User talk:Benboy00

PLEASE READ THIS FIRST: If I have nominated a page for speedy deletion, and you want to know why, please actually read the notice first, as it tells you why it was nominated. If you want a detailed explanation, I will almost certainly be happy to help, but I would urge you to save a copy of the page BEFORE leaving a comment on this page, because it will probably be deleted very quickly, and if it is, I can't really help you.

If a page of yours has been deleted due to a speedy delete that I placed, and you want to know why, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT I CAN HELP YOU much, UNLESS YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE PAGE. Once a page has been deleted, I cannot access it or see it, and I go through many, many pages. It is unlikely that I will remember your particular page. Please read the other sections on my talk page, as they contain comments from people just like you, and then read my replies. They are all very similar, and they basically repeat what the deletion notice says. For most of my replies (as you can see), I just copy and paste bits of other replies. This is kindof a waste of my time, and I only do it out of courtesy. Please be courteous to me by not making these requests for clarification UNLESS you have a copy of the page. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, sorry about that welcome message. I just looked through your contributions and it seems you've been around for a while now. :P

Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"wanted to let you know that I just tagged General Mathematics for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, [[:{{{article}}}]]." -- which is what? Don't see the link to existing article. Mikus (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC) After some consideration, I have decided to de-nominate for speedy deletion and tag the article instead. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DUH! I just started the page. Of course, I could write a whole monograph in Notepad and then paste it to Wiki, but I decided to start early, maybe somebody else will join. The search term does not link to any Wiki article, but does link to many resources, which are relevant to math education in the U.S., Australia and GB. Cheers! Mikus (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no need to be rude. Many articles are created first in the sandbox and then, when complete or nearing completion, submitted as a new article. Creating an article with a title like "General Mathematics" but hardly any content seems pretty strange. I would suggest that you change the title to clarify the topic i.e. General Mathematics (Education) or something similar. Benboy00 (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benboy00. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Garden City College For Science And Technology Sudan, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. CSD:A7 does not apply to schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benboy00, Just wanted to let you know that I reviewed the "Shawn Landres" article and believe that it should remain up. The article has more than 30 citations from Academic Journals, the New York Times, etc. And it does not appear to be overly promotional to me. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NathaneMiller10 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benboy00, I created the page, Onarbor, and would like to fix it such that it will be acceptable to be published on Wikipedia. Onarbor.com is my website and company. Our business model is based off of Kickstarter that is why I used Kickstarter's wiki page as a guide to developing our wiki page. I apologize for cutting and pasting kickstarter's page in order to create Onarbor's page. I took a break from finishing Onarbor's page before removing the blatant copyrighting without realizing that Wikipedia editors would delete it so quickly before I had a chance to finalize it. My sincere apologies, this is the 1st wikipedia page I've ever created. I've re-submitted the Onarbor page to address the copyrighting. I've removed all references that were Kickstarter-specific and changed the sentence-structure and wording to be unique to Onarbor. Hopefully this will be more in line with Wikipedia's policies. Again, I'm truly sorry about this. Thank you,

Tim Peterson User:Trpeters1

Rev Stef and Jubilation. Wanted to know why my first page is scheduled for deletion? What is inappropriate about the page I posted? This is a religious group!

---

EB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revstef (talk • contribs) 01:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Revstef,

Since the page in question has been deleted, I can't refer back to it, and I can't remember exactly which one it was, but if I tagged it for deletion it meant that it was (in my opinion) inappropriate for Wikipedia. The fact that it was accepted for speedy deletion means that at least one admin thought that this was undoubtedly true. I think it was probably because it was extremely promotional in tone but, like I said, I cant exactly remember. If you provide me with a copy of the article, I could give you more detailed criticism. Also, I moved your comment to a new section on my talk page. When adding messages to talk pages, please follow accepted practice, which is to make a new section unless you are commenting on an already existing section. Please do not just leave messages at the top. Also, please remember to sign your posts with 4 tildes (~). Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Benboy00. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Bring the Thunder, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article has been edited since it was tagged and is no longer a copyvio. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am Samantha, You recently tagged for deletion an artist I wanted to create a page for,he has been around since the 80"s and has been well know in the music scene as well as the movies. His website is WWW.AMIRTHEPIRATE.COM. Benboy00 could you please take the time and help me understand how I'm to create this page for this artist that I admire?? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAMANTHABARTOLI (talk • contribs) 18:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Samantha,

