User talk:Bennv123

If you are here because I tagged your article for speedy deletion/nominated it for deletion, please read the criteria for speedy deletion and the notability guidelines before leaving me a message.
Please remember to sign your posts by adding four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment.

This is Bennv123's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Wish

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