User talk:Bento00/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

constructive

that was creating links between people of Pluvigner and Caherciveen mate...I think its incredibly constructive...the towns would not be twinned otherwise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angealt (talk • contribs) 19:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In the article Pluvigner, your quoting "Katie" and describing her demeanor was unconstructive. Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Alzheimer's Society

Dear Bento00 I know you think that my article is inappropriate but just to say I am not using it to promote anything , you can delete it again but I will keep putting it back on , I will only accept is you take of the website link , if you want to make sure it is a correct article then please go on there website which is www.pedalingforalzheimers.com

Kind Regards Catmad (Hannah) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catmad (talk • contribs) 15:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedia by consensus. The edits you, I, and other editors make, as well as the WP policies, are subject to the constructive input of everyone involved. Your notice to me that even if I delete what I think is an unconstructive edit you will "keep putting it back on" is not editing by consensus. I don't think your edits on the Alzheimer's related pages added constructive material about the subject matter. As you might have discovered, even before I logged into WP today and saw your message to me, another editor found your latest edit unconstructive and reverted it. Continued adding of unconstructive material is a reason for blocking an editor's account. If you feel your edits are worthy, consider opening up a topic on the articles' talk pages, to allow other editors to voice their opinion. If you disagree with WP policies, you can suggest changes at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Dormanstown

Why do you keep removing my information from the Dormanstown Wiki? MH1987 (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You deleted paragraphs of text without explanation. You deleted half a sentence beginning in the middle of a word. You copied paragraphs of text from another website ([1]) and when notified that it is a possible copyrioght infringement, you restored the copyrighted text, and even added more, rather than explaining your intentions. You deleted notices and warnings left by many editors from your own talk page, including a final warning. For these reasons, I believe your edits are generally unconstructive and that you are not making them in good faith. Bento00 (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

On the stony point article

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/08/25stonypoint.html (broken link, use the internet way back machine page to view)

http://news8austin.com/content/top_stories/169306/big-fight-disrupts-stony-point-high-school/?ap=1&Flash (working link, at least 30 officers were needed to stop the Riot.)

Please fix the page and put the stonypoint riot back up, there is a local paper print about the incident. I was a student there, and I personally verify this as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.64.88 (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the reference link. Your being a student there does not corroborate the event, but the link does. You can revert my change, and please include the one working link as a source. Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Sorry

Forget about it! No sorry needed. :D -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Frank Harper

What is this obsession Wikipedia has with reverting edits that everyone knows are true, merely because they don't comply with some theoretical rule or other? We all know that my edit about Frank Harper is true - have you actually watched any of his films? It's not a criticism. It's just a fact. So why revert it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.252.139 (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any of his movies and I don't know it's true just because IP 87.194.252.139 says it is. We aren't writing only for people who already know something. And I can't verify that it's not just one person's opinion because you didn't provide a source. I'd hope you challenge others when they give their own opinion rather than provide verifiable, reliable references. Please see WP:BURDEN and WP:SOURCE. Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so you haven't seen any of his movies. That hardly makes you qualified to revert the edit then does it? You may not have visited India either, but that doesn't mean the Taj Mahal isn't there. Would you revert that too? Now stop removing perfectly true edits and get on with something more constructive. How about a positive contribution, rather than a negative one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.252.139 (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, reverting edits that are not constructive is a positive contribution. Anyway, your edits are actually your reviews of Harper's work, stated as if they were facts. Why don't you make a constructive, encyclopedic contribution by researching to find corroboration of your own opinion with references? I'm not going to edit war with you, we can leave your comments to the test of time. Bento00 (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

But how could I possibly "corroborate" with references? You mean by showing that someone else has the same opinions and that it was "published" somewhere in print? Does that somehow make their opinion more valid than mine? Anyone who knows Harper's work will tell you that he always plays the same sort of character. This is a fact. Do you want me to list his films as "corroboration"? This would seem rather pointless when they are all a matter of public record.

external link

Just read the message about the link I submitted with an edit. Did not know the guidlines on links it was the place where I found the info..

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Femalefootball (talk • contribs) 01:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

request

Stop deleting pages and re-writing them from other websites please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.69.251 (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you may have addressed this to the wrong person, but if you let me know the article you're concerned about, I'll see if I made a mistake there. Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

SVT: The "Iowa Census Vandal"

Hi. I've found what I currently believe is an anonymous IP editor (173.31.144.162 (talk · contribs)) who has persistently and subtly vandalized over 20 articles, all regarding cities or counties in Iowa. The pattern that is emerging is that this editor changes demographic information, subtly adjusting various percentages of White, Black, Asian, and other ethnic groups. I've written more about it on my talk page and would appreciate any feedback on the situation which you'd care to give. Cheers! -- Bgpaulus (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Jiller

Name of Lennon's killer should be wiped in the world as a Gerostrat by changing on the nickname. For example - Jiller. Tokaev (talk) 07:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Tokaev

I assume you are talking about my reversion of your edit in the article John Lennon. I think the killer's name - not a fictitious nickname you seem to have made up - should be included in the article. Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Vassilis Spanoulis