First of all, I moved your comment to a new section on my talk page. Please do this when leaving a comment that isn't related to any existing sections on talk pages, and also remember to sign your posts with 4 ~'s. Since the page in question has been deleted, I can't refer back to it, and I can't remember exactly which one it was, but if I tagged it for deletion it meant that it was (in my opinion) inappropriate for Wikipedia. The fact that it was accepted for speedy deletion means that at least one admin thought that this was undoubtedly true. If you have a copy of this page, I can certainly try to help you work on it, but if I nominated it for deletion because of a lack of notability, then it is unlikely that it can be made appropriate for wikipedia at this time. This is not necessarily because of the quality of the article itself, but because the subject is not notable enough to be included on wikipedia. As I said, if you have a copy of the page, I would be glad to try to help. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Benboy00. I noticed you where the one that tagged my article for deletion . Please i don't understand, what i did wrong for my article to be tagged for deletion. Please can you guide me on what not to include on the article. thank you hope to hear from you.

This is the title for the articles: Metropolitan_School_of_Business_and_Management_(MSBM) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msbm nigeria (talk • contribs) 11:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first of all, please sign your posts with 4 ~'s. Next, since the page in question has been deleted, I can't refer back to it, and I can't remember exactly which one it was, but if I tagged it for deletion it meant that it was (in my opinion) inappropriate for Wikipedia. The fact that it was accepted for speedy deletion means that at least one admin thought that this was undoubtedly true. The reasons given for deletion were this, this and this. If you can provide a copy of the article, I can try to point out exactly why they apply, but the fact that your username is the same as the title of the article suggests that you are trying to promote the MSBM, and that this is a single purpose account. This is not the best idea, as your edits will be subject to much more scrutiny. Remember, wikipedia is not an advertising website, and you must keep this in mind when submittting articles. If it seems like an article is there to increase the notability of something, and not just document it, then it will almost certainly be deleted. I vaguely remember this article, and I think it was chock full of advertising buzzwords, unsourced claims, and copyright infringement. You cannot just copy from another website and paste onto here. Remember, the subject MUST be notable before you make an article. See WP:NOTABILITY for more information. if I nominated it for deletion because of a lack of notability, then it is unlikely that it can be made appropriate for wikipedia at this time. This is not necessarily because of the quality of the article itself, but because the subject is not notable enough to be included on wikipedia. As I said, if you have a copy of the page, I would be glad to try to help. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was bitey. This is a new user who introduced a few articles, and when they were deleted (perhaps without his understanding of why) he reintroduced them. Gentler is better than firmer if we want to keep new editors around, and perhaps turn them into good seasoned editors. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that that may be bitey. Maybe I've just spent too long partolling New-Pages, where every other one is an advert (at least thats how it feels), but it seems like the sole reason that this person has made an account is to promote products. It also seems like they completely ignored what both of us said. I was hoping that the big stop sign would have more emphasis, and if that doesnt work, blocking will probably be the only alternative. Benboy00 (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Benboy00 may i know that why you think that YOUNG_MALANG should deleted.

i just put the information about the movie i don't post any promotional material. just post the info of cast & crew whom working in that movie.. kindly remove the deletion tag from that page

