victory" to "Stragetic Union Victory, Confederate Tactical Victory." And, for this edit, I did provide an explaination for the change. Although the ultimate outcome of the battle was a Union success, Confederate forces preformed better than their Northern counterparts in the battle itself, and I believe that the term that describes the outcome of the battle, should reflect this reality.

Thank you.

P.S. Who is D.H. Lee? I know of Robert E. Lee, but I have never heard of D.H. Lee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilitHist (talk • contribs) 19:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

(late reply...missed this earlier) With regards to #1, I believe it is semantics. Those are my warnings but you were never reported to any board concerning your edits. With regard to #2, Your revision as of 23:14, 27 February 2012 was reverted by me 4 minutes later here and I left the 1st warning on your talk page. Two minutes later, you made a minor edit on a different article and in response to my warning, you came back and with this edit called the Battle of South Mountain a Confederate victory which is a clear reversal of reality.

You came back to make this edit nine minutes after I reverted and warned you for that also.

Concerning D. H. Lee, that was my typo...I meant D. H. Hill.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

As for my changes regarding the Battle of South Mountain, you're right. I didn't remember simply calling it "Confederate Victory (strategically inconclusive)" which, as you pointed out, is very misleading. I don't know why I called it that, but it was irresponsible and I apologize. Regarding the time differences between my three edits, I don't remember recieving any warnings between the first two. Rather, I remember finishing the second edit confronted with a notification that my talk page had beed edited. I found two vandalsim warnings, became confused, reviewed the alleged offenses, contemplated about how I could edit without provoking accusations of vandalism, and then made my final edit. I suppose this process took nine minutes.

For whatever reason, I did not have a chance to see your first warning before I completed my second edit. I was aware of both your warnings for my final edit (the one that I tried to explain), which I made nine minutes later.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilitHist (talk • contribs) 01:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Excuse Me

You're the one that left me a message, right? Well, I'm only doing those edits to convince the admins (or whoever is in charge of pages) to lock that page. The green and blue page are locked. This yellow page is no different. So please ensure this page is locked. Thank you. 174.44.203.194 (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

What you are doing is vandalism and will get you blocked if you continue. There is no need to vandalise a page to demonstrate it needs protecting, please go and do something more constructive. Thanks QU ^TalkQu 21:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that. That is why I did it the way I did, to create a lot more attention and give off a clear example as well. Get what I mean? Soul Survivor96 21:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well...no. QuiteUnusual is quite right. Doing what you are doing will only get you blocked but won't have anything to do with page protection for the article. It doesn't need to be protected.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I see why we differ. The way I'm doing it is deciding that a page should be protected for safety based on how the other color pages were locked. But, you and the QU guy are right. I took it the wrong way. Sorry for everything. I take my decision back. Soul Survivor96 21:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the main protection policy and the pertinent part on the type of protection that would fit here. Articles are protected to prevent disruption but we would also like folks to be able to edit also. Someone may have really good contributions to an article but if protected, we may miss the opportunity.

If you would like to help us, I suggest that you get an account and then respond back here. I'll then leave you a welcome message that should help you get started.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestions, but I don't plan on sticking around for long. Besides, there's really nothing for me to "get started" on considering the edits I made. But, thanks anyways. Soul Survivor96 22:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Mel

Let me know if "American-born but Australian-reared" is an okay compromise on MG's page. I think that is a better adjective.Johnnyvaillan (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It is with me but proper protocol would be to allow other editors to comment as well. I'd give it a day or two for comments and then if no objection or active discussion put the desired wording in place.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

regarding...

thanx for writing, you! here are the places where the info was taken out of. could you put it back as they were first, please, after you've checked? also, you may place it where you see fit. can you please send me thru here what me wrote first? these are the sources yet you shall have to look to see they where they were taken off of, as in read.

• http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/afghanistan-suspects-base-2010-killing-case-15899650
• http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/03/12/base-lewis-mcchord
• http://ibtimes.com/articles/312989/20120312/afghanistan-shooting-timeline-joint-base-lewis-mcchord.htm
• http://pressherald.com/news/most-troubled-base-in-the-military-_2012-03-12.html
• http://huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/22/afghan-massacre-survivor_n_548360.html
• http://nytimes.com/2012/03/12/world/asia/afghanistan-civilians-killed-american-soldier-held.html
• http://es-us.noticias.yahoo.com/afganos-piden-retiro-fuerzas-eeuu-tras-muerte-16-105644388.html
• http://es-us.noticias.yahoo.com/soldado-dispar%C3%B3-civiles-afganos-pertenece-problem%C3%A1tica-base-militar-174400669.html
• http://elnuevodiario.com.ni/internacionales/244696-soldado-que-disparo-a-civiles-afganos-pertenece-a-problematica-base-militar
• http://universityplace.patch.com/articles/report-soldier-believed-to-have-killed-16-afghan-civilians-from-joint-base-lewis-mcchord
• http://king5.com/home/Afghan-president-US-soldier-kills-16-civilians-142244955.html
• http://peninsuladailynews.com/article/20120311/NEWS/120319993/joint-base-lewis-mcchord-soldier-accused-of-killing-16-afghan
• http://democracynow.org/2004/5/20/afghan_massacre_eyewitnesses_testify_that_us
• http://commentarymagazine.com/2012/03/12/afghan-massacre-and-u-s-mission/

