| Berean Hunter | Talk Page | Sandbox | Sandbox2 | Leave me a message |

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Stan. Let me give you one of these. I've had them and they are very good. I had the 6% version and not the 10.7%. You can't taste any alcohol in it. Excellent.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Osias Beert. Please take a look. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will look shortly...still removing links (down from 494 to 253 currently) this spam.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

good luck! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You pinged me at ANI (I think) and I never got around to responding. Is that dead now or can I still help? Doug Weller (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dead now. :) He's indeffed now.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a month block, not indefinite. Doug Weller (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct. It's a Freudian slip in this case based on where I think they are headed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you blocked User:69.1.22.120 yesterday. Today, User:76.6.107.236 made these edits to The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina. For comparison, see these diffs from yesterday. Would you take a look and see if you think it is the same person? Billcasey905 (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Billcasey905: Sorry for the late reply. Yes, they are the same. I've semi-protected the article for one month to deter the IP hopping which is more effective than playing whac-a-mole and blocking all the IPs. He may show up at the talk page(s) though.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and understand about the reply. Busy time for all of us. Billcasey905 (talk)

Thank you for the recent range block. Can you also semi-protect my own Talk page and possibly other subsites, please? This ever-hopping IP has called me "imbecile" there, just to spite. Not that I am offended, but it's getting tedious to tell it to desist yet again. Zezen (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Semi'd for two days.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Berean Hunter. I'm probable problably late in adressing this, having returned today from a long wikibreak after som interesting relevations appeared. My question is if you when closing the 26 June Tirgil34 investigation was aware that there were two ongoing investigations, and that the earlier investigation had several Checkuser checked  Likely and  Possible accounts requiring administrator attention? Krakkos (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember, sorry.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix the misspelling of Beverly Clearys children on the upper right corner of the page. There is not a second "l" in their last name. I realize it is stupid that it bothers me but I think Ms. Cleary deserves the correct spelling. Thank you. Laura — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.92.137 (talk) 00:17, November 30, 2015‎ (UTC)

I've done this but in the future I would encourage you to be bold and make corrections yourself. We welcome that around here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you. I am trying my best on looking up sources I believe sources is super important to give on what kind of information it came from. I just feel like that every time if I put up something on Wikipedia. I keep finding sources so they won't think that I stole it from others.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eight nation alliance fan102 (talk • contribs) 04:51, November 30, 2015‎ (UTC)

@Eight nation alliance fan102: Here are some good sources for American Civil War editing written by a now-retired editor. There are others but these give a good start for you. By the way, you may be interested in our Military history project...this is a good place to ask questions and get help.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll start there. Thank you for your help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eight nation alliance fan102 (talk • contribs) 05:14, November 30, 2015‎ (UTC)

You're welcome.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Berean, I gave links the man could have looked at -- I just gave them again Paul La Violette is a hugely respected and renowned scientist, not a "book author" and WIKI has no page on this? I said, OBAMA sent a letter, because he DID, and your person Weller couldnt be bothered to learn that... So, I dont like to be talked down to, and "holy crud" is not a rude expression, its called astonishment. Perhaps Mr. Weller might rephrase his attitude by saying "please show a link re OBAMA's letter" instead of "I cant imagine why you think that" like a [interject pleasant word of choice].

)

