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—► ((⊕))

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

//en.wikipedia.org/w/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)

Pendragons

Hi,

I am writing to request which part of the edit of Pendragons you have a problem with? btw, the name is THE Pendragons, not Pendragons... AS one of The Pendragons, and as such I know more about me and my partner than anyone. I can and have provided many new references and have corrected old ones. I am sorry that as one of the persons this subject is about, if I change or add text to my history, this may seem like a conflict of interest. Let me say I have "ibterest" and well I should. BUT I do NOT and have not written anything that is not true. btw...who is the poster that added the bit about the accident? Where is this person's referenced source? You really should concern yourself with this post as it is inaccurate.

I look forward to your return communication.

Best, Charlotte Pendragon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotte Pendragon (talk • contribs) 07:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mrs. Pendragon,

Thank you for responding. I presume that you read this before posting. Yes, there could be problems with your editing...

First, this one where your edit summary was about adding links but the edit contains "...is one of the most creative magicians in recent history." You shouldn't be writing that whether it is true or not because it can be construed as self-aggrandizing.

then the next one which also has an edit summary about adding links but contains "...making them one of the most sought out performances today." Promotional jargon. Nothing about performing at those places qualifies that statement.

and this in your business is called upstaging. In Wikipedia it is called POV bias. Somehow, Mr. Copperfield's notability seems to have diminished below your husband's when you make that edit.

and this too can be considered POV bias as well as being unsourced.

All sources must be verifiable secondary sources. It is often hard for people to understand in your position that you don't count as a source...not directly. No original research is allowed.

As to the title being only 'Pendragons', the original author of the article made that decision. A redirect from 'The Pendragons' exists that takes you to the original article. There exists a method to change that but it involves garnering concensus on the article's talk page. We can revisit that later if you like.

About the accident, first, I hope that he did recover if there was an accident because it sounds really terrible. I am an archer that uses a compound bow with broadheads and really know just how dangerous that is (was there a broadhead involved?). Within the context of the article, I have reinstated a citation request that was placed there last August. I tried today but was unable to find a reference from a reliable source. I found many from blogs and sites that fall short of that parameter. The one that I thought I might use was from Magic Magazine but they have apparently removed the reference. Other sites are referencing Wikipedia for that "fact", making them no good. It sounds like you have contention with the accident bit...could you explain, please?

Since you created the article on your husband, it is recognized that you have more to gain than the average Wikipedian regarding promotion. When you begin to link him into other articles it is questionably spamming. I don't doubt at all that both of you are a class act (although I'm unfamiliar) and that you are probably thoroughly entertaining..you also have one of the nicest websites I've seen...but this isn't how Wikipedia articles should come into being. You can still edit Wikipedia articles but it isn't a good idea for you or anyone close to you to edit articles about you. Btw, edits that you do under an anonymous IP will still be obvious...average editors don't edit in the way that someone involved does. Regular editors don't usually fluff awards & honors and certainly not as the first thing about a person...frankly that makes for a poor article. The stuff that will make for a good article will probably include things that you think other people will find boring because it might be run-of-the-mill to you.

To sign your posts, place four tildes ~~~~ after your comments (Shift plus the key beside the "1" key). You should be able to select 'Preview' to see the effect before committing to it by saving the page. Thank you, Ma'am.

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was a fair point about the name - it is usual for their name to begin with the definite article. I had previously created a page named "The Pendragons" with a redirect to "Pendragons" as a partial fix. However it is better for the article to be on a correctly named page so I have swapped the two pages. The article text is now at "The Pendragons" and "Pendragons" has been turned into a redirect. I have transcluded the old talk page to Talk:The_Pendragons to preserve the history of comments.

This article obviously needs some neutral attention for a while. Blatantly biased edits such as 'cut-n-pastes' from the subject's PR material need to be dealt with. However we also need to be sensitive to any legitimate complaints the subjects might have about the accuracy of the text. Circusandmagicfan (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Thank you for making the page changes..that was very gracious of you. I wholeheartedly agree with everything you've said. I was rather hoping that the regular editors of the magic articles, would "adopt" the Jonathan Pendragon page that she created Saturday night to remove the bias & PR material. I'm glad you found this discussion and I would invite commentary from other editors. You see my COI issue that I'm raising? I have chosen not to raise the issue at the COI noticeboard for the time being in the hopes that we could work it out. I'm also reluctant to do that because of the potential PR aspects for them. It would be advisable for her to edit under a handle and maintain anonymity..but still not edit articles close to her. Cheers, Circusandmagicfan. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 11:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad you feel my edits were appropriate. I have gone back to the article and given it a thorough work over to try to make it more NPOV - and also to try to straighten out the awful mess that had been made of grammar, sentence structure and formatting of citations. I think the result is reasonable for the time being and I hope the Pendragons will accept it as a compromise.

