User talk:Bennv123/Archive 1

Mr/Mrs: Apologies for calling you names( that blocking by that "lovely" girl did not work I am afraid! ) I was just angry. This is just to finish our conversation: I did the editing because it was not fit for a bad guy to be mentioned together with the life of a saint. Wrongly used the reason grammar because there is always someone undoing editing for this or for that. Over and out! Cheers mate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.156.22 (talk) 07:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Bennv3771, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Bennv3771! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk)! Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Bennv3771 (talk) - Hi, um thanks for giving me your concerned feedback ... However, please tell me which edits did you reverse of mine in Gay Icons? I can understand reversing Ricki Lake ... However, my reason have you seen the other citation on other Icons and Idols? Some of the Icons do not have citation either maybe you want to take another look at those on the other hand I made several edits and added names of people who are truly "Gay Icons". I even cited them myself with the correct and credit giving to the site. Tell me, how are my sources not strong enough or convening enough about them being gay role models? If you don't have an answer for that maybe you can search and research yourself to see if they are Icons or not with you telling me that they are not. I worked real hard trying to come up with sources to prove that they are. If you don't think the citation is making them strong enough to be icons maybe you could add a source to help make it strong or find out if they are not instead of removing them?
---WeLcOmEtOtHenEwMiLlEnIuM (Talk) 12:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I am his relative. Please stop removing my additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:300F:D01:4200:7555:5CFD:DFA4:9777 (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emma Bunton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polaroid. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Spice (album)

If you need help with ISBN refer to International Standard Book Number. Find the desired book's ISBN in the database and make sure everything is properly cited.--Harout72 (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of the most common passwords, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heather. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Rollbacker

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Gilliam: Thanks! Yes, I intend to use it for good only. Bennv3771 (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

See this

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Widgetsz89&action=history

--61.224.5.200 (talk) 05:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I have report it.--61.224.5.200 (talk) 05:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

User page

I wouldn't recommend transferring insults vandals say to your user page; see WP:DENY– Gilliam (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Noted, I'll remove it. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Hall

Edit warring is an unfair accusation. I'm not here to carry a brief for this guy, Hall, but I do, as many others, think "conspiracy theorist" a meaningless term when utilized in most contexts--used to traduce someone without actually making a case. (Unless, of course, it has to do with Russians in which its common practice for MSM members to spin them wildly without recrimination.) The WaPo piece (which you're right I misread) is an example par excellence of this underhanded consent-manufacturing practice. Here he is not conspiracy theorizing at all, just criticizing Allied troops, a breech of taboo which so incenses WaPo that they must paint him as mad as a hatter. Surely a guy as smart as you recognized that "angry and vociferous" is editorial writing not factually-grounded reportage. The second link you provided, which was not in evidence in a cached version on the page when I was editing, puts you on firm ground. It gives evidence that, if true, makes him a purveyor of what can only meet the criteria of "conspiracy theories." This man is not important to me and since you seem very concerned to cast him as a nut (Im not familiar with his work) I'll leave it alone. Detmcphierson (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Detmcphierson (talk • contribs)

@Detmcphierson: Calm down. I have no idea who he is and I don't care. I am not trying to cast him in any way...you will note I have never edited on his article except to the recent minor edit to fix the link. And yes, I do still think you were edit warring with that other editor per the definition, but if you see it another way then ok. I was just trying to clarify the technical misunderstandings you had about the sources. Whether the sources are right, I don't know and I don't care. You can discuss that with people who do on his talk page.....but what I said was correct. The first source does mention him, unlike what you claimed. And the second source is not a deadlink, unlike what you claimed. That is all I meant, nothing more, noting less. Bennv3771 (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The usage of the term "calm down" to preface your passive aggressive rant, which is totally disengaged from the substantive issues I raised is telling of your intent here. My misunderstandings of the sources were indeed quite sincere. The first link was to the wrong page of a pro-war film review, not usually fertile ground for taxonomical delineation of different types of political inquiry. The second was a dead-link. You fixed both and I accepted the change with reservation. The conversation should have either ended there or with you addressing my problem with the first story.Detmcphierson (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Detmcphierson: Ok, assume what you want. "which is totally disengaged from the substantive issues I raised"..yes, as I've explained here and on your talk page, I don't care about the issue you are raising, hence why I did not and will not address it. And I don't think I was being passive aggressive, because that implies that I was being indirect in my reply. My reply then and now is straightforward, To repeat: I don't care if Anthony Hall is a conspiracy theorist or not, I don't care if he is labelled as one in his article or not, and I don't care if the sources that label as such are correct to do so or not. There is no intent other than to correct your misunderstanding about the technicalities of the sources.