Hi, first of all, please sign your posts with 4 ~'s. Next, since the AfD process has started, that tag cannot be removed by anyone until the discussion closes, which will typically take another 6 days. I think I clearly explained the reasons for my deletion proposal at the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/YOUNG_MALANG . Interestingly, now that the page has been edited to include an actual reference and a release date that will occur before the end of the process, one of my reasons, WP:NOTCRYSTAL, will no longer apply. That said, I am still of the opinion that this film is not notable. If others agree, then this page will be deleted. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benboy00, just wanted a clarification: I've created the Timeneye page copying (and then editing) the contents of the Toggl page (another time tracking saas solution), trying not to add anything that were facts and avoiding any promotion. I'm not sure if just listing the main features is considered promotion. Please let me know.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.grassi84 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first of all, please sign your posts with 4 ~'s. Next, since the page in question has been deleted, I can't refer back to it, and I can't remember exactly which one it was, but if I tagged it for deletion it meant that it was (in my opinion) inappropriate for Wikipedia. The fact that it was accepted for speedy deletion means that at least one admin thought that this was undoubtedly true. The reasons given for deletion were G11 and A7. If you can provide a copy of the article, I can try to point out exactly why they apply. The G11 might be able to be overcome by rewriting the article, but when I tag something with A7, it usually means that the subject matter is inappropriate (due to lack of notability), and so at this time, no article in any form with this subject could be accepted. Like I said, if you can provide a copy, I can try to point out exactly why it was deleted. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr Benboy00 just wanted to clear Jatt in Mood is going to release on 4 oct 2013 it was going to release on sep 2013 but due to some issue it's wasn't released kindly remove your deletation tag. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bull18Designs (talk • contribs) 16:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page visitor) You'd do better posting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jatt in Mood where the deletion discussion is. The tag cannot be removed until the discussion is closed. Peridon (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bull18Designs. First of all, please sign your comments with 4 ~'s. Since the AfD process has started, no-one can now remove the tag until it has ended. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jatt in Mood (as Peridon said) to receive a formal reply on the deletion. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined your speedy on Corey Robinson, as the page was created before the block. This criterion really only applies to pages created by sockpuppets, as it isn't possible for a blocked user to create under their own name. This user was blocked for copyvios, and there's no mention of them being a sock that I can see. The page is probably no use - Notre Dame is a college or university, isn't it - as the subject looks non-notable. However, A7 doesn't apply in AfC. Peridon (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I don't think I've seen G8 used on an AfC article before. I'll be watching this one... A lot of AfC submissiona are on Talk pages because they're created by IPs, who can't create main pages. This one, of course wasn't. Peridon (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why you brought this to AFD, but the topic meets WP:NF per available sources, even if not used. [1] I would ask that you consider a withdrawal, after which we simply move the article to its proper title and tag it for required improvements. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for re-visiting. My thoughts inre WP:NFF were because it is a completed film with an imminent screening date and enough coverage, and when a release date is so very close we may use common sense, and need not have to "wait" to do what is right. I can only hope the newcomer contributor realizes the necessity for sourcing when writing any article. I've asked that the original title Young Maylang be undeleted due to it having more addressable content and context. The two histories can then be merged. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFF, third paragraph reads "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines" (my underlining). This film is completed and as an film slated for release we may indeed have an article as its production is itself notable through notability guidelines. Look, I am not trying to put you on the fence, but being a coordinator of Project Film, I am not simply spouting nonsense. I've been around long enough and have many times seen notable films erroneously sent to AFD under the best of intentions. If you think my points incorrect, please feel free to ask for clarification from others over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for approving my first ever article, Alekhine Nouri. I appreciate it. Allenjambalaya (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Benboy00. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Corey Robinson, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: db-talk does not apply to Articles for Creation pages - they are intentionally in "Wikipedia talk" space so that IPs can create them. I actually deleted that as WP:CSD#G6 housekeeping, because Corey Robinson already exists. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Email

Hi, first of all can I ask that everyone use my talkpage instead of email, unless absolutely necessary (if information is confidential, for example), as I feel that the talkpage better encompasses the wikipedia ethos of, among other things, transparency and accountability. I appreciate that you have closed a hundred AfD's, and I congratulate you on your dedication to wikipedia. You have done a lot of good work on wikipedia, both as Bwilkins and EatsShootsAndLeaves. I understand that you are very experienced, and appreciate your input, however I still think that on this occasion you are incorrect, and that the guidelines state that a judgement, whether it be closing or relisting, should be made after 7 days, and no more. I think that this is compatible with what you have written in the above email, in that discussions can (and in many cases do) go on for more than 7 days, but I think (and think that the guidelines say) that this should happen through relisting. There are also many cases, some of which I have been part of, and some of which I see that you have been part of, where discussion actually lasts less than 7 days, sometimes due to snowballing, sometimes due to speedy delete/keep, and sometimes due to other reasons. I would like to think that on wikipedia, argument (read "discussion") is always welcome, and just because someone is experienced, it does not necessarily mean they are correct (although again, I appreciate that you are very experienced in this area). If it helps, I would be happy for you to submit an RfC, or submit one myself.

