User talk:Bennv123/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Adaptations of Les Misérables (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Andrew Davies

Les Misérables (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Andrew Davies

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

If you're looking to start a flame war, you're doing a fine job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.250.173 (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

61.8.250.173 I am not looking to start a flame war. I merely asked you to provide sources for the huge amounts of unsourced claims you added. I didn't even revert any of your edits even though they violate Wikipedia's core policy on verifiability. You may also want to read Wikipedia's guideline on assuming good faith. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I have already provided a lot of sources, many of which come from YouTube. Do these count as sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.250.173 (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

61.8.250.173 The youtube sources you provide only "prove" that the songs exist. When you make claims like "J-pop in the 1990's was significant because of its irresistible inclusion of English lyrics in the songs" you need a source that supports the claim that the inclusion of English lyrics was "irresistible" or that J-pop in the 1990s was "significant". Claims like "In these four regions alone, local artists outsold foreign artists, especially during the late 1990s" need to be verified by reliable sources. You claim "Wu Bai was known for his versatile ability to sing and write songs in Hokkien ("Number one in the world")". But the "source" provided is only a youtube link that shows the song exists, it doesn't verify that he was "known for his versatile ability to sing and write songs in Hokkien". Bennv3771 (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not asking for you to verify that the songs you mention exist. It is the claims you made "X was known for this" or "X sold this amount" or "this song made X famous" that need to be verified by secondary sources. A youtube link to the music videos doesn't verify these claims. Bennv3771 (talk) 07:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Harvard anchors

Thanks for the help on this one. Looking at the diff, I'm baffled on what was actually done. Is it just removing the ones that were used as references in article and adding ref=none to the remaining one? It's an issue on Talk:Think Big and Kick Ass/GA1 as well, and probably the other ones nominated by Sage. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Argento Surfer It's just adding "ref=none". I removed the other references because they were already mentioned and cited in the article, but that part of the diff has nothing to do with the harvard anchors issue. Bennv3771 (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

No Americans please

Sorry I do not allow Americans to revert me or tell me what to do due to America's bad relations and hatred of my native Papua New Guinea. If you were not American I would have left it. Canada is not much better. I'm sorry Please do not revert again unless you are not American

thakns Im' sorry, I'm telling you know as friendly as I can, I do not like Americans giving me any orders or comands, or what not.

Also Leona was not born inthe UK I did an interview with her. I found out not by asking, "where were you born?", rather, she told me to visit a little village in Ghana where she was born, her exact words: "my family was there around the tmie I was born", meaning she was born in Ghana. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.36 (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not American, I am Asian. Will you revert your own unsourced edits now then? Bennv3771 (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

GDP of Singapore

Hi Bennv3771, you said you reverted my edit regarding Singapore nominal GDP. That is not correct and you are misrepresenting my effort. The GDP number had been vandalised by user ArleenFostah 4 weeks ago who set to from around $300 to $400 billion. That was what caught my eye and that's why I decided to contribute. Apparently it had escaped your attention before? I was the first to do something about it, so please don't blame the messenger.

I set GDP to its correct 2017 value according to "List of Countries by GDP (nominal)" and according to IMF (around $300 billion), because the GDP rank shown right next to it (41) also refers to that 2017 number. I honestly don't mind if it's the 2017 or 2018 number (although the GDP rank shown on the page is inconsistent now), I just wish Wikipedia wasn't such a hostile place where some people like to act and blame others without doing their proper research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repetition (talk • contribs) 12:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Repetition: The previous vandalism did not escape my attention. That is why I not only reverted your edit but corrected the GDP figure. Both the original and yours were incorrect, in the sense that neither are what the cited source states. The table explicitly states that it is for the 2018 estimated GDP, that is why your 2017 value is inconsistent. Also, the cited source is for the 2018 estimated GDP figure. You cannot cite a source and then not use it but instead take a different number from another source. If you are going to do that, then you should also change the cited source and the table. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