"You fixed both and I accepted the change with reservation. The conversation should have either ended there or with you addressing my problem with the first story.": Yes I fixed both, and you left a message on my talk page accepting that you were mistaken about the technicalities of the sources, then also went into an explanation of why you think the sources aren't good/accurate, and I then responded that I was just trying to fix your "technical" misconception about the sources and that I didn't care about your other non-technical issues with the sources, which you hadn't brought up until then. Yes, I agree that it should have ended there since I made it clear I don't have any interest in "addressing your problem with the first story". As I said, if you want to discuss the accuracy of the first story, go discuss it on the article's talk page where you're more likely to find people who care about it too. I am not obligated to engage in the "substantive issues you raised", and please stop leaving messages on my talk page asking me to. Thanks. Bennv3771 (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

And just to add, I'm sorry for using the phrase "calm down" if it upsets you. I just thought you were taking this a little personally since you were accusing me of "since you seem very concerned to cast him as a nut", when all I did when correct your technical misconceptions about the sources. And just as you are not familiar with Hall's work, well...I still have no idea who on earth he is since I haven't bothered reading his article. Never heard of him before, never heard of his work before. All that happened was that I saw your exchanges popping up on recent changes patrol, and was curious if the you were right that the first source doesn't even mention him and if the second source is a deadlink. So I opened the first source, used ctrl+f and found his name mentioned, and I opened the archive link of the second and saw that it wasn't a deadlink, and explained it to you on your talk page. That's all. Bennv3771 (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am a Kierkegaard reader, that definition of leap of faith was completely incorrect. There were no reliable sources previously, I know what I am doing.

@124.188.234.191: Ok, then you need to provide reliable sources to support that (see WP:RS on what is a reliable source. And there was a reliable source that you removed without a valid explanation...that's why it wasn't there anymore. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@124.188.234.191: Also, what does being a Kierkegaard reader have to do with this? You didn't remove the sourced content from the Kierkegaard section, you removed it from the part about the phrase's "most commonly used meaning", of which dictionary.com is a reliable source. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pavarotti & Friends, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syndication. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Nick Kroll page

We, the fans of the Conan show, were encouraged to edit the page. Urged to, in fact. Thus the sudden downpour of crazy edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squacoon (talk • contribs) 05:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)}  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  16:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Donets

Read WP:SORTKEY. The main article/s of a category, if existent, should get sorted with a space as key so that it/they appear at the very top of the category. Example: [[Category:Example| ]] Please cancel your revert. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@185.59.158.22: Ok, then the first revert was my bad. I still do not see why <references/ > has to be randomly added to the article. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• My error with random ref tag adding. Thank you. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Taiwanese same-sex marriage support rate updates?

Thanks for your advice. A few questions, 1. I am not quite sure that why wiki can not be allowed for 'everyone' to add updates? 2. This is not a random online poll but the biggest one in history on this issue ever since the major event that top court favors same-sax marriage. It is a significant sign of a right thing to do but a wrong way causing society turning their attitude from supportive to highly objective. 3. May I ask how the approval process is for updating? Are you the approver? Birdjgchen (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Birdjgchen: Hope this answers your questions:
• 1. Anyone can edit Wikipedia IF they follow Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.
• 2. It is an unscientific poll, it doesn't matter how many people vote in an online poll, if it is not scientific, it is still not reliable. Online polls like that are easily to manipulate and vote-stack. Moreover, non-taiwanese can easily vote in it too.
• 3. Your fellow editors are the approvers. Wikipedia operates on a consensus basis (note another editor also reverted your edit on the same basis as mine). If you want to re-add the poll, discuss it on the talk pages of the articles (Talk:Same-sex marriage in Taiwan and Talk:LGBT rights in Taiwan) and seek the consensus of other editors. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Deprod: Grown (Little Mix Song)

Hello, I have deprodded Grown (Little Mix Song), as less than 30 minutes prior to your adding the tag the author contested your speedy nomination on the talk page. This tells me that deletion of this article is not uncontroversial. I suggest redirecting it in the same way that the other article on this same subject was redirected (alternate capitalizations are acceptable redirects per WP:POFR) or taking to AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bennv3771

Although I appreciate your sentiment, the 35% of active editors leaving the site in the last five years has a lot more to do with the full time POV pushing shills and spinbots perpetually cyber bullying anyone or thing that does not adopt their POV than it does with personal insults in talk sections. The patient has cancer so let's worry about his chapped lips. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

disambiguation Antifa

Antifa Front group and heroin cartel extension of the Obama administration backed Afghan pederast opium cartel who 'chemical addiction trap' and keep Bacha Bazis. They're heroin abusers who were told they were supporting terrorists so they went and out-rightly joined them. 107.77.209.142 (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC) 107.77.209.142 (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

so an article has to exist for antifa? can that exist at the same time as a disambiguation page? 107.77.209.142 (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

also, is it standard to accuse someone of vandalism just for not knowing your protocols off the bat? that's a little unfriendly 107.77.209.142 (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@107.77.209.142: Hi. A disambiguation page like Antifa is not an article, it is just meant to direct readers to the correct article because there are several antifa-related articles. I don't know what Antifa group you are talking about specifically, but if an article for it already exists (look at the articles listed on the Antifa page and see if any of them are what you're looking for) then you should edit that article directly, not the disambiguation page that only directs readers to it. If the article on the group you are looking for does not exist, then you can create an article for it if it meets Wikipedia:Notability guidelines, preferably through the Articles for creation process since you are a novice editor. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@107.77.209.142: You were already informed here that a disambiguation page is not the appropriate place for your edits yet you ignored it..that is disruptive editing, hence my warning. Also, please stop spamming my talk page with your external links. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

to

okay I will never do it was happend by my desktop desturbece

thanks for telling about that

that Ashishpatelrewa (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Law & Order: True Crime

About the upcoming series Law & Order: True Crime: "The Menendez Murders" doesn't belong in that title. AdamDeanHall (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Nice article. Keep up the good work! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks. Bennv3771 (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Bennv3771. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Bennv3771, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)