There was an extra ( sign that should not be there. So it was fixing an error. BTW, I am the person that requested that article be protected in the first place after there was endless vandalism of it. However, now that he has switched teams, the vandalism will be stopped. So it is no longer necessary for that article to be protected. I do not think the person that protected quite understood what the problem was. It needed to be protected for a short period of time from IP addresses. It didn't need to be protected from any edits without review, at least certainly not now.74.194.176.82 (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. The reason I reverted your edit was because you also added extra equal signs ("=") around "Olympiacos Piraeus" and these I believe are not needed. Please feel free to add the open parenthesis. Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well == these are needed because it should have been under the same section of Pro career. It should not be a separate section. So yeah they were needed. So is there a reason why that article is still protected now when it no longer needs to be?74.194.176.82 (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, I reverted my reversion. I can't answer your question about protection, I have no more control over the protection of an article than you. Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. I understand that. How do I request the protection be removed now that it is not needed anymore?74.194.176.82 (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've never done it, but at this page, it states "This page is for requesting that a page, image or template be fully protected, create protected (salted), semi-protected, move-protected, or unprotected."

Thanks.74.194.176.82 (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Recent changes Barnstar
		Thanks for catching that bit of vandalism on the John Mayer page. Little catches like that one really keep Wikipedia in business. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

about the recent update of Inside of Elevator shoes

This inside of elevator shoes article was copied from our website http://www.increasingshoes.com/moreabout.asp, the pictures and text was published in our site since 2002, anyway I can add a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpak1961 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Please see the Wikipedia guidelines on external links, in particular, Links normally to be avoided. Item number 5 indicates that links to sites selling elevator shoes should not accepted. Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, Thanks, I see. But someone from itallershoes.com copied our article and post to the wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpak1961 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This could be a copyright issue. I suggest you open a topic about this on the Elevator shoes TALK page. Editors who can address this will respond to your query there. Thanks for the information. Bento00 (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on Intelligence quotient

I just saw your Twinkle revert of vandalism on the Intelligence quotient article. Thanks for keeping an eye on that. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I was glad to keep my I (and Q) on it, WBB, see ya around. Bento00 (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert Battey

That information about Julie Omberg and the lynch mob is in that book Battey Heritage Book Vol.1. Please don't revise it until friday. This is a project for school. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhamby86 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You must understand that anyone can say they are doing a school project and therefore should be allowed to write an article, even if it violates Wikipedia's guidelines and rules. Please read WP:SOURCE and WP:BURDEN to understand the sourcing process, and add reliable sources to your statements. Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on 3rr, Bento00. Just a friendly reminder, I'm not trying to imply that you are doing anything remotely inappropriate. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, EH. I've been considering my 3 edits in a row to really be one occurrence, but I'll hang up my fingers for the day as far as Battey is concerned. And thanks for noting the Whisperback command on your talk page, I've always felt Talkback seemed like shouting. Bento00 (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure - your 3-in-a-row is one. But now you have 2 total. Yeah, I'm "hanging mup my fingers" (I like that :)) as well, I barely caught myself there (it was overnight but <24 hours). ErikHaugen (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

IP vandal

Thank you for your report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism about 76.109.50.58, 92.40.147.56, and 109.76.3.158. They have all now been blocked. You said "Although they stop before 4 warnings, they are causing a lot of maintenance. Anything you can do about this?" Unfortunately, since the IPs are completely different, a range block is not possible, and the trouble is spread out too thinly over different articles for page protection to be very useful, so it's just a question of blocking them one by one as they appear. However, it is not essential to go through 4 warnings and the fifth gets a block. If it seems to me that an editor is doing nothing but disruption I am perfectly happy to block with less than that. If you make an AIV report on an IP that you have good reason to believe is the same person as one or more other disruptive ones, please do list them all (as you did this time). That way an admin may well see that there is collectively enough reason to block, even though the evidence against one IP may not be enough. And thanks again for reporting this. JamesBWatson (talk)

Sam Loman

How is my edit deconstructive when all I did was remove info that has still not been sourced and modify a header? 72.185.171.33 (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Your edits changed Sam Loman's name to Sam Roman, making any other changes you make suspect, and you don't seem to be editing to enhance the article. Your edit notes do not indicate the reasoning behind the good faith edits of another user, whom you seem to be harassing rather than engaging in good faith discussion. You, not Jeangabin, are making nonconstructive edits. Bento00 (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Then I apologize for the name being reverted. However, I would like to know why he/she/they is allowed to keep edits that still have no sources whatsoever, especially since he/she/they has yet to even add sources to further supplement and justify his revisions. 72.185.171.33 (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you see WP:DISPUTE to help resolve your differences. Bento00 (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Bollywood haters

It seems like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/203.45.58.27 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.15.188.39 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.15.161.164 could all be the same person just shifting IPs. Or is it a coordinated effort of some kind?