This is how Wikipedia works...people will correct/change your edits all the time. That is not "hostility", that is merely the nature of an open encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Then please explain why you did not comment on the page of ArleenFostah. In essence, you did not revert my edit, but hers. Then you left an misguided comment on my page, which is what bothers me. Me using the 2017 instead of the 2018 number is a minute detail. I already conceded that. Nevertheless, my edit was in good faith and a vast improvement over the previous vandalised state. According to you rigorously missing the forest for the trees, I suggest you next remove the GDP rank because the source does not actually show it. 2018 GDP rank is unsourced and should be removed. Repetition (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Repetition Is that what all this fuss by you is about? You can warn ArleenFostah on your own you know. But ok, I've left a warning on their talk page for the vandalism. And I left a comment on your talk page because your edit was clearly not vandalism unlike ArleenFostah's. Hence I bothered to take the time to leave you a comment to let you know my rationale for reverting your edit. If I thought your edit was vandalism like ArleenFostah's, I would have not bothered to leave a message or I would have given you a warning. Go ahead and remove the GDP rank if you feel so strongly about it, although other editors would probably prefer if you would change the cited source and all the figures to the 2017 figures if an estimated 2018 rank does not exist. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Repetition By the way, assuming good faith is a "fundamental principle on Wikipedia". Please stop accusing me of "hostility" or "blaming you" or not "doing their proper research" or leaving "misguided comment" just because I reverted your edit and told you that the cited source does is not consistent with the GDP figure you gave on your talk page. I merely saw your edit, checked the cited source and saw that the numbers were not the same, changed the numbers, and left you a comment telling you that I changed the numbers because they were not the same. That is all, don't read anything further into it than that. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I would like to point out something about the source here. The GDP box in the article has a tiny link to the 2018 figure (which is the actual source, of course, but tiny) and a bigger link to the 2017 figure (which is the well-established Wikipedia List of Countries by GDP). These two links were and still are incongruent, so when fixing a bigger error on the page (vandalised GDP number) I stumbled over a smaller error (outdated GDP rank) which still is not fixed. As far as I'm concerned, any recent GDP number or rank from IMF, UN, World Bank, or CIA is fine, and of course newer is better, but once you set the standard that mixing 2017 and 2018 numbers is impermissible and telling me I have ignored the source just because I used the 2017 number, you would have to update the GDP rank to 2018 in the same breath. I suppose it will be updated later, after List of Countries by GDP has been updated. Which, again, I'm fine with, just as the 2017 figure was fine with me. From that point of view, I don't understand why you summarised your edit as a revert of mine when you were in fact improving on my effort to remove the vandalism, not reverting to the vandalised state. How does that encourage people to help out against vandalism? In a nutshell: An edit (not revision) summary of "updated to 2018 GDP number" would have been less discouraging, and the talk page comment was entirely redundant if one assumes good faith. Repetition (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Repetition I'm not going to bother reading this wall of text beyond the first two sentences, because I really don't care enough about this issue as you clearly do. But to clarify, there is only one cited source and that is the 2018 source. The 2017 figure is a link to a related Wikipedia article; it is not a cited source because Wikipedia is ironically not considered a reliable source and thus cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia. If you want to bring in a reliable source for the 2017 figure, you will have to add that in because it is currently not cited in the GDP table. Please stop bothering me about one simple revert. If you have so much issues with the current GDP table, you should take it to the article's talk page. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Concerns over Seven Days of a Daddy and a Daughter

Dear Bennv3771,

Thank You for reviewing my article. I will change the source and rewrite them.

Regards, Timmy78722 Timmy78722 (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Timmy78722: Thanks! Let me know if you need any help. Bennv3771 (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Timmy78722: Also, you don't need to rewrite the article. Just replace the wiki sources. Bennv3771 (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Bennv3771, I have replaced the source to the official website and changed the actors/actress source to there official one.

Regards, Timmy78722 Timmy78722 (talk) 08:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Gora Ho article

Hi Bennv3771,

Thank you for reviewing my article. I understood the changes changes you mention. There is some clarification I still need.