As for the Jonathan Pendragon article, I've only just seen it. My first reaction is that I'm surprised you didn't nominate it for speedy deletion given that it's a cut-n-paste of PR stuff and it's a bit superflouous because he's already covered by The Pendragons article.

Circusandmagicfan (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

I very nearly did but I thought that was an issue better left to the participating editors of The Pendragons to determine whether it represents a content fork or serves some purpose to the main article. I came very close to CSD but opted to not put her through that and recognize that she is new...and I opted for discussion with a COI indicated. Someone else may AfD or move to merge it and I would understand if they did. Alternately, it could be cleaned up with a rewrite. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that Charlotte Pendragon has made some unacceptable edits I think you might need to rethink the way you handle this sort of situation. The problem is not just that she doesn't understand Wikipedia's rules but that she doesn't understand the language that Wikipedia editors converse in and she obviously isn't as sussed about information technology as you or I. For example, it is no good ranting at her about "WP:COI" because she might not spot the link and certainly won't have a clue what "COI" means. By all means revert inappropriate edits - but you need to be less aggressive in tone when you try to explain such things to a newbie and try to see their point of view.

You also need to realise that the policy against subjects editing their own articles has to be balanced against the moral right of the subject to have some voice on what is written about them (an ongoing debate which features in current Wiki board elections I believe). Although I don't think she has any grounds to complain about any sort of libel in the article, she nevertheless clearly feels there are major factual inaccuracies that could affect her and her partner's professional standing. That is an matter which Wiki has a duty to redress.

Lastly, when talking to people such as Ms Pendragon in these situations I believe it's usual to do so on their talk pages. You seem to have put a reply to her on my talk page, which she might not automatically see. I'll leave it there for continuity but perhaps in future you could reply to her on her talk page.

Circusandmagicfan (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

<-- I have been patiently repeating the *conflict* theme over and over not as a rant but as an opportunity for her to see it..that notwithstanding those terms are far more universal than Wikipedia and she knows what 'conflict of interest' means. After a few threads, I chose to throw the first WP acronym out as a curiosity teaser in case she hasn't gotten it yet (I had intentionally been avoiding them) and because I'm trying to help her...I know she might not recognize that yet but you should. When does she start learning? I do not think that your argument about "the moral right" to edit Wikipedia holds any water here. Apples & Oranges: that which she is declaring is ALL nitpicking..there isn't anything scandalous or major here that affects their professional standing. There are no *gross* errors being corrected. That is exactly the point. She thinks so because she is involved..she sees errors that really don't matter in the minds of an average Wikipedian. Would you like to defend her edits? ...and when reviewed, you & I both know they are not going to fall into the category you suggest. That reply on your talk page was intentional so that 1.)you would see it 2.)she would if she finds your page again 3.) she knows that the issue still exists. I did reply to her talk page before her response to you...she seems to have ignored me after talking to you (not that that is connected in any way) and went back to editing the some of the same stuff in a similar way. You can't have it both ways, Circus, you get onto me that I shouldn't do what is normal in Wikipedia because she is new..but because I make an exception to what is normal for her benefit, and post where she is writing, you get onto me for not doing what is normal. Not fair to me...

Let's recap...Saturday a week ago, she made the Jonathan Pendragon page. I just happened to be patrolling pages and immediately saw a huge glaring COI error...I did what was wrong in not placing a Speedy Delete on it but because I understood that she was who she was and decided to try to handle it more delicately...so I placed the COI so that it would at least open up dialog and she wouldn't get shot down while running the gauntlet of getting 'new pages' past the speedy deletes. She was reverted twice by others..(NawlinWiki was one off the top of my head) She was off & running with making other edits on other pages and I saw the bias in them, reverted SOME of them. She posted to me and I responded. I followed up by doing a lot of checking and reposted a citation request on her behalf regarding the accident...and you graciously made the page redirect at her request. After a day, it occurred to me that she might not remember (or have navigation probs)..at any rate, I posted to her talk page as a courtesy. You got involved (and it is welcome) but didn't have a full understanding of what was happening until I pointed out the Jonathan Pendragon page to you. I thought that everything would go great from that point..(and still don't believe that we are very far from that) but after she apparently had an email or two with you, she came back to the same material and began interjecting "I have established.." in edit summaries without providing sources. I believe she has probably misunderstood something somewhere..

