User talk:Benicio2020

December 2020

Hello, I'm Asartea. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Rex Hotel—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Merry Christmas! Asartea ^{Talk Contribs!} 15:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Benicio2020, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Benicio2020! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Hello, I'm Carbrera. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Santa Baby seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC).

Explain to me how it's not neutral. It's sourced by like 7 different sources.

Okay, no answer. I guess it's neutral then.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Santa Baby. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 00:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't what this copy-pasted is that you've posted on my talk page, but considering that the information is still there, albeit in an altered form, I don't see how my edits can be classified as disruptive. If I were you I would take a look at the motivation behind putting this on my page and ask yourself if you were being helpful or just trying to bully me. Because to me, it feels like the latter. Benicio2020 (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Question

WikiEditorOffice This version is better structured. You have continuously edited on an agenda driven basis. Falsely claimed as well that User:PerpetuityGrat is my other account. "is it a claim if you're talking about yourself? sounds like just stating a fact" "one guy wrote this, one. That doesn't make it the "most notable" example"

What are you talking about? The Islanders vs Penguins series is one of the most iconic playoff upsets in modern time, and its stated in the source material that Kasparaitis played hard on Lemieux, like he was supposed to do. This is common knowledge. Do you know anything about hockey? Do you know anything about how Wikipedia works? You're not supposed to source every single claim, because then there's tags everywhere. Yzerman played for the Red Wings! Uh, do you have source!?! All my paragraphs are well sourced. I know more about hockey than 99.99% of people. I know Everyday Joes like yourself can edit on Wikipedia though, so it's really nothing that bothers me much. If you're gonna have an obnoxious tone to me, then expect to get the same shit back. Delete everything if you want to, I don't care. Goodbye. --Fairhop (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

"Yzerman played for the Red Wings!" - source: https://www.nhl.com/news/steve-yzerman-named-detroit-general-manager/c-306889276 "Yzerman spent his entire Hall of Fame playing career as a center with the Red Wings and was captain when they won the Stanley Cup in 1997, 1998 and 2002." Yes, I have a source. Benicio2020 (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

You didn't even understand what I meant, which is very symptomatic of this whole discussion. I see you're already involved in several others instances of editing conflicts and disruptive editing behavior. Good luck with that attitude. --Fairhop (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for wishing me good luck! I hope that you, too, have good luck in the new year. Bless your heart. Benicio2020 (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you ended up getting blocked. I hope your editing in the future takes a better path. Benicio2020 (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Benicio2020! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, I found 7 sources for an addition I made. Someone keeps deleting them, and my addition., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Trump's claims about what Trumpism is

I agree you have ample cause to be skeptical about Trump's claims about Trumpism, but he made the claim and it was directly about Trumpism, and it was reported in a reliable source. While many dispute whether the former president is an authority on anything, his view as the most politically powerful voice on the right on a term that bears his name cannot be ignored in the article. What we can do though is counterbalance the claims. What I would encourage you to do is dig up some authorities debunking his claims. There are probably several reliable sources who debunk Trump's claims about what Trumpism is. I have read some commentators who have picked apart particular points (eg 1. No riots in the streets, but riots in the Capitol building are ok?; 2. If Nafta was "horrible" then USMCA is too because economists both conservative and liberal regard it as essentially Nafta with some tweaks here and there). Unfortunately none I came across at the time of CPAC were from academic authorities. One analyst pointed out that he identified nothing distinctive- that Reagan for example would agree with every point except perhaps the phrasing about trade. So on that analysts account, if Trump's claim is to be taken at face value it says, "Forget using the term Trumpism, it's no different than Reaganism with a quibble here and there about trade." Some are not even distinctive between progressives and conservatives. Anyway, I hope you don't take my re-including Trump's comments at CPAC the wrong way. J JMesserly (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Take this to the article talk page. Benicio2020 (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI: WP:SPI

