User talk:Berean Hunter

Sticky Note: Operation Brothers at War

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕))

@This user can be reached by email.

May-June 2012 Edit Warring Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Necrophobia. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. 2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.252.49 (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

That is the warning that I gave you. At the present, your edit lacks consensus and you will need to discuss this issue on the talk page. You do not get to force the edit into the article through edit-warring.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you want to get it. You are the one who started the edit-warring of what it was an addition to the article by pure academic interest. When I explained meticulously my points on "Talk", instead of replying, you just reverted my edit again. This is edit-warring on your part. I issued you the warning, 1. because I thought it was clear to you that you were part of the edit-warring too, if not the main responsible part, and 2. because when I filed the "Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring", the template asked me if I had warned the other part, and if not, to do so. There's not gonna be any consensus between us, simply because you aggressively reverted the edit stopping the "talk". Who loses? Wikipedia and the general public.

--92.118.252.49 (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please review WP:BRD. You made an edit that I didn't agree with so I reverted...from there on, it is supposed to be a discussion where the editors of the article attempt to achieve consensus on the talk page. The edit war starts when someone decides to place it back in although it lacks consensus.

I would welcome other editors input at that page. I don't think that Wikipedia or our readers will lose anything.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• I welcome other unbiased third views as well. But, indeed, Wikipedia and the readers are losing already, and the efforts of nice editors in here go without due recognition, due to deletionists who use "rollback" and other such tools, abusing their power, to revert contributions made in good-faith and call them "nonsense", despite Wikipedia's rules - which supposedly they protect. When I read this I thought of you:

The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia --92.118.252.49 (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No one is abusing you and there has been no misuse of rollback. And where did some "experienced" editor advise you of this?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on edit-warring is not prescriptive given all the possible cases it has to address, except for the Wikipedia:3RR#The three-revert rule) bright-line policy: three reverts in 24 hours and you are guilty of edit-warring and you (should/are liable to) get banned for 24 hours. Berean Hunter's statement above that "The edit war starts when someone decides to place it back in although it lacks consensus" is I think factually wrong - there's no mention of that in the three strikes rule and I can't find anything in WP:BRD. WP:BRD does say "Do not edit war. The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D" - but anyway WP:BRD is not policy but simply a guideline. I think Berean Hunter was therefore edit-warring on Necrophobia on 3 June 2012, but not within 24 hours. However, I think that sometimes as in this case you simply need to edit war.

The reason I agree with the revert is that a claim of "the term was first introduced" is being made on the basis of a PhD dissertation. But it should be in a book or other widely publicized event - otherwise the term is not going to stick. It is defensible to add a reference to a PhD if a claim is being made that something was first discovered elsewhere, if the PhD actually predates that. Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. I disagree that there was any edit-warring on my part. Once BRD has begun, it is bad faith to ignore discussion and enforce one's will without consensus. What had been added should not have been and was promptly removed. Also, this went to the noticeboard already.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It is always bad faith to ignore discussion and enforce one's will! The point about BRD is it can be used to break deadlock, but does not in itself justify anything. And other editors may not recognize, nor need they, that BRD has begun? Anyway, have a good day. Aarghdvaark (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• User:Aarghdvaark thank you for your unbiased opinion.

--92.118.252.49 (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Berean Hunter. You have new messages at DeltaQuad's talk page.
Message added 23:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

IRC cloak request.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

What is ref-spam?

You reverted an edit I did and referred to "ref-spam", but when I clicked on that term I got no definition form Wikipedia. Did I violate Wikipedia policy? If so, please refer me to the specific policy. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RagingDog (talk • contribs) 19:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Refspam calrification

Do I understand correctly that the issue of Refspam is where the reference resides on the web? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RagingDog (talk • contribs) 21:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I see this was answered on your talkpage. If you have any questions remaining, please ask.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

Hello Berean Hunter. You recently applied for a Wikimedia IRC cloak, but it looks like you forgot to register your nickname first. Could you please log on to IRC and do:

/msg NickServ REGISTER <password> <email>

where <password> is a password of your choice and <email> is your e-mail address? After you do that, please follow the instructions that are e-mailed to you to confirm your e-mail address. When you're done with that, I just need you to confirm your cloak request:

/msg MemoServ send wmfgc IRC cloak request

After you finish all of that, I'd be happy to get you a cloak. :-) If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. --Filip (§) 17:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you, Filip.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The cloak will be set in the next batch of cloakings, which should be very soon. --Filip (§) 18:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked IP

Thanks for letting me know. However, I did not disagree with his change (despite the way I worded the edit summary). If this infobox were about the entire campaign, it would be legitimate to cite the naval contribution, but I don't think they had much of anything to do with the siege. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Good enough. Just didn't want you getting frustrated with the IP...:)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Spam?

Just out of curiosity, what is one of my websites (howtoreallybuyaproperty.co.uk) doing on your references page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berean_Hunter/References) listed as a spammer? Have you been receiving spam from this domain or is there a user who has been adding links - and if so who?

Best Polishwanderer (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That was added on Feb 18, 2011. I also see that I removed one promo link from Houses in Poland on that day which is different but I picked up where someone had been trying to promote your site. If no one has been trying to promote it in a while, I'm not opposed to removing it from the list...just removed it. If someone works to promote it here again however, I will request that it be blacklisted. Fair enough?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 13:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

I don't understand why you say ScienceApologist isn't blocked or banned. He was banned by Arbcom, and indefinitely blocked. He was disruptive for years, and Arbcom finally took action against him. TimidGuy (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not know the details behind ScienceApologist other than he invoked the right to vanish and his block log was cleared and he is not listed at WP:BANNED. Do you know of an active ban against him? If so, would you please supply a link? Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

ScienceApologist's ban is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, down at the bottom of the page. Note that he had accumulated lots of temporary bans, changed to user Joshua P. Schroeder, and as that user got some more temporary bans before being blocked indefinitely on 21 Jan 2011:

• Joshua P. Schroeder (talk · contribs) (formerly ScienceApologist) is blocked indefinitely, the first year of which block is made under the authority of #Discretionary sanctions. Further, the topic ban above is extended to run indefinitely. The block will be lifted, and the topic ban reset to the original expiration date, when and if Joshua P. Schroeder provides credible reassurances that he will not engage in tactics designed to circumvent, evade, or game his topic ban.

As detailed still further down, he then became VanishedUser314159 who was found to be controlling a sock puppet, with the sock puppet getting blocked for a year on 10 Dec 2011. VanishedUser314159's talk page is blanked, but the version of 20 March 2011 repeats the indefinite block as above (presumably that came over when Joshua P. Schroeder's page was moved to VanishedUser314159). What the deal is with the courtesy blanking I don't know. What to make of all this I also don't know, except just to log when he pops up again and block his sock puppets for a year if confirmed? Aarghdvaark (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Aarghdvaark. Thank you for supplying this additional information. I was not familiar with the ArbCom case when I was assisting Berean Hunter to handle the SPI, so I based my advice on incomplete information. We have reopened the case. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Commenting in the wrong section

Hi, like this edit and more on other SPI pages, you're leaving your comments in the section for "Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admins". You're none of those things (yet :-) so you should leave your comments in the area "Comments by other users". --HighKing (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, Berean Hunter is listed as an SPI clerk at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks as a trainee, so his comments on process do belong in the bottom section. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Whoops! Apologies Berean! I didn't know you could be a clerk and not an admin. Actually, that's something I'd be interested in doing myself. --HighKing (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, and I just blocked and tagged that sock for you, after Berean confirmed by duck call. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

CSA flag RFC

Please contribute your comment/sources at Talk:Confederate States of America#RFC Infobox flag choice to select the flag representing an historic nation-state 1861-1865 from three alternatives, a flag _____ .

a) sourced as flown everywhere in the Confederacy, 1861-1864,

b) sourced as "not satisfactory" at the time 1863-1865, or

c) sourced as "never" seen by 1865 participants. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

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 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)