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.

Assistance Requested on Kentucky Colonel Article

I noticed your comments on the Wikipedia article Kentucky Colonel and know you understand the commission and the honor well. I am one of the editors for the page and a commissioner for Kentucky Colonels International, we started in Berea in 1998. There has been a lawsuit filed against us for using the term "Kentucky Colonels" as part of our name, the Honorable Order of Kentucky Colonels has trademarked the term as their own and are making its use exclusive for their commercial use and profit (the purpose of trademarks right?). There is more information about this on our website Kentucky Colonels International and information can also be found in the Google news headlines. You may also like to know we uncovered more history about Kentucky Colonels that discredits current understanding based on research of the Courier Journal and the State Archives. The information is also on our website. I cannot edit the page because I have been enjoined in the lawsuit and mentioned in the Herald Leader as being responsible for removal of their information, which I did not. We will appreciate your objective perspectives and vigilance, I have also notified BarrelProof about this. Problemsmith (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Problemsmith, I've sent you an email.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Krish!

Hi, the recently unblocked user Krish! seems to be back to his old ways of whitewashing the page of his favourite subject Priyanka Chopra by adding unsourced puffery which I removed in this edit and removing negative critical notices of her performance. When reverted and asked to maintain stasquo, he resorted to his usual edit-warring instead of starting a talk page discussion, as he was advised to do. Also pinging Cyphoidbomb -- do you condone such reverts mere hours after the person has been back on the standard offer? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks to me like you're both edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This is what this editor wanted. See Cyphoidbomb's page. I have been discussing with him about Krimuk 2.0's constant revert of my edits. This editor has been constantly reverting my edits and provoking me to edit war but I have been avoiding as I don't want to be blocked again. I tried to extend olive branch to this editor but he shut me down and has been constantly reverting my edits. He has violated NPOV as I have posted about that on Cyphoidbomb's page. Now what should I do now? I cannot even edit because I fear of being blocked. Krish | Talk 18:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The puffery that Krimuk 2.0 claims was there in Chopra's article since 2014 to 2018 supported by strong sources until he revomed positive stuff and added a lot of negative stuff after I got blocked. Cyphoidbomb Note how Krimuk has portrayed this to make me look as the aggressor and culprit. I have not reverted the above two links he has given. In fact i respected his reverts and his POV and left the way he wanted. Read below how he has completely tried to show me as the bad person as he accepts below that he reverted my edit to prove that only he is right.Krish | Talk 19:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

"as he accepts below that he reverted my edit to prove that only he is right." Same old WP:CIR and Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory accusations. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

How is it conspiracy when you have written this "If she is not currently the national and global ambassador, then I accept my mistake in that particular edit, because the text seemed to suggest otherwise. I have restorted that bit. Thanks for clearing it up." below? You accept to have reverted my edit without any reasons.Krish | Talk 19:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

What I did was revert to WP:STATUSQUO when negative critical notices were removed in an attempt to whitewash the subject. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

All you're saying is you're right and Krish! is wrong, unfortunately a stereotypical response from an edit warrior.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I am being misunderstood but what I'm asking for is a discussion on talk page for why negative critical notices should be removed. Until consensus can be gained, the article should remain at the WP:STATUSQUO. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

NOTE: After opening the discussion, he immediately went o to ANI to report me while I was writing the response to his open discussion. Another point to be noted that, he opened that discussion much much later. And I did not revert him for what he is claiming. I reverted him JUST ONCE because he had re-added a wrong information about UNICEF which he later accepted.Krish | Talk 02:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23 See this. He din't just revert my edit of critical notice BUT reverted my last 5 edits at once and that is why I reverted him. If he wanted to revert my critical notice edit then he should have reverted this one. BUT no he UNDID all my last 5 to 6 edit at once. Yes, all my edits without any explaination but made it look like he was just undoing my "critical review removal" edit. Also read what I have been telling Cyphoid on his talk page.Krish | Talk 18:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

What I did was restore to the trimmed version of the lead, that summarised the info (which the lead should do), which you first undid. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you telling me I undid your edit in a way that I had to undo your one edit twice? I didn't undid your edit. I RE-WROTE the way it was earlier. I did not revert. Then I saw you have changed the below line and re-wrote that too. How is that revert? A REVERT is called what you did here. I did not revert you.Krish | Talk 18:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

