User talk:Benga502

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Funcrunch (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages, as you did to Section 28. This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm Whisky and more. Your recent edit(s) to the page Sajid Javid appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The Home Office is called the Home Office, not the Home Department. Whisky and more (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

while the Home Office is called the Home Office, the correct name for the Home Secretary is Secretary of State for the Home Department, as confirmed by HM Privy Council, the UK Parliament, the Cabinet Office, the Home Office and Wikipedia's own page on the Home Secretary. i suggest you improve your knowledge with some of these sources before reverting with incorrect information. Benga502 (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Gender binary shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Funcrunch (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not surprised that an individual that supports that nonsense has threatened to block me from editing for disagreeing with your false information. in what universe does having 2 genders support white supremacy? Benga502 (talk) 11:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. 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 List of gender identities, you may be blocked from editing. DanielRigal (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

are you silly? you're basing the whole article on liberal propaganda and not scientific fact... Benga502 (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maozedong

Skibidi skibidi sigma Ohio

Chat laugh at this user being stopped by WOKE PEOPLE! VosleCap (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These radical far left ultra liberal woke nonsense-talkers are spreading fake news. Benga502 (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SOTRUETrump.gif VosleCap (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Benga502 and VosleCap. Thank you. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 03:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]