User talk:Bens dream

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to LittleBigPlanet has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Knippschild (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bens dream

You may want to close this RfA yourself. I can't see any situation in which adminship would be granted to an editor who has only 16 edits, and had not edited for over 3 years before posting their RfA. Also, you wrote in response to the question, "What administrative work do you intend to take part in?" "A: I'm here to correct typos, add sources, request that sources are added to pages without sources, fix vandalism that's gone unnoticed by a bot or other user ..." None of that requires one to be an administrator. One can correct typos, add sources, etc. without being an admin, or even without being a registered editor. I'm not going to close this RfA myself since I don't get involved in that sort of thing, but I don't think you can expect a favorable result from this request. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I noticed an apparent inaccuracy in one of your responses. You wrote, "I've noticed that in the past, users have reverted my changes for no apparent reason. To resolve the issue, I've left messages on their talk page to notify them, and would do so in the future, unless requested otherwise by a member of Wiki staff." However, you have no edits to any user talk pages, or talk pages of any other kind. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was imaging (when writing my oppose) that the user might have a second (undisclosed) account ... mabdul 01:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that things didn't quite work out for you, but, if your intentions are genuine, I'm sure you'll soon become a valued contributor and will be able to try again. Deb (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I forgot to mention yesterday that I closed your RfA as WP:NOTNOW almost immediately as an RfA that was doomed to fail. Please try working on Wikipedia for a while to gain edits, community trust, support, and most importantly, experience and apply for an RfA again.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,721,869) 12:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion

Hi, I've reverted your nomination of Pinga for deletion because you haven't created the discussion in a reasonable amount of time. The steps you need to take are laid out on the template instructions. All these steps should be carried out in order to create the discussion and get maximum input. --Mrmatiko (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding the AfD template to the article until you follow the instructions properly. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

I notice that you are using the following signature: (talk)

There are two problems with that. One, it does not display a user name on screen, just the word "talk". Two, the link it provides is not to your actual user talk page. The link is going to User talk:Bens Dream instead of the correct User talk:Bens dream (note capitalization). If you need advice as to how to format your signature to display and link correctly, please let me know. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators

This Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CharlieEchoTango might interest you. Dru of Id (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures note to self

Use the following format XD

Bens dream (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2012 (GMT)

AfD

I notice you've been creating some AfD's incorrectly lately. You might want to take a look at WP:AFDHOWTO before continuing. Feel free to ask me questions on on my talk page if you have any. —SW— ^yak 17:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Borderlands 2

I notice that you have been repeatedly adding an unsourced release date to Borderlands 2. If you have reason to believe that the sourced 2012 release date is not accurate, please join the discussion on the talk page before replacing the date again. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've replaced the information again without participating in the talk page discussion. Before you act again, I urge you to review the three-revert rule. If you remove the information again without achieving consensus on the talk page, you are likely to be blocked. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With Orange Suede above. Ben, you need to join the discussion and stop reverting. So far you're leaving us with no recourse but to try and have you blocked. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:45, 30 Mar 2012 (UTC)

again

Reply to the talk page discussion. Don't keep reverting this every day. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:42, 8 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Dota 2

~~Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Dota 2, you may be blocked from editing. DarthBotto_talk•cont 21:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Then what is changing the name in an infobox from "Dota 2" to "Defense of Allegiance" constitute? I'll excuse you for calling me an "idiot" (ad hominen), if you can explain why it's not vandalism. DarthBotto_talk•cont 22:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can forgive you. If it was simply a misunderstanding about the nature of its title, with the original being an abbreviation while the second is the name for the concept, then I can understand. DarthBotto_talk•cont 22:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But know that you cannot respond like that in future cases; name-calling, edit wars and making threats about relevant issues are very strong catalysts for extended Wikipedia blocks. I should not have labelled it as vandalism, since it was merely a good faith edit I was looking to revert. By the way, Dota 2's name is not an acronym, unlike DotA; I had trouble understanding it when I created the article in the first place. ;) DarthBotto_talk•cont 06:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Dota 2, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use your sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The game is officially named and trademarked as "Dota 2", not "Defense of the Ancients 2" -- ferret (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pinga

Adding an AfD tag to the page without creating a discussion page is disruptive. Continuing in this manner will probably lead to your being blocked. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Gotye. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Gotye. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dl2000 (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mina Caputo

The proper pronouns for a transgengered person or person whose gender might be questioned should reflect their latest expressed gender preference, per WP:MoS. (See Vocabulary: Identity) Xombie (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion

You can't just add an {{afd}} to an article. You need to follow through and create the deletion page and explain why it should be deleted. Please read Wikipedia:Deletion process, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion before you add any more AfD tags. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

Your recent editing history at Paramore shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Stryn (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due to continuing edit warring, I have temporarily blocked your account. Please observe this policy in future. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I won't. I'm in the right here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bens dream (talk • contribs)

You may be in the right (I have no idea), but these things need to be decided via discussion not edit warring. I noticed that you have not yet posted to Talk:Paramore; it would be a good idea to set out your reasoning of why this change should be made. If that does not lead to a consensus, you could try posting at a relevant WikiProject (e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music) to get more input. But further edit warring will lead to a longer block. Best regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm Racerx11. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Three Days Grace, 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, RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 17:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to List of common misconceptions, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above means don't mark big edits as minor edits, as you did here. You appear to have understood it the wrong way. Sjö (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Brooke Candy. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Please don't subliminally vandalise a page as you did here, and cover it by describing your edit as something completely different. While your edit of re-adding a section was in good faith (although it's completely unsourced and if you want to re-add the information, it's your job to provide sources) you also changed "Could Aura" to "Butt Aura", thinking nobody would see it. They did, and it's been reverted, please don't vandalise the page again. Thanks. Azealia911 _talk 00:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hoodie Allen. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

7 day block for edit warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 7 days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. PhilKnight (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veganism

Hi @Bens dream, I've reverted your edit because Wikipedia writes about what secondary sources. Your interpretation (or a blog) of what Billie Eilish considers herself, or what veganism is, is not a reliable source. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Billie Eilish. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should try engaging in the talk page rather than reverting the removal of a provably false statement. Bens dream (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you've opened up a dialogue on the article's talk page, but that process is to get consensus and does not give you the right to violate the thre-revert rule, which you're well aware of having been through this twice before. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]