was actually trying to look for how to put the lil upper corner numbers for that. if you'd read any news you'd have known that at least it was not far from the actual reportings. please reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.145.68.52 (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

you better put it back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.145.68.52 (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I will move this to the article talk page as it involves all of the editors there.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Beach Boys References

I don't understand how you can justify removing one reference and not the other 4. The other 4 can not be proven to be used within the article just as much as this 1 article. If you are going to remove 1, might as well remove them all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsgeek540 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

At least two of them can. I haven't dug in deeper than that at the moment. You're argument isn't going to work. Let's steer this towards the article's talk page.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Well there is a way to reference sources properly, is there not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsgeek540 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. If you would like to learn see WP:CITE & WP:CITEX. That would be appropriate as long as you aren't just there to drop in WP:REFSPAM.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I know how to source properly and my intentions are to lead people to the facts. I pulled out my book and have found a few connections from that book on to this page, hense why I commented that the removal of that source is completely unjustified. I don't edit before doing my homework.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsgeek540 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

how to make my user name on my page glow

hi there! can you plz help me in trying to make my name glow on my user page, as it does on yours? plz send me the code that i need for this. thanks! -Nguyen1310 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nguyen1310 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added the code to your talk page. You may want to look the colors over at HTML colors. I tried yours in both green and left it in red. Change as you like. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much! i changed it to emerald. It looks beautiful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nguyen1310 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#Reliable sources

If you have the time, would you mind offering an opinion regarding reliable sources and the attribution of opinions and statements provided by Warren Commission critics? Thanks! Location (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

17-03-2012

	Have a good Saint Patrick's day!
	May this day pass well for you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! I will be running out to get some shortly...already thirsty. :P
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit War Accusations

Please refrain from these accusations of edit warring. You are also engaged in this edit war, and so you can hardly accuse me of the same thing you are doing- it is simply hypocritical.--Rwenonah (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No. Per WP:BRD I can revert your edits because you lack consensus and then we discuss as you attempt to garner consensus on the talk page. You attempting to shove it back in the article without consensus means it is you that is edit-warring against consensus.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You lack consensus to delete my edits, so please leave them alone. And in addition, I consider the source reliable. Just because you don't doesn't make it unreliable. Have I made random accusations at the unreliability of your source?. No. Thats because I believe that all edits should be discussed before being deleted. So please leave my edits alone. No matter how much I disagreed with the other part of the conservation section, I did leave it alone. I also gave people a 3-day period to object to my original edits before I made them.--Rwenonah (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I've left a note at the talkpage with my views on the subject, and what appears to me to be soapboxing on the part of Rwenonah. Acroterion (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

re: mixed rank

It is an interesting question. There are relatively few articles where we would expect to see mixed rank designations across multiple services. Most of the instances I can think of would concern general officers. In that circumstance, yes we do defer to the officer's designation of origin. There's often not a lot of choice in the matter, though, because general ranks have significantly different meanings in different services. A Private, on the other hand, is a Private everywhere.

A better example might be within services in the same country. In the US Army, for example, the rank of Captain (O-3) is abbreviated CPT but in the Navy, the rank of Captain (O-6) is always abbreviated CAPT. (The Air Force, of course, mucks it up by using Capt for an O-3.) In an article about both an Army and a Navy Captain, I would expect to see each shown with his/her service-specific abbreviation and would expect other editors to quickly fix any error on behalf of their fellow serviceman.