"I RE-WROTE the way it was earlier" ==> that's precisely what a revert is. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

NO. This is called revert. You have reverted me three times in last 24 hourd directly and undid several of my edits. What I meant by re-wrote is present in the edit summary. Your edit says Chopra is national and global ambassador but she is not the current ambassador. Chopra was promoted from national to global ambassador duties in 2016 and that's why the text was written that way. Your edit was contradictory so I re-wrote that line BUT never Undid your edit. You are clearly trying to present everything differently so that I will be blocked again. When you started reverting me I went to Cyphoidbomb to ask why it was happening as I myself fearful of my block. Bbb23 You need to see that article's history and Cyphoidbom's page. I have updated the article and added several things that were missing.Krish | Talk 18:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

If she is not currently the national and global ambassador, then I accept my mistake in that particular edit, because the text seemed to suggest otherwise. I have restorted that bit. Thanks for clearing it up. The rest, however, should remain at WP:STATUSQUO unless the community decides that certain negative critical notices should be removed. If they do, then I'll be the first to revert myself. As for the rest, I did not undo any of your well-sourced additions. What I found problematic, I did, and requested that you gain consensus on the talk page first. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

But that doesn't change the fact that you reverted me more than 3 times in last 24 hours and removed a lot of my edits and came here to show me as the aggressor. I had explained all of my edits with long summaries so that I won't be misunderstood yet you have been reverting my edits. You had reverted many of my edits which I later understood was right such as the NFA and then I went to your page to discuss and let those reverts be the way you wanted. I agreed with your reverts as I respected your POV. Like this I did not revert even though Chopra's performance was not negatively received as your edit made it seem. I have been preparing a discussion with reviews about Chopra's performance in DDD so I did not revert your edit. Plus why did I remove this negative review of Jai Gangajal, you ask? Well, it's in the explaination. But the point is you reverted all my "good edits" (as you know claim} without looking at them as you thought I was trying to whitewash. It should be noted that all those negative reviews you added in Chopra's article without discussion in 2018 After my block. These reviews were in the article since 2015 but you only tried to balance after 2018. Would you like to explain?Krish | Talk 19:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I was not reverted by anyone for my well-sourced additions to the article in the past year. If you disagree with them, open a neutrally-worded talk page discussion and ask the community to gain consensus on whether they should remain or not. That's how this encyclopedia works. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

You were not reverted because other editors are not ready to challenge your edits or just don't care. Only I would have challenged it but I was blocked. You behave as if you WP:OWN the articles on wikipedia. Could you explain why you significantly changed Bajirao Mastani article that was decided after several days of grueling discussions on its talk page? You removed the version of the article that was the consensus of the same wikipedia community that you are talking about. But you reverted it without discussing with any editor forget community, why? As per WP: I Don't Like It or WP: OWN? Could you care to explain? Isn't this a violation of wikipedia rules to remove something from article that was decided after consensus by the community or you just do it as you please?Krish | Talk 19:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

"Only I would have challenged it but I was blocked." Again, if you do want to "challenge", open a neutrally-worded talk page discussion and ask the community to gain consensus on whether they should remain or not, instead of waging a war against me. Simple. That's my third and final time saying it. Bye! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

So when I brought your "against wikipedia guidelines" edit here, you started playing victim and complained about me at ANI to prove I am an aggressor?Krish | Talk 21:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Observations

For now, I'm just going to make a few comments on how this dispute and ANI thread are going.

• Krimuk is right that you should get discussions going on the article talk pages. If you can come to an agreement that is great but if you can't then you should wait for other editors to bring balance to the discussion. It may take time so you should exercise patience.
• Krish, you should stop bolding so much. A little shows emphasis but a lot just means that you are shouting and that won't help you and instead may hurt you.
• There is a good deal of apparent bludgeoning going on and that makes for longer threads. Longer threads begin to invoke the Law of Diminishing Returns as you put more effort in but owing to TLDR, fewer people will want to assist and you lessen your potential gains. Fewer concise and well-thought-out replies are likely to be more effective. I understand why there haven't been many folks jumping into the ANI thread.
• Avoid commenting about the other editor and focus on the material under dispute.
• Be prepared that consensus may not go your way and you may have to accept it and move on.

