User talk:Bennv123/Archive 5

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marta Menegatti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maria Antonelli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Hello Bennv3771: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 13:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Banning me for proven science

Dont remove my proven science. Don't protect something going against biology when simple science and biology disproves it. Royalwonder (talk) 06:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Royalwonder: Rather than repeatedly insisting your edits are "proven science", please demonstrate this by citing actual scientific references. The scientific references currently cited in the article contradict your claims. Wikipedia follows what mainstream reliable sources say, not what any one editor claims to know. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm back ;) Thought you could get me perma banned. No buddy. That's not how this works. Lancedowning1 (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

propaganda Ktlc30 (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I edited propaganda in good faith as the comment I put was true, it is a saying in Yorkshire to have a good look at something.

@Ktlc30: Then please provide a reliable source verifying your claim before adding it back in. Bennv3771 (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I am a reliable source, I am from Yorkshire. How else can I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktlc30 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ktlc30: You can refer to Help:Footnotes on how to cite sources. Please also read WP:RS to learn more about what constitutes a reliable source on Wikipedia. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. I am only adding perspective. No point only adding extremely high estimates. Will only make it harder to solve the issue if that's your worry. Sources are as reliable as any. Plus you are making trivial edits just for sake of arguing.

Mozad655 (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mozad655: I am trying to rephrase your phrasing which is directly lifted from the reference. Phrases like "so-called honor killings" need to be attributed. That phrasing is absolutely not common language as you claim. Bennv3771 (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, please do not claim others are edit warring when you are the one going against WP:BRD by re-adding your disputed content under an IP and your main account. Bennv3771 (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Your edits are totally trivial and immature. If you have OCD at least edit the specific singular sections, instead of erasing entire sentences and added information (priorities). I added under main account not for illegal reasons you falsely attribute to me, but after realizing a trouble maker and edit-warrior was challenging every single edit for no reason beyond personal offence to added information and/or trivial obsession. Mozad655 (talk) 12:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mozad655: For your sake, I am not going to continue this conversation if it's just going to descend into you making personal attacks such as accusing me of having OCD. But FWIW, no I do not think my edits were "totally trivial and immature". The first edit was restoring sourced content, the second was removing a sentence that I thought was unnecessary (you disagree and re-added it and I have no problems with that), and the third was to slightly rephrase another sentence so as to improve it (the context and bulk of the content remained the same). Bennv3771 (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Wish

Hello. Help copy edit for article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. Tauthanhhuyen34 (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tauthanhhuyen34: The article looks fine to me and I don't think it requires copyediting. If you still want a copyedit, I suggest you make a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Opinions are not facts

I removed things that are stated as factual but are just opinions. There are many contradictory opinions. The use of word like many, most multiple, scholars is not fact based or accurate. Maybe rather than editing to back things with no real citations or at best poorly researched citations you should have left it alone. Hope you are happy you got your attention with this because I see no other reason to try to correct something that was a correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:6FC0:11:1C75:A068:958:AC60 (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to this edit? If so, then it's just as well that you don't want to "correct" the page anymore because you can't now that it has been protected due to disruptive editing such as yours. The overwhelming consensus among historians is that there is no historical basis for The Exodus. Wikipedia should reflect the mainstream view as published by reliable sources. If there are indeed "many contradictory opinions" by reliable sources (not fringe ones), you are welcome to share them on Talk:The Exodus. As it stands, your edit provided no sources whatsoever nor did it give any explanation as to why you were removing the sourced content. I agree that the use of words like "many", "most" and "multiple scholars" is unnecessary here, but the sentence I restored doesn't use any of these weasel words anyway so I'm not sure why you brought this up. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

A pie for you!

for your high-speed rollbacking, for which I am grateful. DannyS712 (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

In recognition of high quality editing

	The Running Wikipedian Barnstar
	For your major expansion of Viktoria Orsi Toth, carefully planned and well-executed, I am pleased to deliver this token of editorial appreciation. Let us hope the revitalization of Ms. Orsi Toth's career proceeds similarly in 2019! Snow let's rap 23:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

ANI

Hi. You may be interested in this thread. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of The Awesome Show for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Awesome Show is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Awesome Show until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nate • (chatter) 22:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

