User talk:Berean Hunter

Welcome to my talk page. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you as soon as I can...

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕))

Archives

1

[edit] Walter Dew

Hi again. 'Wee Hoose' is the Scottish and rather twee version of 'Wee House', as in 'there's a moose loose aboot this hoose' for 'mouse loose about this house'! Jack1956 (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Battle of Braddock Down

What I would do is replace this section with {{main|Battle of Bradock Down}}, and redirect this to the separate article about the battle. Hope this helps! Malinaccier (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the direction. Does it not matter that the article would be mis-named and an incorrectly spelled name left in the Braddock, Cornwall article? I have done the first part but didn't replace the content or make the redirect based on my uncertainty. You've been very helpful. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User Keith D took care of page deletion/moves and straightened it out.

Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jack the Ripper

What on earth do you think you were doing with this edit? "Remove mass edits where good faith edits were removed by DreamGuy" is just ridiculous as an edit comment to justify an edit that was nothing but a blind revert of several unrelated changes... I fixed capitalization errors, removed nonnotable trivia from the culture section, and a made whole slew of completely unobjectionable good faith edits that you completely removed for no reason other than you called otehr people's edits good faith... well, of course they could have been made with good faith, but unless you assume mine weren't then your edit comment makes no sense.

Please make sure to edit in good faith yourself. Completely undoing a bunch of changes with no apparent justification wouldn't seem to apply. DreamGuy (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And please do not put false vandalism warnings on my talk page. Those kinds of actions demonstrate clear bad faith. Do not post to my talk page at all unless you do so with constructive comments to try to follow Wikipedia policies of working together and not just to make false threats. DreamGuy (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There were good faith edits made over the last few days..I fixed the wikilinks on one of them after verifying..they are notable..meaning that there are objections to SOME of your edits. Try doing them in a more granular fashion using edit summaries and then some may stick but doing a whole batch in order to disguise the same old things that you edit-war over won't work. I'm willing to roll with any consensus that may be met on the article's talk page. Good luck with your editing...⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't accuse editors of vandalism unless you're sure they have committed it. In particular, avoid using the word in edit summaries (such as "reverting vandalism"), and be very careful about posting vandalism warning templates on user's talkpages. Review the vandalism policy thoroughly before you do that, and see especially the section "What vandalism is not". Note that content disputes are not vandalism, and that good-faith edits of any kind, even if you think them misguided, are not to be considered vandalism. Vandalism accusations without any basis in policy are bad for the climate on the wiki and make constructive discussion more difficult. See also Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal".

Thank you Bishonen for the advice..it is duly noted. After reviewing Dreamguy's contribs and the fact that he repeatedly pulls down whole articles 3 times in a day such as The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91) and enters as a bull in a china shop ripping out good faith edits constitutes him as a vandal. I've read enough to form my judgment of him. I don't throw templates & warnings around lightly. No disrespect intended Bishonen, I appreciate your input and will bear it in mind. Thank you, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please act more responsibly

Per the note at the top of my talk page and your recent edits in which you falsely labeled my actions as vandalism (please go read WP:V to see the real policy), be aware that your actions constitute harassment. Do not post to my talk page again until such time as you are willing to act in good faith. DreamGuy (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Britspeak in the Whitechapel article, no apology is necessary. I think it should probably be in britspeak as well. Forgive me for asking, but aren't the JTR murders a subset of the Whitechapel murders? Folk keep suggesting the opposite. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, JTR is a subset of the Whitechapel Murders. The canonical five are the most studied but others are covered to different belief levels as possible victims. There are enough similarities in the modus operandi to at least establish coverage even if for the purposes of elimination. I believe an investigator would think this prudent & thorough so it would probably be a good idea for the article to be in that spirit ...and leaving it as an exercise to the reader to assign beliefs. JTR & The Whitechapel Murders should coexist as companion articles as well as many other related existing articles. They form a valuable set for Wikipedians, Ripperologists, researchers, and the uninitiated reader alike. My 2 cents for what it is worth..⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oops

Brevetted was something that I thought I was correcting from just a common misspelling. That like the possessive form. Does this mean that you would prefer that I not change the word? I don't feel strongly about it either way..it gave me a great excuse to read articles and check for other edits that I might could see. I ceased changing the possessive forms but that creates a small quandary for me..I'm running into articles like Franklin Gardner where both forms are present (in back to back paragraphs about May '63) and it is inconsistent. I'm uncertain what to do with this and will likely skip that kind of edit.

Skipping sounds good. My style prefs apply only to articles I wrote or have edited. That's probably only about 500-600 of the 2,000+ ACW articles out there.

On another subject, could you look at Benjamin Piatt Runkle and my edits and my comment on the talk page? I don't want to demote this man unduly. All 49 occurrences of Runkle in the OR lists no rank greater than colonel..in fact, reading those letters leads me to wonder whether he is notable. I don't know what Eicher may have on him. His military career looks less than stellar..the only positive light that I saw for him was that Burnside includes him in a general list of subordinates that he is commending in the Tullahoma campaign. A couple of significant dings go against him from one of his commanders as well as one subordinate (worth reading if you take pleasure in reading the OR). If you have the time, I'd appreciate your review of this. Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Eicher entry is accessible through Google Books if you don't have the hardcopy. The guy was colonel of the 4th Ohio and had some brief brigade commands. All of his brevets came in November 1865, so he was not strictly a general in the war, but was given the appointments as awards afterwards. Your edit should be that he was a colonel in the Union Army (the volunteer service). His highest US Army (regular army) rank was major, although he got a brevet USA colonel in 1867. Not a super notable guy. Ezra Warner doesn't have him in Generals in Blue.

Btw, your "add a message" link above doesn't work for those of us using the secure server..it opens a new browser window on the regular server and we're not logged in. A wikilink may work though... ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with this. What is the secure server? (I'm a computer guy, so don't need a lengthy explanation.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Logout and then look at the login screen..the choices below offer logging in via secure server. Use your same login & pass..then try your message link.

{{Querylink|{{User talk:Hlj}}|qs=action=edit|Leave a message}}

I'm trying to figure it out but have something malformed in the above..doesn't like the User talk section (space bad)..however this form of link is more universal and the correct links for whatever your connection is will be parsed. Still monkeying with it to try to get it to work..also missing the section=new token until the first is figured out. If you find out before I do..post back.

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Bingo! Got it worked out ..use this and ignore the above;

[{{SERVER}}{{SCRIPTPATH}}/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Hlj&action=edit&section=new Send me a message]

Send me a message

http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Hlj&action=edit&section=new

Try switching between secure & non-secure logins and come back here and you will see it mirrors to you correctly the parsed link (i.e. if you are on the secure server, you will see https and only http if you are not). My gift to you for causing you the grief..8^D ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at Runkle for me ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That worked, thanks. I didn't know there was an HTTPS version of Wikipedia. I haven't looked in detail at the login screen in years. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. I may use it one day on my own User & User Talk pages...and share it with others. Cheers,

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 11:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)