• Please add the "date" parameter when citing sources. The "date" parameter is the date the article was first published, and is not the same as the "accessdate" parameter, which is the date you read the article.
• Consider adding relevant Wikiprojects to the talk page so as to alert other editors interested in these topics

Can you please elaborate on these two points please and how should I do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrRdYUUdK (talk • contribs) 12:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@StrRdYUUdK: Hi. Sure I'll elaborate:

• When you cite sources using Template:Cite web, there are several parameters you can fill in, such as url, title, date etc. So for example in this edit, I added the parameter "date=10 March 2018" to the first reference, this is in addition to the access-date parameter that you already included. The access-date parameter refers to the date you accessed the reference, while the date parameter refers to the date the reference was published. Both should be filled separately, even though sometimes they will have the same date if you accessed the reference on the same day it was first published.
• If you have a look at Talk:Gora Ho, you'll see that I've added Wikipedia:WikiProject India and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. This helps bring the article to the attention of editors in those projects, who may be interested in expanding the article. To add a wikiproject, simply add the template: {{WikiProject ProjectName}}. So to add the WikiProject India, simply add this template to the talk page: {{WikiProject India}}

Bennv3771 (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC) @StrRdYUUdK: Thank You Bennv3771. I will keep it in mind and do so from hereon.

User_talk:Nataalah

Hi Bennv3771, any reason why you didn't use {{uw-blp1}} to warn this user? Obviously just using the generic 'not constructive' template does not explain to the user what they did wrong in any specific terms. Thanks, talk to !dave 13:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

My mistake. I should have checked for copyvio earlier and used the copyright warning. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, it could have been that as well. Cheers! talk to !dave 13:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Dummy edits

Hi there. Regarding this edit: I don't mean to antagonize you because I agree 100% with you on the content, but could you please refrain from making dummy edits just to state your position in the edit history? I see this isn't the first time you've done it. A better approach would be to leave a note on the talk page. Thanks. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Ok. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Story of Diana has been accepted

The Story of Diana, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Missvain (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Spinning (comics)

On 16 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Spinning (comics), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Tillie Walden's graphic novel Spinning, a memoir of her adolescent career as a competitive figure skater, was originally her thesis for the Center for Cartoon Studies? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Spinning (comics). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Spinning (comics)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Spain in Our Hearts

Nice work on Spain in Our Hearts. Looking forward to reading it. czar 01:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Czar Thank you! If you like that book, you should check out his other books like King Leopold's Ghost and Bury the Chains, if you haven't already. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Association of Volleyball Professionals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ricardo Santos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Bennv123, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

• Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

• While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

• The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

About my recent edits

Hi, you sent me a message about my recent edits, the spaces I made in my recent edits was to make alignment in infobox, it was not to gaming extended confirmed user, major of articles are not locked. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Videoway (talk • contribs) 19:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Videoway: My apologies for my incorrect assumption then. But do note that such alignments are unnecessary as they do not affect what the readers see. Bennv3771 (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bennv3771: OK I noted, but it's hard to find articles with errors or vandalism. Does it exist some tools to be able to see immediately vandalism or things like that, it would be easier for me? Thank you!--Videoway (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Videoway: Most counter-vandalism editors monitor the edits at Special:RecentChanges. You will still need to check if the edits on the recent changes page are errors/vandalism on your own. If there was a tool to immediately identify vandalism, then the vandalism would have already been removed by an automated bot and there would be no need for human counter-vandals. Bennv3771 (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Alex Jones

Stop being biased and calling info wars fake news. Truther1515 (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on Liberty

Please check this [1]... Note the use of the term "publication". It does not have to be a “popular publication” to be included but it qualifies as a publication. G. Capo (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@G. Capo: Yes they refer to themselves as a "publication", but that is a vague term (any private blog self-published on the internet is technically a "publication") and it also doesn't equate to them being a "magazine". I just can't find anything in the blog's history that demonstrates they are actually a publication that meets the standards laid out in WP:RS (specifically WP:RSSELF and WP:UGC) and MOS:TV beyond being a private blog. It doesn't have to be a "popular publication" to be included but it does have to meet Wikipedia's standards, and not merely be a "publication" that exists. Also, I'll rather the discussion stay in one place instead of jumping around talk pages. You can reply here now since this is where you've moved the discussion, but in case you didn't know, you can WP:PING other editors so that they are notified without having to jump between their talk pages and yours. Bennv3771 (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I forgot about the ping function. Apologies. The site is calling itself a women’s magazine, and it has attributes of an online magazine with multiple female authors writing about different issues related to women. Yes, it’s online and yes it’s not a traditional publication. However, we are discussing media and fan reactions to a fictional character, which isn’t exactly the most scholarly topic. The article does raise valid points about a real issue and it’s not some idle rambling of a blogger. I believe it qualifies (barely) to be mentioned in the wiki article.G. Capo (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for No Straight Lines

