User talk:Berean Hunter

This user believes in equal pay for women and doesn't understand why it should be any other way.

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕))

@This user can be reached by email.

Range Blocking for 2600:1700:1113:B80:0:0:0:0/48

There is an editor who is using multiple accounts for disruptive editing, Special:Contributions/2600:1700:1113:B80:0:0:0:0/48. I have reported this editor last month ago to Ad Orientem and was blocked for one month. It appears the editor back again doing the same thing as before. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• 2600:1700:1113:2C40:0:0:0:0/64 is blocked. I think that should do it.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXII, August 2020

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: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Nick-D on 1945

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) 14:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:THQ#What happens if others come on a page and delete or mess up sources and information

Hi Berean Hunter. Just letting you know about this as a courtesy since it seems to involve you. Perhaps you can clarify things either at the Teahouse or on the article’s talk page since this editor seems to be confused and frustrated by apparently some edits you made. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Already replied.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

An old friend

I can't make heads or tails who the master is of this user since i'ts not noted anywhere but it appears they are back and engaged in WP:TE. Praxidicae (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible socks

Hi @Berean Hunter: An editor has posted a message on my talk page, saying that he/she suspects two editors of being socks of somebody else. Its not something I usually deal with. scope_creep^Talk 20:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Odd page

Hi Berean Hunter, I'm guessing you didn't really mean to do this: User:2409:4060:193:DCC1:0:0:0:0/64...? --IamNotU (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

IamNotU, that is correct and I have removed it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hardblocked range marked as ACC ignore

Greetings - I'm working with a new user through ACC who is trying to edit from the 70.183.112.0/20 range. The block is marked ACC ignore, but it looks like it's not set for anon-only. Do I need to have this user request IPBE? Thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ElHef, you can email me details and I will consider the situation but no, I don't want to see new accounts created from that range in general nor given IPBE without close checkuser scrutiny.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Email sent. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

IP Block

I see you just closed my UTRS IP block appeal ... but I don't know why. I was using UTRS as disclosing the IP would out me, so I can't link the IP or block here. I'm not sure why that range is blocked, as I don't see any odd activity - nor would I expect. It's just a standard corporate ZScaler range ... so I don't know why it would be blocked - let alone not let registered users edit from there! Can you please let me log in through that range - obviously I'm not a risk here. Thanks Nfitz (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Nfitz, I sent you an email earlier today (seven hours ago). Have you not received it?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't seen that. It's literally impossible to turn off that proxy on the computer ... and trust me, I've tried ... and even worse when physically in the office. I can bypass it by logging in as a different user ... which is what I'm doing now, but it's grossly inconvenient, and ultimately means, I simply am not fixing stuff when I see it. Or I could use a different computer, if I can pry one out of my kids hands. It's a standard ZScaler closed proxy range used by major large corporations ... I'm sure the security holes in my own IP, which I mismanage myself, are far bigger. :) While I don't see that such blocks are good for the project, and don't see any abuse - I'm only asking that my own account be let through - I don't think I'm a personal risk. Nfitz (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

There has been abuse on Wikipedia by accounts using that range. That said, I've given you IPBE for one month.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Zodiac Killer

The reason I included him in the kidnappers category is because the Lake Berryessa attack included false imprisonment of the victims, which the category also encompasses. JJARichardson (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

JJARichardson, while he tied them up before killing them that does not constitute kidnapping. What is your source for calling it a kidnapping? Also, this edit is incorrect because the Unabomber was never considered as a suspect (he was never suspected of committing these crimes ever) but they looked at him and eliminated him which is not the same thing. The source cited in the article goes against him being a suspect. Source describes detectives as "Still skeptical at best..." and "Some of it is pretty farfetched, but there are enough similarities for us to at least look at it..." which is a far cry from naming him as a suspect. Do you have a non-forum, published source that law enforcement named him as a suspect?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

From Suspect, "In law enforcement jargon, a suspect is a known person accused or suspected of committing a crime."
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

"Cool blacklist"

Hey there, re: this, OK, I misremembered--it wasn't Komail that I was thinking of. But isn't there some sort of keyword blacklist? Or an article title blacklist? I feel like I added something to one of these once. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Found it. Thanks for letting me use your talk page as a mental sounding board. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

For article titles there is also WP:SALT but the blacklist that you are using is better at preventing permutations of the title. I'll send you my bill.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Question

I contributed in the past to a page that has been deleted [1]. Here is my concern. The user who nominated the page was blocked for sockpuppetry [2]. "Another" user who voted there was also blocked for the same [3]. Same account nominated it for deletion first time [4]. That was inappropriate in my view. Here is my question: is it possible just to recreate and improve this page, or this would better go through Wikipedia:Deletion review? Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

My very best wishes, it would be better to go to DR because there were established editors that also !voted to delete in addition to the socks.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you! My very best wishes (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

R-73 (missile)

@Berean Hunter: could you please take a look at the R-73 missile page? An IP has been trying to make this edit. The content that the IP has added is not mentioned in the supporting reference. For example, the IP added that "Some local..... while some others stated that they saw two parachutes" words. These words like "some" and "two parachutes" are not used in any of the two cited references ( National Interest.org and Asia Times). Plus for some unknown reason, the IP is repeated deleting this quote from Asia Times "Meanwhile, locals on the ground reiterated that no Pakistani pilot bailed out along with Wing Commander Varthaman."

Similarly, the IP has added words like "Some" in front of aviation experts and two unsourced lines "and the main body of the R-73 missile, which Abhinandan is said to have fired, was missing" and "However, it has also been pointed out that as the R-73 is a homing missile, it might have exploded on a close pass, without striking its target head-on." None of these words and lines are mentioned in any of the cited references.

I would really appreciate your help if you could a take a look into this matter. Thanks 82.178.61.254 (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I've restored it to the version before the edit warring.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Berean Hunter Thanks. 82.178.61.254 (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Berean Hunter, the Asia times article states that the missile might have exploded on a close pass. Also, note that this IP edited the article as a different IP before, from the same location. Could you reinsert the missile explosion part? Or, if you wish to restore the old version, could you restore it to the revision by Mx. Granger, before this (dynamic) IP started the edit war. 183.83.146.190 (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not involving myself in the content dispute. Editors should discuss this and try to resolve it on the talk page of the article. More editors that edit the article should be able to lend assistance.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not asking you to involve yourself. I am simply saying that could you revert it fully, to the version by Mx. Granger. It was when this IP started edit-warring. Right now, he tricked you into doing a half-revert in his favour. 183.83.146.190 (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Always the wrong version. Go to talk page and discuss.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I have done so, but I doubt if response will come, this is a rarely edited page. Thank you for protecting the page, but I fear it may have gone awry. 183.83.146.190 (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)