One more slight thing to consider, Berean -- when anyone, even a Non Mensan, stops by and gives you THEIR time to update your pages to proper snuff, and your robot rudely wastes their typing time, this is mind boggling to believe wont upset the contributor. A Thank You belongs in the comments when the person BOTHERS to tell you of the error, dont you think?? After all, where would WIKI be without good info such as I provided? (Possibly back in 2006 re the birth of bosnian pyramids, by chance?). Oy Vey. Letterhead330 (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Have a nice day. Letterhead330 (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Letterhead330 do not continue to call someone "uneducated" because you are starting to harass when you do that. There is no need to demean someone here. Try sticking to the subject and use logic, please.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Berean said: "do not call someone uneducated because...." Okay. I educated. Weller did not absorb or verify. I provided links. Next time someone tells me black is white, should I use Ignorant, or is that too, harassment? I always thought uneducated means lacking taught facts, but maybe Im wrong. Please advise me of what word to use when teaching someone a new fact and they reject wanting to hear about it, or claim back that an properly informed person is wrong without making sure theyre well-informed, first. :) Im very open to suggestions and not meaning to be rude, but what would you say? I would say scoliosis in my neck makes typing hurt, and to have a spam bot erase before Ive gotten to the credits, for not PUTTING credits, is rather absurd...and then to have the credits rejected, because theyre on the net, is even more absurd, as this is now a very-internet oriented world. :)Letterhead330 (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that the letter in question was from a third level staff member in Reagan's Executive Office, no accolade or praise in it. At that time he was a pretty mainstream scientist. That was long before LaViolette wrote Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion: Tesla, UFOs, and Classified Aerospace Technology. So yes, I can't imagine why Obama would have written to him. In any case he doesn't claim expertise in archaeology or geology, the two relevant disciplines. Oh, the 'credits' were YouTube videos. Doug Weller (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just found something written by LaViolette on the Bosnian Pyramids - you might find it illuminating.[1] Doug Weller (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since 13 Nov, when I (quite unnecessarily) declared that I'm editing logged out for the time being, I've made eight edits using the account. Seven were to my account's talk page. The eighth was to an article's talk page and was intended to be made logged out, as I said there. So I don't see the problematic overlap that you refer to. Also, not that I care much that some people might know what city I live in, I don't think it's considered proper for you to publicly reveal my account's IP address. When a different editor did that, an admin suppressed it. Finally, if were to be unfairly accused of socking, and I wasn't indeffed for it, it might be just the final straw I needed to finally divorce myself from this insane asylum. So I'm not going to worry about that. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to prevent you from running afoul of the policy and don't want you accused of socking. You received a 3RR on Oct. 20 on your main account and then you switched to the IP and kept editing the same article/talk page which is indeed IP socking if you don't let the other editors know. Because you received an NPA warning that you blanked, that also belongs to your main account and there could have been consideration for your block there. When you edit legitimately using an IP, it must be on different articles/talk pages than you normally have edited unless you make it clear who you are. You are operating with a faulty understanding of policy. It is easy to screw up and find yourself inadvertently avoiding scrutiny in practice. Any blocks that you earn as an IP would also be repeated on the main account...anything otherwise would be the default definition of avoiding scrutiny.

Are you trying to avoid that IPv6 sock that was giving you trouble? I was hoping to have quashed that...at least their IP edits.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be accused of socking, either. But, as I said, that would have a silver lining and I would probably be better off in the long run. The Wikipedia addiction is strong, and I sometimes lack the will power to do what I know would be good for me. I also believe Wikipedia benefits a little from my participation.
I don't know how my removal of that particular NPA warning is a problem. Many editors do that as a mattter of course, whether there is in any merit to the warning or not, just to thumb their noses at the editor issuing the warning. As far as I've seen, that practice is entirely within their prerogative per user talk guidelines. I don't do that (I don't get many warnings), but that was objectively a combative and hypocritical warning, an abuse of the system, by an editor who makes a habit of that, and in a more perfect environment that editor would have been subject to sanction. Removing it immediately was not only within my prerogative, AFAIK, but was more than justified.
If there is a policy that says I am required to state my reasons for editing logged out, please direct me to it; I confess to not having read every bit of the applicable policy. No one is the best judge of themselves, but I believe I am acting in the best of good faith, and always have. That's all that matters to me, and I believe it should be all that matters to Wikipedia. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also this admin's comments about this. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that when he wrote it. :) YGM.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After reading more policy I'm considering returning to my account. I take it I would then be required to avoid every article I touched while logged out? (Some of it was article talk only due to semi.) Or is there a reasonable level of prior activity that would be acceptable? (email rec'd and is percolating) 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Berean. Although I understand completely your reaction due to this user's strong POV and the political background you referred to, my opinion is that Dominator was not warned adequately under AA2. He may have a strong POV but he did not edit-war neither does he appear to push his POV with PAs as is usually the case. He does not seem to be a sock and he also tried dispute resolution. Is there a way to reconsider the ban? Dr. K. 03:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've commented in the AN thread.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have noted in my response to your WP:AN, I am not interested in any future conflict. With that in mind, I think something should be made clear, to avoid any future difficulties. You posted to AN seeking affirmation that you weren't "involved". While you're admin colleagues feel you weren't, I disagree.

• You knew full well that you and I have had lengthy conflict in our past. All our past interaction has been conflict, we have never collaborated.
• You also knew that I had complained about your interference with my ANI, which was basically scuttled, in part at least, by your actions.
• You knew I questioned your block, repeatedly, meaning I disagreed with it, yet you refused to respond.
  

As editors, it my preference that we try to avoid each other. This will be my only post here, and likewise I would ask that not post on my talk page. As an admin however, I feel that unless you see something urgent, you should refer any administrative actions towards me to another, neutral and uninvolved admin. Just as I feel you should've done last week.

As I've said, I'm not challenging your block as I feel there is little point in challenging almost any blocks. I simply wish to move forward, and not have any further disputes, especially ones along these lines. That is the reason for this request and I ask that you respect it. I bear you no ill will and I wish you well in your future endeavours. - ^theWOLFchild 00:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]