On 9 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article No Straight Lines, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2012 anthology No Straight Lines, edited by Justin Hall, collects queer comics covering a 40-year period? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/No Straight Lines. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, No Straight Lines), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Digital Media Promoters

Dear Bennv3771,

Thank You for reviewing my article. I will change the source and rewrite them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digital Media Promoters (talk • contribs) 08:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Digital Media Promoters: Hi. Since it appears you are writing about your own company, please read the Wikipedia guidelines for Wikipedia:Conflict of interest editing first. Thanks. Bennv3771 (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

White Helmets

I think that if there is reason to suspect that editors are in the pay of western governments this should be highlighted. Avoiding WW3 is more important than courtesy. I suspect that you need to be put on the list of suspect editors. Do you live in America, a country with a remarkably ignorant populace who support their country causing trouble round the world when they themselves are out of the firing line? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.107.162 (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not live in America. I am Asian and live in Asia. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA and stop going around accusing editors of being paid government agents. Bennv3771 (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not making accusations. I am saying how things appear to me. If one sees bias one should point it out. Today I will be too busy trying to stop WW3 to read wiki policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.107.162 (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bury the Chains

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bury the Chains you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaldous1 -- Jaldous1 (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bury the Chains

The article Bury the Chains you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bury the Chains for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaldous1 -- Jaldous1 (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Source of Sledgehammer as the most played video on MTV

https://metro.co.uk/2016/04/25/peter-gabriels-sledgehammer-is-30-years-old-19-facts-you-didnt-know-about-the-groundbreaking-video-5786791/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.105.98.161 (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to post on my talk page. If you find a source that verifies your claim, just add the claim back with the cited source per WP:V. Also, this TIME source would be better to cite than a tabloid. Bennv3771 (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I added the claim back for you with a cited source. Bennv3771 (talk) 08:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Spain in Our Hearts

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Spain in Our Hearts you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Spain in Our Hearts

The article Spain in Our Hearts you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Spain in Our Hearts for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Ana Navarro

Ben,

I changed Ana's wiki because it's harmful to the nation to believe she's a Republican. It's clear, she is not. She's a "republican" so CNN can be "balanced" — Preceding unsigned comment added by JVJx (talk • contribs) 17:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello Bennv123, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

• Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

• A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

• There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

• Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

• Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
• The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Rainbow flag

A detailed entry Jewish Autonomous Oblast (1934) based ENTIRELY on ALREADY APPROVED wikipedia entries has been removed due to allegedly not "neutral point of view" - what's the reason ???

I've already noticed multiple cases of Soviet, Semitic and Germanic CENSORSHIP and Turkic HOAX. Some wikipedia articles seem to be even used for chauvinistic, imperialistic and similar purposes only and any neutral entry is CENSORED immediately.

Many history related articles DO NOT ACCEPT GENUINE ORGINAL (unpublished) RESEARCH at all, but propagate primitive bullshit, hoax and propaganda - even statements excluding each other in the same article! ;o) if there are "sources" of ANY (dubious, e.g. "Mein Kampf") kind.

Please return the Jewish Autonomous Oblast (1934) entry to its original form and study its content deeply and consciously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.166.160 (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Hip-Swing Dance

Can you do!!!??Hey!!! Can you do!!!!!!??? swing swing~~ YES lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.190.117.24 (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

ok

ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty State Of Jefferson (talk • contribs) 16:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Bennv123, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

• As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
• Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
• Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Please do not use IP number to identify people

IP addresses are not permanently assigned to a single Internet user. You sent me a nasty sounding notification about my contributions to this or that not being constructive and therefore being deleted, whatever... I'm not the person that made the said contributions. If someone does not bother to log in when making contributions, then they should NOT be notified about anything. Otherwise you risk bothering the wrong people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.135.54 (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Nope. IPs, even shared ones, can be blocked from editing on Wikipedia. IPs are not exempt from vandalism warnings just because they are using an IP. If you do not want to be warned for edits that you did not do, then you should register an account or stop using a shared IP. Bennv3771 (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Error by another user