Since the person is repeatedly changing Bollywood to Hindi cinema or films without regard to the context, he/she is changing the term within quotations and also making some wikilinks invalid. The person also does not respond to edit note and talk page questions or comments. I see no good faith edits here, and reporting the latest IP if this continues sounds reasonable to me. Thanks for your note (P.S. you might want to end your talk page comments with 4 tildes, to provide your username and links to your pages). Bento00 (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

How Can I Make My Edits Constructive

I am wondering how to make my evening gown edits more "constructive". I don't how to use the sandbox, but how can I make my changes? --142.68.47.83 (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced additions of the name "Patyek Kane" to several pages

I am really sorry, I'll add sources in few minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Literalwriter (talk • contribs) 14:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

100 Greatest Britons - Florence Nightingale

Hello,

I was recently informed my changes regarding Florence Nightingale's pioneering of inforgraphics had been reverted. I've tried to re-add the change with a reference to the page but it said I needed to add a reference template or something. None of the other entries on the list appear to have any references, so I didn't bother as [a] I don't know how, and [b] I thought having one reference would make the page look clumsy. Moreover, Wikipedia's own entry on Florence Nightingale details her contribution to inforgraphics (with reference).

I've now saved the page as it was prior to my changes, pending your approval, but I really think those reading this list should be informed of this remarkable woman's contribution to graphical data representation.

Many thanks,

Charley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.234.140 (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not sure the blog you used as a source meets Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source. You can check WP:BLOGS. At any rate, my personal opinion is that her infographics work is not what qualifies Nightingale as one of the 100 Greatest Britons. However, her chart work was added to the Florence Nightingale article, and I think it belongs there.

You are obviously doing this in good faith, and could always try to include the infographics angle in the 100 Greatest Britons article with a good source, and see how others feel about this. Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Very sorry about this. I just wanted to demonstrate to my history class that sometimes Wikipedia is not a credible source because it is editable by the general public. If you don't mind, I would like that edit to stay until at least Tuesday so I can demonstrate this to them.

98.176.126.105 (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Terribly sorry for the trouble, Lucas Shore

Leif

Haha. Thanks. Can't believe I didn't think of looking there first. Hazlzz (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Dwayne Johnson

Hi there. You deleted my editing about "biography, private life, philantrophy" @Dwayne Johnson. My source is correct. regards

SE — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScissorsEzra (talk • contribs) 08:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You didn't provide any source, how can it be correct? Bento00 (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Bento00 my source is correct and there's no vandalism in my contribution. Mr. Johnson announced his engagement in Wilmington, NC, while filming the 3D scenes of his last movie. Please undo your correction. Best regards JM Merryweather (ScissorsEzra (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)).

I don't know if I'm doing right answering here. I wouldn't compromise or cause any harm to anybody, esp to a good friend celeb or not. The source I can provide is "I was there". He didn't announce it to a few friends while sipping a mojito ;-) Sincerely JM Merryweather (ScissorsEzra (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)).

It wouldn't take much to imagine the inaccuracies in a dictionary whose reliable sources are simply anonymous people saying "I was there." The concept of reliable sources is a cornerstone of verifiability. I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:SOURCE, WP:BURDEN, and WP:RELIABLE, and consider before repeatedly introducing statements without reliable sources, even after several editors objected, and even after you were blocked from editing for repeated violations. Bento00 (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Please check http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0425005/bio and confirm my edit about mr. dwayne johnson. thanks in advance for your help and understanding. JM — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScissorsEzra (talk • contribs) 12:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to add your edit and include a reference to the site you mention above. Please note that except for the obvious, statements need to be sourced whenever you add them to articles on Wikipedia. Enjoy your editing. Bento00 (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty then. Thank you very much. JM (ScissorsEzra (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

Sharpay's Fabulous Adventure

Hi, I just noticed there's been some back-and-forth editing on the Sharpay's Fabulous Adventure page, about the name of Cameron Goodman's character in the film. I don't really want to get in the middle of it, but I've read the tommy2.net interview and I have to say it looks to me like Goodman is saying that in the film - Sharpay's idol is Amber Lee Adams and Amber Lee Adams is the role that Goodman plays. I'm not going to get in the middle of this and make an edit about it on the page, but I just wanted to drop a note to say it definitely looks to me like Goodman is saying her character's name is indeed Amber Lee Adams. Maybe if you go back and re-read the tommy2.net interview once more you might see it the way we're reading it? Crakkerjakk (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I see you and the editor are correct, it took me a while to realize Adams is the role. There also would also have been nothing wrong, as far as I'm concerned, with "getting in the middle of it." I and I think the other editor were having a good faith disagreement, and a reversion with appropriate edit comments would have worked fine too, but I appreciate your extra care here. See you on the History pages, Crakkerjakk... Bento00 (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I could see how you were reading the Tommy2.net page - since it doesn't look like the most "polished" blog with a lot of proof-reading and editors, etc - I could see how the report could easily be two read different ways. I knew it was a case of the two of you just interpreting a somewhat vague, not-so-well written report differently and I actually had to re-read the Tommy2.net paragraph a couple times to make sure I understood it correctly myself, so I just wanted to ask you privately to re-read the page again. I did try to do a quick search to see if I could find a second "reliable" source reporting one name or the other, but I couldn't find anything I considered "verfiable", so that was the main reason I didn't want to jump into the discussion on the main page - since I couldn't find a secondary source that I found to be 100% convincing one way or the other. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)