User talk:Berean Hunter

Sticky Note: Operation Brothers at War

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕))

@This user can be reached by email.

3rr

Just so you know, you're at 3 reverts just with the body moving statement. I haven't looked to see what other reverts you've made which would put you in violation of the 3rr. To be clear, I have no intention of reporting you regardless. I feel all of our edits have been in good faith (so far).LedRush (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Diffs please? I have made a total of 3 edits to the article today. One was to remove an NPOV tag (not placed today and not a revert), one to remove the dubious tag (1), and one to revert concerning the body where you removed too much material that was sourced. I have made one edit concerning the body...not 3 as you suggest. I do appreciate that you note our edits are in good faith, however.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 06:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You are 100% right. I have no idea what I was thinking. The best I can come up with is that I was sleep deprived. I'm sorry.LedRush (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It happens to all of us...I think that article in particular has a tendency to fray the nerves of experienced editors. You do a good job there and this is already water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis

You recently warned me that I was approaching 3RR, after you began reverting an edit of mine without discussing it (though I have been requesting discussion of the issue for some time). In checking further, I realized that prior to your warning to me, you had already performed a third revert a couple of hours after your first one. You were therefore already in violation of 3RR yourself. Omnedon (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to re-educate yourself concerning policies. 1) If I'm at a 3 count then I'm not in violation, right? 2) It isn't edit-warring when one is maintaining the established consensus on the talk page (which I was). 3) I was discussing on the talk page but you went ahead and reverted anyway which is against BRD and I perceive this as bad faith. Stop declaring that I wasn't discussing because that isn't true.

I don't make a habit of edit-warring at all (check my talk page & archives) but I perceive that you are bullying and pushing too hard. I feel an admin will need to perform any tally and offer input.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You were not discussing, though. You were simply re-iterating your statement about the consensus which you claim to exist but which in fact does not; you simply said, "You have been reverted because there is a clear 4 to 3 count to keep the colorized version." That is not discussion. You also warned me at 2 reverts when you had already performed 3 reverts, which seems hypocritical. Let's please talk about the actual issue of the image itself on the article's talk page, shall we? Omnedon (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Working on it now...looking for photo examples...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:45, 10 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)

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)

Subpage

Re these edits, feel free, and thanks: I think that all of the updates to blocks etc have been done by other editors. pablo 11:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Refactoring talk page

Hi. Since the MoMK talk page is currently swamped by a small number of mega- (and often partly meta-) discussions, I've gone through it and hatted parts that seemed (to me, at least) to be distracting or irrelevant, or where the debate seemed to have stalled. The NPOV tag poll in particular is full of heated back-and-forth on a range of subjects such as SPA-tagging etc., which I have tried to minimise where possible. It's just that it's becoming almost impossible to find anything on that page without pressing Ctrl + F on one's keyboard. Does all of this look good to you? SuperMarioMan 04:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see any problems with it. I was thinking about introducing an arbitrary break due to the length of the NPOV thread. I seem to notice that the archiving bot doesn't pick up on these hatted bits so I've been manually moving them when they timeout. Maybe, we'll get a couple of days of peace & quiet.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I briefly considered splitting the whole NPOV section up into "Keep", "Remove" and "Discussion" subsections, just for the sake of making it easier to follow (after all, someone uninvolved will have the unenviable task of closing that mammoth discussion!), but that would mean radically re-ordering the comments. An arbitrary break could well be a good idea - perhaps the ideal place would be either above or below ErrantX's reminder (about half-way down) to avoid sniping. At any rate, hatting some of the more tangential side-discussions leaves the actual votes themselves a bit more prominent. SuperMarioMan 04:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't GiselleK [1] on Pablo's hit list? The user is clearly a SPA. I bet Pablo left that one off the list because GiselleK shares Pablo's opinions on the case. They went fishing trying to label me a sock, no one seemed to mind the blatant Wikipedia violation. Pablo's list is deplorable. BruceFisher (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever edited Wikipedia other than the account that you are using now?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 06:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I have never participated on Wikipedia using any other name. I post everywhere online using my real name. Your cut and paste job shows people discussing how inaccurate the Meredith Kercher article is on an online forum. No one is plotting against another Wikipedia user. The conversation you noted is no reason to assume that those people are working to push inaccurate info into the article or vandalize Wikipedia in any way. If you read the entire discussion the posters want to help Wikipedia not hurt it. Does it honestly shock you that people carry on conversations online about Wikipedia, especially about controversial cases? You and others talk openly on Wikipedia about how to deal with "Problems" (SPA's). You make it very clear that you consider SPA's a problem and you and others are currently targeting them. Your behavior is quite different than people discussing a Wikipedia article on an online forum. BruceFisher (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, SPAs can be a problem...doesn't mean all of them have to be. When they don't know how things operate, they tend to get angry and can be problematic. I think you are confusing the term SPAs with sockpuppets. I don't target SPAs...I might watch them. Who have I targeted and what has been the outcome?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The list

Cheers Bruce. If you spot any more, feel free to add them yourself. It's the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" after all. pablo 06:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Your list is a joke Pablo. I will not participate in the witch hunt. You direct more attention to editors that you to do articles. You have clearly lost focus on what Wikipedia is supposed to be all about. Good luck with your lynchings. I am sure you will be successful, Wikipedia policies currently allow you to keep hunting. BruceFisher (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It is what it is, Bruce, if you find it amusing, then laugh away. (You may also find this one useful if you need some extra chuckles). Anyone can use that list for whatever purpose they choose. You see it as a hitlist, others see it as a record of editor influx. At lease one person at an external site (with which you may be familiar) has also found it useful for their purposes.
I shall sleep soundly knowing that, if I ever do lose focus on what Wikipedia is supposed to be all about, you will be there to tell me where I am going wrong. pablo 19:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"At lease one person at an external site (with which you may be familiar) has also found it useful for their purposes. I shall sleep soundly knowing that" What is that all about? BruceFisher (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"... purposes. (full stop, new sentence) I shall sleep soundly ... (new sentence continues)". I'll put a line break in to save more confusion. pablo 21:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

When you are done editing maybe you will find time to answer the question. I was more interested in this comment: "At lease one person at an external site (with which you may be familiar) has also found it useful for their purposes" BruceFisher (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• I think that I have the answer: Pablo is probably alluding to this page (in which someone links to the SPA list). SuperMarioMan 22:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh right. I thought, by the way you had placed quotes around parts of two sentences, making the meaning unclear, that I just needed to clarify that the 'sleeping soundly' bit did not to refer to the previous sentence.
So to which of the sentences does your question "what's all that about" refer?
Incidentally, I do have my own talk page. I have noticed that you and Truth Mom, and LedRush for that matter are quite content to discuss and reinforce your own opinions about this list and the motivations behind it on various talkpages, yet not one of you has ever actually asked me a direct question on my talk page. That's kind of what talk pages are for. If you want to ask me a question, the place to do it is User talk:Pablo X, not User talk:Berean Hunter or User talk:Jimbo Wales. pablo 22:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)