That is all for now.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Berean. And, I am sorry for the bold text. I won't be using them again. And, I would like to inform you that there has been two discussions going on the here and here. I have given my views, backed with all the sources.Krish | Talk 21:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome and thank you for listening. I had read those along with the ANI thread and Cyphoidbomb's talk page before I made my comments above.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 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

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) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Florence genetics vandal is back

Hi Berean Hunter, you helped a few months ago with this ANI report: [1]. The user seems to be back again today on one of the same IPs, 79.8.104.141, after the three-month block expired. They're making the same kind of unsourced and obviously false changes to numbers from genetics studies.

They also made a couple of edits from 87.16.124.190 and 62.19.83.88. Maybe you have time to take a look? Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked 79.8.104.141 again, IamNotU. There isn't enough activity to warrant blocking the other two but if they become more persistent then I can take another look.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! --IamNotU (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This editor keeps reverting me

I did some edits on Priyanka Chopra's article. He reverted all of my edits even the non-controversial ones. I tried discussing with him and he reverted me again. He has also not replied to my last posts on the discussions we were having on Chopra's talk page. So how am I supposed to edit wikipedia? He keeps reverting me and is not ready to discuss. WP rules clearly says no one WP:OWNs any article and anyone can edit. That editor did not stop at that. He went on to remove a lot of stuff from Andaaz, an article I started working on today. He removes this which has been there since last six years and accuses me of favoring one actress. How am I suppose to edit and work on anything here?Krish | Talk To Me 08:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

He reported me again to ANI for an edit he thinks "I was showing bias" but another prominent Indian film editor agrees with my edit. The article in question is Andaaz on which I have been tirelesly working since yesterday. It's hard to work on old Bollywood film articles as there are very few sources and are found by very hard work. This editor removed several of my edits but did not bother to help the article. Just reverting and removing stuff which he did not like. This editor is clearly trying to get me blocked. You have to see this, Berean. What am I supposed to do? He keeps reporting me saying "Editor on standard offer". Are standard offer editor not suppose to edit wikipedia? Am I missing something? Do standard offer editors have different rules here?Krish | Talk To Me 08:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Unusual edit in an AfD

I am confused by this edit in an AfD. In the end, it basically was reverted. Looking at the contribution history of the two claimed editors, and taking into account the way signatures are usually attached to edits, this looks like abuse of multiple accounts by a single user. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen, confirmed plus one. See this and thank you for bringing this to my attention.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Weird page activity

Hello Sir. This page Syrian Turkmen got semi-protected because of IP sock puppetry invasion. Then after the protection, similar block evasion activity appeared again to escape the rules.

93.174.95.6 (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for letting know. I've blocked the IPv6 /64 range.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Pedrovariant is back

See these IP contribs: [2] This exact IP had been blocked for 3 months as part of Pedrovariant's ANI case. It's obviously them (resuming activity on the same subjects, e.g. [3], shortly after the block expired), and they need to be blocked again. Thanks. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocked from editing?

I have a T-Mobile device and I’m blocked from editing? I’m curious as to whom gave you the power to block an entire carrier of people from fixing mistakes in Wikipedia articles, especially when said mistakes included saying someone died in 2017 of corona virus on an anonymous account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.178.227 (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The community.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Multiple failed login attempts

Hi, BH - this evening, I received the failed login attempt notice in my alerts. I changed the password to the point I may not be able to remember it, and got the notice again. Same thing is happening at Commons. Should I be concerned? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC) Adding - just got another alert - this time it stated 6 failed attempts. Is anyone else experiencing this that you're aware of? 23:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, as long as you have a strong password only in use on WM/WP projects then you shouldn't have to change it and you shouldn't be concerned. I don't know of this happening to anyone else recently but it happens from time to time.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

6 different alerts about failed login attempts over a short period of time - as many as 6 to 12 attempts per alert. Sounds automated, huh? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Possibly. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Just saw this when I was adding another TP comment. I heard from another high-profile editor (offline) that they have gotten a bunch of login attempts lately too, as recently as Monday. They said there were ~six attempts. Possibly automated?? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Unusual spam

I found this edit through the Wikibaji SPI. The editor was welcomed by one of the Wikibaji socks. It's a rather unusual type of spamming. Any ideas? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

hey fuck you for blocking me for editing, why would you do that bitch?