User talk:Patrickbenson96

May 2017[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Brooke Baldwin, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you're going to upload an image that is an obvious promotional picture and almost certainly belongs to a cable network, don't wait to provide evidence. You should provide evidence immediately that the free license you're asserting is actually how the image is licensed. —C.Fred (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it very clear that I have permission to use the photo. I've now done that twice. Wikipedia gave a clear option for me to provide that permission later. You have also deleted the entire page and a lot of detailed attribution... without explaining why. And nothing about that is OK.

Well, let's address your new upload. How did you get access to the set to take File:Brooke Baldwin on set in DC.jpg? —C.Fred (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear C. Fred, You're welcome to ask anything nicely. The set was on the roof of a public building so all you needed was a camera. I took the photo. I own the photo. I am therefore fully entitled to use the photo. End of story.

Regarding this edit: What were you trying to do? There should not be a footnote in the heading for external links. I've moved what was in the reference tag to be a separate item in the list of links. —C.Fred (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I am very happy for the help.

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Brooke Baldwin on set in DC.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Brooke Baldwin on set in DC.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017[edit]

Your addition to Brooke Baldwin has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brooke Baldwin on set in DC.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Brooke Baldwin on set in DC.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018[edit]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Brooke Baldwin. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you have a conflict of interest, please refrain from making major edits to this page Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 17:12, 29 May 2018

From PB: Feel free to use the language of a learned person and explain how adding American Woman - is opinion. It's fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickbenson96 (talk • contribs)

It is not about opinion and facts, it is about how information is presented. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and only relevant, notable information should be included, especially about a living person. Also, you appear to possibly have a conflict of interest. If you know or somehow are involved with Brooke Baldwin, you need to disclose that. Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 18:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Brooke Baldwin, you may be blocked from editing. Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 18:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

>> PB: I'm sorry... but what on earth is disruptive about factually updating a page? Surely disruptive editing is the kind of petty and pointless editing which characterises your contribution... I ask you again - and have a go at using your own language to explain what - exactly - you feel is disruptive. I added 100% fact and you're interfering without a lettered explanation. Thanks, Patrick.

>> We can do this as long as you want. Why not just behave in a friendly and decent manner? Let's drop the self-importance - and communicate like intelligent people do.

>> American Woman happened. The reference is 100% accurate. Why the disruptive editing? There's a website called Google that will help you learn about it. (https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2018/01/entertainment/american-woman/) PB

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for using Wikipedia solely to promote a client and failure to disclose the connection. You can be unblocked if you agree to follow Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and disclose your connection in compliance with WP:PAID.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:05, 26 June 2018 (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).

Patrickbenson96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Some random imbecile wants to make completely unsubstantiated and appalling accusations. Does Wikipedia really allow such overbearing conduct from a petty individual that has zero means of proving itself? That's in nobody's interest. Why didn't this busybody contact me personally instead of behaving like a bully? I am not hiding behind some idiotic username or anonymous IP address. GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2018 (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.

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).

Patrickbenson96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and have edited one page to learn its vagaries and systems. Wikipedia provides great info, but its impossible-to-use interface make it gratuitously hard to use/learn - and therefore stymies contribution. So I'll just have to do what millions of other users do, and make up a fake name or use an arcane IP address. The spectacular idiocy of this unjustified block makes the community appear petty and small-minded in the extreme. The arrogance of making an accusation without the discipline to back it up is an intellectual disgrace, and no fair-minded reader/adjudicator should tolerate it.

Decline reason:

You have not addressed the reason for the block(or even denied it, for that matter). Your attitude doesn't help the situation either. If your statement that you are going to create a "fake name" and/or use an IP to edit means that you are going to evade your block, there is nothing else to discuss. I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2018 (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.

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).

Patrickbenson96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There's a thing in life called Cause and Effect. If you bully people without a shred of evidence, that's right... you effect massive irritation, and instead of whining about attitude, you have to take responsibility for the cause some small-minded people have effected. To be very clear, I am not 'promoting a client'. The comedy is that all this grandeur is being exercised by a person hiding behind a fake, non-identifiable name. Why Wikipedia allows this, and especially anonymous contributions, makes zero sense. At least I have the courage to use my real name. Unblock this now. And desist from taking this famous position, which I reminded you is bereft of evidence, or the slightest trace of functioning IQ.

Decline reason:

Since you still refuse to address your block constructively and courteously, I went ahead and revoked your ability to submit further appeals. Here at Wikipedia, we work together. When disagreements arise, we discuss edits not people. When consensus goes against us, we use dispute resolution instead of edit warring. I don't know if you seriously hoped to get unblocking while calling people idiots but that's definitely not happening. Have a nice day. Max Semenik (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2018 (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.

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.

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Patrickbenson96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #21990 was submitted on Jul 06, 2018 14:42:48. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Patrickbenson96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #22000 was submitted on Jul 06, 2018 21:32:44. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]