Regarding my tone...if it does sound terse, I apologize (to both of you). I was trying to keep a "business" tone so that I didn't slip into giving preferential treatment to Mrs. Pendragon..something I perhaps did by not placing the speedy delete on the JP page. I will try to watch that my tone more closely. Also, my use of the term "immediately" and desire to handle this expeditiously shouldn't be misconstrued as anger..it is more so that I just want to get things straightened out as quickly as possible.

Do remember that my suggestion is for her to work with you (as an adoptee?) and you take her under your wing to help her with Wiki issues. I can understand that editors in the magic articles could be ready to cut backflips at her presence. The analogy is somewhat akin to Eddie Van Halen showing up at the Electric Guitar article. The editors might think it is great and jump for joy..but if he begins to increase the frequency of his own name and accomplishments within the article until it gives undue weight (because that is how he sees it, and he's right , of course) then indeed, gross errors will have occurred. Even more awkward is what that editing environment could become..possibly. Perhaps more complicated than any of the three of us could see? That is why the guidelines and policies are there. I haven't been one to harp on them...never been to AN/I (hope to keep it that way), never had to file a COI yet, and you can see that I don't normally tangle negatively too much with others and would desire to keep it jovial..review of my contribs and talk page will confirm this. I believe I've only ever posted the COI template about three or four times..once just before the JP page on the same day..and that page has been deleted. I hope we can work to achieve a remedy. Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Cornwell

I agreed with your edit to take Cornwell's mention off of the main Jack the Ripper page, though I stuck it back on the "additional reading" list. I think because of its fame and its claims it should be on the main page, even though I agree with you, it is 95% patent crap and bad historical research. Some of her leaps are just outright nutty. And since you seem to edit the Ripper page often, I did some edits to the pages of the three letters (Saucy, Boss, Hell) last week, moving stuff around, adding cites, etc. I also spruced up the Jack the Ripper page on Wikimedia Commons.

TuckerResearch (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine..you're probably right that it should get mention somewhere. My edit summary was a response to the inference from the IP about the quality of Cornwell's evidence. I also thought it was one of the regular editors having a bit of fun to see who would be the first to toss it out and what they would say ;) Whoever it was knew that the response would be lively.

I thought I had the Ripper letters in my watchlist..I know I had read them. Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Article creation

Hi again, I simply write it in Microsoft Word complete with [[ ]] and whatever else and then just paste it in to the blank page. Is that any help? Jack1956 (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

*This* is what is happening to me (or at least I see a problem with no word wrap). If you don't see a problem then I'll know it is something with my browser. All that I'm doing is cutting & pasting myself but it turns out to be quite the mess. Please disregard the state of the article..it is a long way from ready. Working on it as we speak. Thanks for helping me..⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I finally cut & paste into an email that I sent to myself. Once I cut & paste from the email I received, I was able to paste into the Wikipedia edit block and get it to format properly. A bit awkward and I'm sure there's a better answer but it worked. Just experimenting and getting a bit ahead of myself..the article needs a lot of work yet. Thank you for helping.

Your talk page is getting to be huge. Have you thought about setting up an archive? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The very short answer to setting up yours would be placing this somewhere on your talk page:

{{archive box|auto=yes}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|maxarchivesize = 200K

|counter = 1

|algo = old(7d)

|minthreadsleft = 10

|archive = User talk:Jack1956/Archive %(counter)d

}}

That would default to leaving 10 threads on your page unless you have a very large number of threads during a single week. The main article is here and the article for configuring Miszabot to your liking is here. If you set this up today, you could expect to see Miszabot III archive your page shortly before 1 pm your local time. The archive link will be red until the bot creates the page(s) for you. In your case, it might be plural. Wikipedia might break...8^D Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

New addition

Thanks for your kind words...I certainly will put up some pics. Came as a bit of a shock, though; thought of myself as too young to be a grandad at 52! Jack1956 (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Annie Chapman alive photo

Hi BH, what evidence is there that the Chapman family are upset about the uploading of the wedding photo? Are they more upset about it than, say, the mortuary photo? Ta Dreamspy (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point!⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Berean Hunter, My name is Billy. I am a friend of Gene Odom. I also manage his websites. I have been trying to get some of Gene's story out to all the Lynyrd Skynyrd fans. As you can see I have been having problems. I will try to get Pete Stevenson to correct my mistakes.

Thank you for your patience,

Billy Webb