By the way, I also didn't realize that Eddie Slovik was removed from that article. Must have happened while I was on wiki-break. Do you think it should be added back? Rossami (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup, it was removed in this edit in May 2011. The prior version was probably too US-specific (and dates back to the earliest versions of this page) but the content should have been moved down into the US section, not simply deleted. Do you want to do the honors? Rossami (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead, after you. :) Slovik is significant. I did notice that he was in there going back a little but didn't know what happened. Thank you for answering my question. I'll try to be more conscientious about mixed ranks.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

5 hour archive

I reverted your change to set the auto archive to 5 hours on the trayvon page, I think that is dramatically too short. Any specific logic behind such a short time? In that time many people, including highly active editors, would never see some conversations. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It was a mistake on my part. I help with configuring archives at Misza's talk page and when looking at the large numbers of threads, I wanted to shorten the duration from 30 days to 5 (that is me confusing Miszabot settings with Cluebot settings)...I had a mental lapse forgetting that it was hours instead of days. Thank you for correcting that.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Undone edit of yours

Hi there. I undid an edit of yours to the protection policy. Please see this discussion for details. Regards SoWhy 21:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

thanks spam

Thanks for your input and (while I am at it) to the other users that commented - thanks - Youreallycan 22:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad to help. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI

I've brought the matter of Thewolfchild up at ANI. Acroterion (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I started something earlier but have been too tied up to finish.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't expect that I'll have much leisure myself for the rest of the day either, so I wanted to get something up for other eyes. Acroterion (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the smile

Just wanted to say thanks for the smile you brought to my day with this [4] edit summary. It was a delightful way to link to "WP:CRYSTAL" - doubly so considering the edit that you were reverting. Cheers and have a great week on wiki and off. MarnetteD | Talk 21:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad this brought you a smile. This dogsbody may still be useful for some things.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

External Link Deletion

TFX Associates is a non-commercial independent collaborative of 16 senior scientists and engineers. The external links that you disabled are to informational webpages. The objective of TFX Associates is to inform and engage like minded researchers in an active discussion on topics of mutual interest. Please cease and desist. Wikipedia dispute resolution has been informed. Thank you.

Edward Bigelow PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.244.140 (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. TFX Assoc looks rather commercial to me. Looks like you are selling products. The actions of you or your associate appear to be promotional.

Dispute Resolution? Where? I don't see any postings.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, the person adding those links works for KVH Industries. According to their website, "We offer a portfolio of digital compass and fiber optic gyro (FOG)-based systems that meet the rigorous requirements of military and commercial customers for precision guidance, stabilization, and navigation. Our defense products include precision FOG-based systems that help stabilize remote weapon stations, gun turrets and radar units, as well as provide guidance for munitions. Our FOGs are also used in commercial applications like industrial robotics, optical stabilization, autonomous vehicles, and remotely operated submersibles. In addition, our TACNAV® tactical navigation systems that provide uninterrupted navigation and pointing information for a broad range of military vehicles."

Commercial.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I would note that the "cease and desist language" sounds a lot like a legal threat. If it was or is construed as such, it would be considered to be a personal attack and could be grounds for a block of editing privileges by an Administrator. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Simo Häyhä

I haven't the faintest clue why you might've removed the edits I made to the article. It is a known and confirmed fact that Simo Häyhä had a total confirmed kill count of 705, and an unofficial one running into the 900's. Specifying the fact he killed 200 people with a sub-machine is being precise. I would like to know why you've decided to remove my improvement. Thank you. 41.86.227.18 (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for responding. You may want to consider getting an account...this would have allowed you to see in your watchlist that I opened a discussion on the talk page concerning the sources. Also, from what I have seen in sources, the number of confirmed kills is 505. That article has a dubious history when it comes to sourcing. Please be more considerate of the word confirmed which has a special meaning. As such, it means your statements above would only be correct if the Finnish military confirmed them.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Appomattox Court House National Historical Park

When I created Appomattox Court House National Historical Park, I had at the time a 16 in 1 DYK Talk:Appomattox Court House National Historical Park (the most at the time).
I notice you work a lot with User: 7&6=thirteen, especially with lighthouses. You are definitely a Senior Editor that knows your stuff. I'll come by sometime when I get stumped on something for some assistance, since I can see you are way smarter than I am.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help when I can but I don't know about being smarter than anyone. I just try to do my best. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 13:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

