User talk:Berean Hunter

Sticky Note: Operation Brothers at War

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕))

@This user can be reached by email.

Signature

Hi; I noticed from your posts at the village pump earlier today that your signature is 301 characters long. As per WP:SIG#Length, the maximum allowed is 255. Could I maybe ask you to trim yours slightly at your convenience? Thanks, ╟─TreasuryTag►contemnor─╢ 14:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure...⋙–Berean–Hunter—►

That's great: thanks very much! ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 15:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

In addition, could you not unnecessarily add your signature to a new line? If whatever you've written reaches the end, fine, but there is no reason that you need to jump down to the next line to add your sig on short comments. I've noticed in the past that when you comment significantly on things it seriously adds to the scroll in that discussion. This also falls under "length", while your signature does not appear particularly long on the page, giving it a line all to itself is increasing the length of the appearance of your signature.--Crossmr (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it is necessary. That is because I don't want the sig broken across multiple lines. I use it with Twinkle and its corresponding templates. Broken sigs are stupid. I would never sign my name across two lines in real life so I wouldn't do it in another context either.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

And yet pretty much every other wikipedian signs their comments on the same line. It is completely unnecessary to new line your sig. If it breaks it by not doing that, then you should fix your signature or change it.--Crossmr (talk) 05:42, 2 August 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)

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)

guess ill tag you too

ur on the list now to be attacked by the unlimited ips! 77.92.67.231 (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)