All in a Row (play)

Hi, I just noticed that you moved All in a Row (play) out of draft username. I spotted a tweet on Twitter to its URL while in draft under the #AllinARow hashtag. I thought you should know. Chricon79 (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chricon79: I have not seen this tweet (nor should you link to it if it runs afoul of WP:OUTING) so I do not know what your specific concerns about it are. But in general, tweeting about a Wikipedia draft/article is fine unless it goes against one of Wikipedia's policies/guidelines, such as WP:CANVASSING or if it was encouraging vandalism/POV edits to the page. If you are worried I may have been canvassed to accept the draft from this tweet, I assure you I have not seen the tweet nor had I heard of this play until I came across the draft while doing my usual patrol of the Special:NewPagesFeed. Based on the references provided in the draft, the play easily meets WP:GNG and thus I believe any AfC reviewer would have accepted it. If it's the latter, then really all that can be done at this point is to watchlist the article and revert any vandalism/POV edits. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh and if your concern is that the draft creator has a conflict of interest or is an undisclosed paid editor, then you can tag the article ({{COI}} or {{UPE}}) and/or bring this to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard if the situation escalates to that point. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bennv3771: There has been a number of vandalism/NPOV edits to Autism related articles since the start of this year that I am aware of, with the controversy around the play and the fact that the play is still on stage. It is most likely to attract vandalism/NPOV edits. Chricon79 (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chricon79: Ok, if there has been a widespread/longterm POV problem regarding the article's creator's edits, you can try discussing the issue with them first. If that doesn't work, you can consider bringing it to WP:COIN or WP:ANI (but be sure to read and follow the instructions at the top of both noticeboards first). Bennv3771 (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

And if you're interested, it'll be great if you can help improve All in a Row (play). The article isn't in good shape right now, as there is an WP:UNDUE weight to the play's reception/controversy. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

another thing on the Community of St John page

Hi Bennv3771, thanks for the edit on the Community of St. John page, we were starting to get lost in commentaries and details. A question though: the interlanguage link for french wikipedia does not point to the french page. I am pretty sure this is recent, and have no idea who did this, neither how to put it back in order. I have tried, but could not find how to do it: everything seems in order when I edit, but the link definitely sends to the wrong page. Now that you are on the case, do you think you could have a look at this? It's a shame, as the french page is by far the most detailed, and is the original source of a large part of the english version. many thanks --Chantmagdalith (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chantmagdalith: Hi. Which link do you mean exactly? I checked the links to fr:Communauté Saint-Jean at the top of the article and on the talk page and they both linked to the article on the French Wikipedia. Bennv3771 (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the early reply, I am referring to the link on the left side column, where you can reach all corresponding pages in different languages. It is a bit weird: all links in different languages redirect to the right pages, except for the french one which redirects onto the french page of the AVREF (an association dealing with abuses on religious congregations). I tried to edit those links, but in the editor, everything seems normal. One precision: I usually navigate on the french version of Wikipedia, and my interface is in french, I don't know if links could be different than the ones in the english version. thanks for your help.--Chantmagdalith (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chantmagdalith: Oh I see. That incorrect link is the result of an interwiki link in the English article. I've removed it with this edit. Should be fine now. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

oh great, thanks a lot, I could not figure out what was wrong and started to become paranoid about that detail! yes it's fixed, thanks again.--Chantmagdalith (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Viktoria Orsi Toth

On 5 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Viktoria Orsi Toth, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Italian beach volleyball player Viktoria Orsi Toth did not like her sport at first, describing it as "some kind of a daily torture"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Viktoria Orsi Toth. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Viktoria Orsi Toth), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marta Menegatti

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marta Menegatti 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Viktoria Orsi Toth

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Viktoria Orsi Toth 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Viktoria Orsi Toth

The article Viktoria Orsi Toth you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Viktoria Orsi Toth for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marta Menegatti

The article Marta Menegatti you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Marta Menegatti for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marta Menegatti

The article Marta Menegatti you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Marta Menegatti 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Viktoria Orsi Toth

The article Viktoria Orsi Toth you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Viktoria Orsi Toth 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)