User talk:Berean Hunter

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕))

@This user can be reached by email.

We need to talk about prostitution please

So one of the articles on my watchlist I noticed that you changed "sex worker" to "prostitute, AND left a disruptive editing comment. I undid your rv and I guess we can talk about that on the article TP if you want? But more seriously, it appears that you and another editor are doing this on multiple articles? What's going on? I think that I prefer sex work to prostitution (the terms). TeeVeeed (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

TeeVeeed, you need to revert yourself, please. I am removing those edits as disruptive and they also appear to qualify as WP:BANREVERT because of the evidence here. I'm acting in an administrative capacity and my removal should not be interpreted as taking part in a content dispute. I suggest that you revert for now to avoid complicating the building case against the banned editor(s). You can start a discussion afterwards for community input but I can tell you that consensus is against you. The status quo, as you will see when you read the thread linked to above, shows no consensus to make such change.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you please show me anywhere where consensus has discussed this? I kind of want to stick with "sex work" vs "prostitution", and especially with the page that I watch, since none of those ladies had pimps, which prostitutes generally have. I don't know about the rest of what you say here, I think you are getting a little heavy-handed, but if you can show me where this has been discussed I may be able to understand your point?-ThanksTeeVeeed (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit to add--Okay, I see that the banned? editor is accused of socking the matter, so I'm going to stay out of that and the rest of it but I am still open to discussing using "sex work" "prostitute" or both on the on the Eastbound Strangler talk page. I am going to go back and edit it with "both" and if you have a problem with that can we bring it to the article TP please? Thanks for letting me know what the problem is. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanna stop by and thank you for your efforts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JournalmanManila. (N0n3up (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC))

You're quite welcome.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Demarchi58/Archive

Hey Berean Hunter--what was the evidence against the Guido account? The SPI didn't make that clear to me. If it's private, feel free to email me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

AN/I notification

I mentioned you at a section I started at AN/I. The section heading is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Two.25.45.251. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

ip range 119.160.64.0/21

please unblock my account, Why my account was blocked۔ --Obaid Raza (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Your account isn't blocked. I originally blocked that IP range based on this SPI case. I doubt that the range would be unblocked due to the trouble caused but it isn't up to me anyway as the current blocking admin for that range is a checkuser. You may consider filing for an IP block exemption as a possible solution.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Berean Hunter is correct, and I won't unblock that range as it's still being abused. I encourage you to apply for an IPBE. Katie^talk 18:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVII, September 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at two recent releases Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on ANZACs in the Third Ypres Offensive Timeline: This month in 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 Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JournalmanManila/Archive

Hi Berean Hunter. Remember the investigations of JournalmanManila and his/her sockpuppets? Now he/she's back once again as User:Dashcam and User:Xpose09. I was about to open another SPI investigation but this post by Xpose09 and this level of edits made by Dashcam akin to the sockpuppet who created that very article confirms it. (N0n3up (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC))

Spot on. Blocked and tagged. Thank you for reporting this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Berean Hunter:, remember JournalmanManila and his sockpuppets? I think he has came back again (well that's fast), this time as Enervonsyrup. My hunch is because s/he retieved most of Philippines-related edits here that I think was added by his previous socks before. Thank you in advance. Cheersǃ —  Gunkarta  talk  16:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting Gunkarta. That is definitely him and I have indeffed and tagged him.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and a request.

Thanks for quieting the latest episode of odd editing re VN War weapons. I'm not actually sure the fellow is trolling; it could also be good-faith with unadmitted problems with English, for instance, but either way his work isn't an improvement.

On the principle that no good deed goes unpunished, I'd like to ask that you take a look at Doublet (linguistics). There appears to be a small crop of new accounts, all named to the same pattern -Wordword1234, two words, followed by four numbers- with an edit each. Might just be a class assignment, but it looks like a great way to build a sleeper sock farm. Anmccaff (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Anmccaff, please report this in the related ANI thread. I'm doing something else at the moment but will look shortly. Thank you,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Left a comment with the info there and notified the accounts. Thanks. Anmccaff (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Out of line

I am new to editing on Wikipedia. However, if you do not like Donald Livingston as a source, then it is for you to explain why he is listed as a source on another Wikipedia Civil War page. Clearly the information was in the audio. You clearly did not bother to listen to it.

My experience today has found three of the five pillars of Wiki in disrepair. Pillars are generally seen as a foundation on which something rests. Because I am new here too, I wonder what sort of foundation Wiki has, given the treatment I have receieved.

The second pillar is about neutrality. My offering was to counter a series of statements not merely representing bias, but complete bigotry towards the South. There was plenty of valid blame to throw around concerning the Civil War, but unless you are really able to PROVE that the South alone was guilty, then you should not only consider this wiki, but how your response represents pillar 2.

THe third pillar proudly proclaims that content can and will mercilessly be reedited. While I understand that this may include those who approach information in a sloppy manner, as you have done, your resort to jargon to defend your sloppiness speaks to intolerance of differences. Admittedly, you did not threaten me concerning what I posted, but you set the tone for me, a new user, for the next message which was a threat. This is why overall I see that the 3rd pillar is in need of repair. Because reediting is not so much something that can and will happen as something to cause those who disagree to be eliminated from dialogue.

Part of the Fourth pillar concerns being welcoming to new comers. I believe I have spoken to that. Also, there is the notion of accepting that edits occur in good faith. How have your actions concerning my post reflected good faith? You denounced my source and obviously did not listen to the audio. My posts have been deleted or edited concerning 100% of my actions today. You may see nothing wrong or fundamentally disrespectful concerning your part in this, but I do not believe the 4th pillar is really working for Wikipedia today.

Does an object continue to stand strong when 3 of 5 pillars are not in good repair? Audeamus42 (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC) 09/23/17.