Of great concern to me, however, is the last sentence of your email. I don't think I have ever, in any context on wikipedia, used the term "enemies" or "enemy", and if I have somewhere, I would request that you point it out to me, as it was certainly in error. I, to my knowledge, do not have any enemies on wikipedia, and I would hope that no-one on wikipedia considers me their enemy. I think the concept of an enemy should be alien to wikipedia. I do indeed spend quite a lot of time trying to help clean up wikipedia, and try to be as civil and helpful as possible when doing so, especially when dealing with new users (although users who constantly try to advertise or spam are sometimes met with slightly less patience). When nominating many speedy deletes in a row, sometimes the nomination is not as long as it perhaps should be, although I try to make sure that no matter how short, it contains the necessary information. I do not think that I argued wrongly (indeed, I am not quite sure what you mean by this), and I think my point is valid, and would be happy to discuss it more. If you are saying that you now consider me your enemy, I apologise for whatever I have done to make this so, and assure you that I do not feel the same way about you. If there is anything I can do to make you feel otherwise, please let me know. If not, I will make a list on my userpage of people who consider me their enemy in the interests of full disclosure, to try to avoid potential COI's. As I said, I would prefer that this not happen, and hope that it does not have to. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that copy-pasting an e-mail like this can lead to a block, right? ES&L 11:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I have made an error, but I have not seen a guideline on this. Can you link to it so I dont do it wrong in the future? Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to WP:EMAILPOST? If so, I am afraid I did not see this earlier, and apologise for my ignorance, as I dont usually receive wiki emails. I can't find any reference to blocking for a transgression, and ask for clarification on the relevant policy. I would like to request permission from you to post this email on my talkpage, to avoid copyright concerns. I would again ask that you do not email me unless absolutely necessary. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked to remove it - and I will ask that you have it WP:REVDEL ASAP. You did not and do not have permission. When I see an issue that requires "gentle chastising", then it's best to do that in private - hence my friendly, gentle e-mail. If you want me to do it in public, I will ... but I did not believe that it was significant enough of a misunderstanding on your part to have an on-wiki discussion. I was giving you the opportunity to read, digest, and move forward ES&L 13:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first of all, I again apologise for infinging your copyright, though I would note that in your first post, you did not actually ask me to delete it, you just threatened to block me. I will remove it as you have now asked, and ask for a REVDEL, but I would like to continue this conversation. The reason I posted your email in full is because I found it inappropriate. I welcome all criticism, and have no qualms about it being public. I have been a wikipedia editor for some time, and although I have not been particularly active for a while, I do not consider myself a new editor who needs private criticism. I would like to ask why exactly you want it deleted? Advising someone not to argue a point with an admin because they are more experienced, and insinuating that I have "enemies", do not seem like a useful thing to say, *especially* in private, where it could be considered harrassment. I must say, from my point of view, your email certainly did not seem "friendly" or "gentle". I understand that you still believe that you are correct, just as I still believe that I am correct. I would like to discuss this point more, and would also ask that you respond to the questions and comments in my reply, posted above, to your email. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and yet, you retain my REAL NAME on this page after it was removed intentionally? This has nothing to do with copyright, it has to do with the publishing of non-public correspondence, which is and always has been improper if not unethical in every single culture, including Wikipedia. You also have clearly misread my e-mail to you completely. As you seem determined to put this into some form of "combative" situation, I'm withdrawing. ES&L 14:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, I did not realise that it was your real name that was the problem. I assure you this is in no way combative, and I am saddened that you feel the need to withdraw. I understand that you have the right to withdraw, and I respect that, but I still believe that there are many unanswered questions. If I have misread your email, please correct me. As you never stated a reason, I assumed, as I said before, that you wanted your email removed due to Wikipedia:EMAILPOST#Private_correspondence, on which the arbitration committees ruling (I am using their most recent one) is documented. As I said before, I would very much like to continue this discussion, because I feel it is important. As I also said, I would be glad to submit an RfC. I would not consider it improper to publish non-public correspondence (but only in the culture of wikipedia) because I believe that private correspondence should only occur when there is sensitive information in it, as one of wikipedias big goals is transparency. I understand that you thought there was sensitive information in your email, but that is presumably not why you sent it, as it would have been easy to just use your username instead in which case there would be no sensitive information. I would suggest that in the future you put more information in a request to delete content, rather than just saying what you said, to reduce confusion. Again, I respect your right to withdraw, but should you decide to come back at some point, I will summarise my points and questions here:

