User talk:Bennyben1998

Hello, I'm JJMC89. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Buffalo wing— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please stop vandalizing articles, such as by adding nonsensical information to Buffalo wing. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The

Adventure

Hi Bennyben1998!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi talk) 17:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply ]

The article Dream Genie has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The only references seem to be [1] and [2]

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Dream Genie requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Mr. Guye (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bennyben1998. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 23:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Family Research Council. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - MrX 13:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ruslan (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia. 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) 10:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Anti-brony requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

This is not only uncivil, but also slandering. You are implying that I am spreading "false information", and explicitly calling me "unproffesional". You tell me to shut my mouth up? What is your problem? I've already explained, but you removed that explanation.

Here you have a warning:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Radovan. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

The next time I'll take it to the noticeboard.--Zoupan 15:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The

]

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the here !

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bennyben1998. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Adult entertainment, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 20:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bennyben1998. You reverted my edit to Ronald without any giving a reason. The thing is that your edit has introduced multiple unreferenced statements. That's why I have undone your revert. Hope that's clear.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bennyben1998. Please don't revert my edits. It's disruptive. I'm trying to improve the article. For that to happen, we need to cite our sources.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vuk (name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonians. 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) 10:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I second Brianann MacAmhlaidh's comment. You have been making unsupported claims in various given-name articles, including Vuk (name), Dragoslav, Jasna (name), etc., and when they are reverted, you restore your claims with unhelpful edit summaries like "PLEASE JUST LET THIS BE ALREADY!!!". That's not the way we operate on Wikipedia. When I commented here on your Talk page, you deleted my comment with the Edit summary "Answer?: Leave me alone!".

Looking over the other comments on this Talk page, it seems that this disruptive behavior is a pattern, so I'm adding a warning below. --Macrakis (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Macrakis (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You recently blanked the Talk:Darko (given name) page. Escalating your aggressiveness like this is likely to get you banned. --Macrakis (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --Macrakis (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to revert changes with no edit summary justifying them, or discussion on this talk page or the articles' talk pages. This is considered disruptive editing. Stop. --Macrakis (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll finally give you the answer you've been waiting for. I prefer names to be Slavic in general and besides, what I'm doing is none of your business and if it is then tell me how? (Bennyben1998 (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Bennyben1998)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on

WP:OWN says "All Wikipedia content − articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages − is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page." It is important to explain your edits, and justify them both in edit summaries and in Talk pages (see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution). Reverting changes with no Edit summary, or with hostile and unconstructive comments like "Leave me alone" and "PLEASE JUST LET THIS BE ALREADY!!!" is not helpful. As I've warned you before, if you continue your current behavior, you will likely be blocked. --Macrakis (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Macrakis (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Macrakis (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Katya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia. 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) 09:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Goth subculture, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on B & D Burgers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Gbawden (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Humpty Dumpty. Theroadislong (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason I was doing such is because the nursery rhymes are of medieval origin as opposed to 18th or 19th century origin. Please explain HOW it was vandalism. (Bennyben1998 (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Bennyben1998)[reply]

You have added a number of random totally unreferenced dates to a variety of articles. That looks like vandalism to me. Theroadislong (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Do you accept my apology? (Bennyben1998 (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Bennyben1998)[reply]

I note your apology, and am happy to accept that it is sincere. Having said that, the warning given to you above, namely that you will be blocked if you add any further dates without providing good quality sources to substantiate your edits, remains in force.--

^"talk" 15:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello, Bennyben1998. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed you removed Boris and Natasha of the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show from the List of fictional secret agents. Per The Guide to United States Popular Culture, page 122 they were indeed spies. How about self-reverting? Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine! I reverted myself! Are you happy now? (Bennyben1998 (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)Bennyben1998)[reply]

Over the moon. Thanks! BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

O3000 (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please note that the article Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is under the discretionary sanctions mentioned above. If you read the top of the article talk page, you will see that you cannot reinstate a challenged edit without first gaining consensus (consensus required). It would be a good idea for you to revert your reinstatement. O3000 (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

talk) PingMe 03:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

If it continues, yeah. O3000 (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit war.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the slightest evidence for you prima facie implausible assertions, please discuss it on Talk:Natasha Fatale. Unfortunately, your internal psychic drama counts for nothing when it comes to editing Wikipedia. AnonMoos (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Natasha Fatale shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ben please read