Benicio2020, I saw your edit summary which seems to allege that two users are being used by the same individual. If you truly believe that those two are indeed the same person, you can request a Sockpuppet Investigation and have someone look into it. See WP:SPI. Hope this helps. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Benicio2020 since we're still on the subject of Braxton Mitchell, I am pleading with you to please not blanket revert edits. You did this to even simple punctuation edits I made before on that page. Another editor's uncontroversial and simple edits were also reverted without explanation. If you have an issue with an edit, please please home in on that edit. It does not make sense to revert everything that contributor has done because of one of their edits. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You and that editor have made several edits which are identical in substance and in form. If I were you, I would take a close look at how you're going about editing Wikipedia and ask yourself if this is constructive behavior, or something that's likely to get you blocked again. Benicio2020 (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Benicio2020 instead of being threatening, why don't you try to be diplomatic and pay attention to the actual edits? I undid one of their edits. You are literally mass reverting their edits... and I have never been blocked so I have no idea what you're talking about haha. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Benicio2020: which IP address are you alleging made the same exact edit as User:WikiEditorOffice, the one that can be tracked to the Minnesota State Legislature? -PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Re: new Nubia character talk page section

Please see the above. Before making any more edits on my undoing of your reversion, I would suggest actually having a discussion first. You should be prepared to show just how exactly what you deleted qualifies as "original research" and try debating the accuracy of the very easy-to-establish points that I made both in the article and on the talk page. QuakerIlK (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, and pay particular attention to the sentence "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." It doesn't get any clearer than that. Benicio2020 (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please carefully note the new edit I made ( Latest revision as of 22:05, 4 June 2021 ) and please carefully read the relevant addition to discussion I made about this on my own talk page.QuakerIlK (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Take this to the article talk page. Benicio2020 (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nubia (character)#Long-term publication absence. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. This is the beginning of my process to cease your edit-warring with me on this article subsection. QuakerIlK (talk) 07:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I have reported your repeatedly disruptive edits on this article to the Administrator's notice board. QuakerIlK (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry to see that ended in you getting blocked. Hopefully a learning experience. Good luck. Benicio2020 (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring notice

Your recent editing history at Braxton Mitchell 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Please engage with me on the talk page or I will be creating an edit warring report. I am asking you kindly to interact with me on the talk page, and to not tangentially bring up another user or anything except the edits. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Setting up archiving

Hi, Benicio2020. As your Talk page gets longer, you may decide that you want to archive old discussions that haven't had any activity in some time. Archiving means saving old discussions in subpages of your Talk page, usually named, 'Archive_1', 'Archive_2', and so on. If you include the standard {{Talk header}} at the top of your Talk page, it will link to all of your Archive pages, and also give you a search box to find archived discussions. See the top of my Talk page, for one example, or the Talk page of any of the first three users who wrote on this page, they each archive their Talk pages as well. I archive manually, but you can set it up so that a bot does it automatically for you: the bot comes by and checks which discussions are older than a certain age, and moves those discussions to the right archive page for you. See WP:ARCHIVING, and {{Setup auto archiving}}. This isn't something you have to do, but it's something that is customary, and if you want to archive your Talk page, those links will help you figure out how to do it. Your page isn't so long yet that this is really necessary at this point, but it may become so at some point, and this will give you some pointers for how to do it. Hope this was useful to you, Mathglot (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The rule

See MOS:NUMNOTES: "Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure". Thanks for rewording it. BilCat (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I found that on my own. It does say "avoid", meaning it's not a hard-and-fast rule, so it would've been fine as it was. No reason to change it other than OCD, really. Benicio2020 (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The exceptions are given, and this case isn't one of them. BilCat (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

That's certainly not an exhaustive list of exceptions, nor does it say anywhere that you CAN'T start a sentence with a numeral unless it's one of those exceptions. Benicio2020 (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

38.104.204.42

Yeah I see you made an edit where as you did not necessarily know what you were even doing on the Special Routes of US 54 page. How about we don't do what we did last summer and stop trying to waste each others time and work👌👍. Sincerely, Your Friend: 38.103.204.42 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.103.204.42 (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)