Hello Bennv3771, those reverted edits were made in error by another user. Please visit my talk page for full details. After the user had made a significant error in reading my text, they went to my other recent edits to remove them. Please kindly add those texts back for the following reasons : 1) They are factual with credible sources 2) They are historically significant 3) They are relevant to BLP, containing information previously not listed. Celaur (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Celaur

@Celaur: They were not errors. Per WP:IINFO, I reverted your edits. I was aware of what I was reverting. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 20:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: Hello Mirela,

1) your initial action was to revert a "trivial" edit because you thought the Shawn Mendes text said he "attended" a concert, when in fact the text read he "performed" a concert.

2) after that error you made, since you decided it was "trivial to attend" (which I would agree with if he only attended), you then went to all of my edits on other pages and reverted edits.

3) at this time, considering you were initially incorrect, I ask that you kindly recognize your error, because the other articles should have not been touched.

4) if you consider Shawn Mendes performing at a Rolling Stone Relaunch event "trivial", I understand, that just means that many musician's tours and concert events should not be on Wikipedia - but they are, because for BLP pages they are considered important by all users. *

5) since this was not my mistake, it was your mistake (I'm saying that politely, there's no hard feelings), I ask that you kindly be respectful by A) seeing the simple error (no problem, it happens) and B) changing the other pages back - The Shawn Mendes page can leave off the information, that's not a problem, however you removed significant, relevant, and historically important information from other pages.

- Thank you for your understanding. I look forward to hearing from you. Have a nice day, Mirela.

Celaur (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Celaur

@Celaur: Performing at the Rolling Stone relaunch party is not in any way "historically significant" nor is it "considered important by all users". Notable musicians perform at numerous corporate events throughout the year, it's their job. The event does not even have its own Wikipedia article because it is so historically insignificant, so please stop trying to add a whole WP:UNDUE paragraph about this WP:TRIVIA event. Clearly you and I have very different opinions on the significance and relevance of this event, so let's just agree to disagree and stop dragging this out on my talk page (aka stop leaving comments on my talk page about this). Regardless of your opinions on this matter, your additions have been reverted twice (my bad, they were reverted once, it was your additions of the same paragraph into other articles that were reverted twice). Take it to the talk page Talk:Shawn Mendes and gain consensus with other editors there. By the way, if no one responds to you, that does not mean you have consensus to add your content. Bennv3771 (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bennv3771: Hello Bennv3771, To agree to disagree is no problem at all. As I mentioned, many musician Wikipedia pages list their "notable" performances. I understand it's a musician's job to perform as you said, however Wikipedia BLP pages are filled with notable performances because it is historical.

Ending comment : I will end this thread on your talk page, because I certainly respect your wishes. I would just like to point out that it was another user that began this issue over misreading the original text added to a page. The user thought the text read "attended" a concert. It read "performed" a concert.

IP

Hello Bennv3771 - Thank you for making the improvements to my edits on https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Rick_Butler_sexual_abuse_allegations#First_allegations. I appreciate the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.153.147.33 (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. ()

Hello Bennv123, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD at Tommy Robinson (activist)

Yes, but the other editor did not open up a new discussion on the Talk page; so I did. I believe that the editor who opens a new discussion is allowed to revert—as I did. Is my belief right? EllieTea (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@EllieTea: That is not what WP:BRD says. BRD says that if your initial edit was reverted, you (not the editor who reverted you) should open a discussion on the talk page and not re-insert back your edits. Thanks for not edit warring and for taking it to the talk page though. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

edit of Nebuchadnezzar II article

My apologies for not explaining my reasons for the edit as I am new to this, but the reason why those seven words were removed is they express an offensive and narrow point of view. I question whether the perspective would be shared by those within the tradition of this literature. Best regards, mattjava77

@Mattjava77: Ok, no problem. I suggest you bring up your concerns on Talk:Nebuchadnezzar II first before removing any sourced content, as other editors may object. Bennv3771 (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Poison Ivy: Cycle of Life and Death) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Poison Ivy: Cycle of Life and Death, Bennv3771!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

An impressive, well-written article.

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10