User talk:Ben Preston OHLA

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Bờm Hâm Hít, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Gala cười, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Gala cười[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Gala cười requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Gala cười[edit]

The article Gala cười has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBROADCAST

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JMHamo (talk) 08:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gala cười for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gala cười 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/Gala cười until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. JMHamo (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Draft:Life and Death (Vietnamese drama), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Captain Calm (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Draft:Ko;NEET, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Captain Calm (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Draft:Life and Death (Vietnamese drama) while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Captain Calm (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Draft:Life and Death (Vietnamese drama), you may be blocked from editing. Captain Calm (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Draft:Life and Death (Vietnamese drama). Captain Calm (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't block me. If you don't have a good reason, you can't just keep doing what you want. That's it. Ben Preston OHLA (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for a week for misuse of the Prod template. PhilKnight (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ben Preston OHLA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did nothing wrong. I am completely innocent. They were deliberately refusing to understand my words so they blocked me like that. I told them that the draft of the Vietnamese drama article not convincing enough so I made clear the reason to vote with them that delete the post but they are still very stubborn. Ben Preston OHLA (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Plenty of vandalism from this account. Yamla (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sir, I did not vandalism anything so if you still behave like that, you will have to pay the price and regret for life. Yamla — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Preston OHLA (talk • contribs)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Captain Calm (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

UTRS 35379[edit]

UTRS appeal #35379 is now closed. For clarity, my reply is copied below and reformatted.

"I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock as you do not understand the reasons you were blocked and thus cannot assure us that you will not continue to abuse your editing privileges. What stands out is that you added and added again a ProD template to a draft. ProD's don't go on drafts. This was explained to you, as was the correct method of seeking deletion at MfD. This is all covered on your talk page, so I think it is you who do not understand, not others. And yes, the disruption you caused was a very good reason to block you.

I've no idea what you intended with this edit.

From there, it gets worse. In this edit, you wrote "Sir, I did not vandalism anything so if you still behave like that, you will have to pay the price and regret for life." That was taken as a death threat. To be unblocked, you must show understanding of why you were blocked and what you would differently. You'll also need to find a way to deal with the perceived death threat. Thanks," --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion[edit]

This user has engaged in block evasion in September and October, 2020 as 27.76.176.98. --Yamla (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which tells me you are incapable of or unwilling to address the reasons for your block. You are only worsening your situation by providing stronger reasons to not unblock you. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has now also evaded the block with the account Jason Spencer NY Ohio LA. I don't think any further unblock request should be considered until six months since the last block evasion, which at present means not before 7 April 2020. (For clarity in case you read this, Ben Preston OHLA, I am saying that no unblock request should be considered before then. I am not saying that any request made after that time will automatically be accepted. I am emphasising that because experience has shown that blocked editors frequently misunderstand that point.) JBW (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case this troll does request an unblock at some time in the future, I will state here for the convenience of administrators reviewing the request that they have continued to evade the block, using multiple IP addresses. JBW (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]