1949's forgotten version, or ver #2 of the now famous magic 8 ball

hey berean, first let me say that i am not a good typist i use 1 finger, lol i was saddened when my post was removed after it taking me quite a while to type, it said the reason was because i had no reference for my information, this was the entire reason for the post, there is no information on this ball, i have searched for 3 months for any info or a image, only one unofficial site that mentions its existence, it contains a lot less info than i posted, the reason i even know about it is i was cleaning out a old building and found one in great condition, it is in its orig box with a old school price stamped on the box not a sticker, i remember when they used them way back, i have tried emailing hasbro to get info but they never responded, and the various 8 ball sites sites on the net do not respond either, i even emailed noel barrett the famous toy appraiser and he sent the reply no info i also tried to find info on dixie sales inc with no luck, so i challenge you to find more info than i provided, please try i would like to know more about it my self, but everything i posted is accurate, the wiki page about the 8 ball states that the 8 ball did not exist until 1950 and that there was two non ball types made early on 1946 i think then a iridescent model in 1948 my box says patented 1948 so it must have been made after 1948 and we know the 8 ball started in 1950,my ball is not iridescent it is red and it has a name and is made by alabe crafts, so this leaves only one possibility it was made in 1949, please research it a little and let me know if i am accurate because i have spent quite a bit of time posting and explaining and researching this darn ball, they stated that they did not sell well until 1950, who knows i may have the only one in existence.. give a quick look around for any info and get back to me when you have time..Vandredi (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Vandredi, I have taken a cursory look with no luck. I may try to look more when I get a little more free time than I have at the moment. Your post is better made as an inquiry on the talk page to see if other editors may be able to verify its existence. It is very important to use reliable sources and cite them in the article so if you don't have that other editors might be able to help.

Have you posted pictures of what you have somewhere? Is there a patent or copyright number on the ball or box?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 13:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Subhas Chandra Bose; Hawkeye on corps commanders; Nick-D on American special forces Op-ed: The Land on commemorating World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Re Richard Coyle

Hello! Im not really sure how exactly to edit my page so Im glad you contacted me! Im Richard Coyle, and I was trying to amend a few inaccuracies that are on the page, for instance my birth date. These things are mentioned in a magazine piece or misquoted in an interview and seem to become gospel. My birthday is 06/02/74. I cant really provide citations short of sending you my birth cert! But I would appreciate this being corrected, I think the other inaccuracies I can probably manage myself.! Many thanks (Caquesteere (talk) 09:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC))

Thank you very much for responding. I understand your frustration at getting this corrected and I will be happy to help. Wikipedia is driven by what is in published sources and not necessarily the truth. Even the article subjects can not self-reference.

If you happen to have an official public website or other public relations channel where you could publish relevant biographical details that may make it easier on you to correct this and other media errors. I tried unsuccessfully to find an official site. Another option would be to give this information in your next media interview and we could use that once it is published.

A novel approach would be to have yourself photographed holding a sign stating your birthday.

On that topic, a photograph or two would be an excellent improvement to the article. If you are willing to have one donated as a non-copyrighted work, we have a couple of ways in which that may be accomplished. First, you would probably want to set up an email account associated with your Wikipedia editing account so that the Wikimedia Foundation could give confirmations to you.

Looking forward to your response,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 12:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

External Link Deletion

Sorry, the purpose of that link was not to advertise. I'm an avid blogger and have just recently made an attempt to begin making wikipedia contributions. The info I got was from one of my favorite blogs and the most relevant link was to their online store section. Would it be better if I linked to the store's blog in the future? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonhabtemariam (talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. No, we don't link to commercial endeavors unless they are a particular article subject. It would be better to support with citations from published mainstream sources. For example, using Charlie Papazian's books or Zymurgy would be great. We can't use blogs as sources generally.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A neat new gadget you might find useful

I recently asked on Village pump (technical) if someone could write a script that would allow the corresponding talk page or main page to be displayed when viewing articles in a category. User:Equazcion was kind enough to build it. The script can be found here. The script also shows in red if the corresponding page has not been created yet. I have found it to be very useful and wanted to share it. Kumioko (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This is very cool; thank you for letting me know. I'll have a look at his other scripts. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Teddy bear

Why did you take my conterbution to the teadybeare page down it is trou so u must be a full on downie to not realise that. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rory1616 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 4 May 2012‎ (UTC)

Speak english?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Protection policy

You reverted my change. Do you have any objections or did you simply mean that status quo trumps one user's opinion? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

On policies, it would be best to get consensus first before making changes. That's all.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That was my second suggestion. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Hopkins

there is nothing inaccurate about edits I have made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmonasco (talk • contribs) 03:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for edit-warring. You will need to discuss on the article talk page and attempt to gain consensus there.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 11:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The Julian Assange Show

Won't you please watch the show? It's now called "The Julian Assange Show" as of it's second episode. By all means, feel free to contact the attorney for Assange and his production and RT, should you need further clarification.

<obscured to protect> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.189.137 (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at the intro of tonight's show which still uses the World Tomorrow. The 2nd & 3rd shows also do. What you are saying is not correct. You will need to show us a ref...we won't be calling his attorney.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.hulu.com/the-julian-assange-show

Watch the USA feed of the program as it airs on Russia Today television network. The program is called "The Julian Assange Show". That is irrefutable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.148.127.131 (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I have posted this on the article talk page. This is where editors should discuss and reach a consensus. In the future, this is what you should do and you will come much closer to getting results than edit-warring. Okay?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)