Also, we do not make "accommodations" for one user because something in an article "upsets" him/her. See

Given what the claim I think the language could be more conciliatory. They may just need mentoring.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: This edit summary speaks to me of bad intentions. Perhaps you are right though. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If (IF) they do have aspergers they have communications problems. It maybe no more then an poor ability to communicate. Of course it may not be, hence why I would like to see someone mentor them.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ben you might also want to read

You're still at it. Stop it. --

@

BullRangifer:, the edit was made on August 16. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Edit conflict. My mistake. I tried to delete this section when I discovered that. You're fast! --

talk) PingMe 03:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I happened to check my watchlist at the right (or wrong) moment. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is it a problem? I'm a member of the WikiProject Organized crime. (Bennyben1998 (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Bennyben1998)[reply]

Benny, I started this thread by mistake, as explained above. As to your question, it's a problem because it's (1) not true and has been (2) repeatedly rejected by other editors, IOW it's against consensus. You MUST NOT keep making that change in articles or you'll end up getting topic banned or blocked. Your membership in a WikiProject has nothing to do with this. It gives you no special privileges. --

Well, riddle me this: Why would foreign electoral intervention NOT be organized crime activity?! Also, what on Earth does IOW mean?! (Bennyben1998 (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Bennyben1998)[reply]

IOW = in other words. Also, not all organized crime is "mafia". We don't and can't call Enron, for example, a mafia. Rather we have terms like racketeering, collusion, and conspiracy. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benny, just because what the FSB and GRU did is a crime, that doesn't make them part of the Russian mob. They are still Russian government agencies. In the end this all comes down to what RS say, and they all attribute the cyber attacks and election interference to the Russian government, and directly to Putin. Therefore we must make that our content. --

talk) PingMe 17:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Why would a government agency commit a crime like this one? I mean, I know there’s corrupt cops and government agents out there, but still. Aren’t they supposed to ARREST people for doing such things? (Bennyben1998 (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Bennyben1998)[reply]

This is what spies can do to enemy nations. Spies work for their own government, and Putin does not like America or democracy. He's trying to destabilize America. The

talk) PingMe 03:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

OMG! Stop it. These edits are not okay. [3] [4]. It's about foreign electoral interference by enemy GOVERNMENTS, in other words what spies do. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's an organized crime or mafia thing. Governments and their spies commit crimes. Get that through your head. Do you really want to get blocked and denied access to any editing here? Really? --

I don't want to get blocked here. I am also aware of the fact that governments and their spies commit crimes. It's the same types that corrupt police officers do for the most part, aka abusing their powers by being bullies to the people. (Bennyben1998 (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Bennyben1998)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I have blocked you for your consistent pattern off describing the activities of governmental intelligence agencies as "Mafia", "organized crime" and the like. Several editors have warned you that this type of behavior is not acceptable. In order to be unblocked, you must make a firm, convincing commitment to abandon disruptive editing against consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cullen, I wanted to tell you that I have done nothing wrong and yes, I am fully aware that governments and their spies abuse their powers. Wanna know HOW they abuse their powers? When they do crap similar to what you just did! In other words, accepting people's bribes and arresting or spying (or in your case, blocking) people when they clearly did nothing wrong. And for the record, (Redacted), NOT Donald Trump! Left-wing wusses decided to accuse Donald Trump as an excuse as to why they lost. I know exactly what you're thinking: What does any of this have to do with government or spies? (Redacted) Me and Donald Trump are so similar, it's scary. We are both scapegoats! (Bennyben1998 (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Bennyben1998)[reply]

@Cullen328: Please consider also blocking user page access for this user, based on these blatant BLP violations: [5]. - MrX 🖋 19:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m truly sorry now. Do you accept my apology? Bennyben1998 (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but your apology is insufficient, because it fails to show that you understand the reasons why you were blocked and fails to indicate that you will conduct yourself appropriately in the future. Your comments above are quite troubling, so I am revoking your talk page access. You can use Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System for any future unblock requests. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]