As ES&L has requested, I'm removing all references here per a variety of policies, which requires a certain amount of intervening clean diffs. Don't ever do that again, it's Not On. Acroterion (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to again point out, at no point previously did he even hint that the problem was outing. I have unreservedly apologised for that, but would like to express my frustration that instead of clearly stating the problem, the user instead decided to vaguely hint at it. This is also Not On, and has caused several revisions of this page to be REVDEL'd. I would also like to thank you for your help with the REVDEL. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case it's not completely apparent, the use of anyone's real-life name, revealed in confidence to you in an email, and still worse in a copy of that email, is unacceptable and sanctionable per WP:OUTING. Note that "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block." In this case, you've asked that it be revdel'd, but I find your comment "I do not see an issue of confidentiality other than the outing" troubling. That's the whole point. In the future don't repost email, and ES&L was within his rights to remove it from your talkpage as a violation of his confidential communication with you. The correct course of action, rather than arguing or asking for more explicit discussion, would have been to respect ES&L's action and request and ask for revdel right away, rather than dig the hole deeper. Acroterion (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you feel that way. Again, I did in no way wish to out ES&L. I incorrectly assumed that he had used the name on his wikipedia page. I did not expect him to reveal confidential information in an email like that to someone that he had no prior email contact with, and apologise unreservedly for outing him. I confess that I did not even notice that it was his real-life name when he orignially sent it, and I admit I should have been much more careful. I appreciate that it is grounds for a block, although since in this case it was clearly unintentional, I feel that that would be somewhat harsh. I would like to again stress that if he had said that outing was what he had a problem with, I would have immediately deleted the offending part, and immediately asked for a revdel. While it is my fault for posting the email, surely some small blame must go to him for continued ambiguity, when he could have easily stated the problem. That said, I take full responsibility for my mistake and hope that I have not caused him too much distress, and again plead that he return to this debate, although I will understand completely if he wishes not to. I also would like to again point to the arbitration committees ruling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Private_correspondence) as the basis for my opinion on this matter. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out the first part of the quote from WP:OUTING that you missed out, which is: "Unless unintentional and non-malicious".

Hello there Benboy00 i'm sending you this message to ask why you asked for deletion for that page, you said it was "promotional" but it was not quite true, since all companies in here speak/write with the same way. You can take a look on others like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StreamZilla or Akamai.

StreamWithQ is the first company in Northen Greece, that actually has a datacenter of it's own, and actually making allot of techonological breakthroughs in the field of communications and streaming data. Also its working with allot of universities and techonological institutes for the same exact reasons. And for sure selling those products. So how else can we write all of this ? And i don't have a copy of the page :/

Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by HerculesAsl (talk • contribs) 12:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first of all, please sign your posts with 4 ~'s. Next, since the page in question has been deleted, I can't refer back to it, and I can't remember exactly which one it was, but if I tagged it for deletion it meant that it was (in my opinion) inappropriate for Wikipedia. The fact that it was accepted for speedy deletion means that at least one admin thought that this was undoubtedly true. As it has been deleted, I cant compare it with other pages. The fact that in your last sentence, you use the term we, suggests that you might be part of that company, although you also may just mean we as in wikipedia. If it is the former, I suggest that you read WP:COI, though I am perfectly willing to accept that it is the latter. You can ask for a copy of the page at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion, though it may not be accepted. If you do get a copy of the page, I would be happy to help more. Remember, if the company is not considered notable under WP:CORP, it is unlikely that an article can be written about it at this time, no matter what the content. On a separate note, you might like to read a post on a (in my opinion) very funny website. No offence at all is intended, your comment just reminded me of it. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You declined my submission of a page for Christ Church Selly Park. I wanted to let you know that I will re-submit the page but I will need to look up one or two references to justify the notability. This may take me a few days. Just checking that this is OK. Dskjt (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dskjt, that is absolutely fine. Good luck! Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove any source, there were two BBC-sources put together (that covered extactly the same thing) to support a statement, so I removed one of the BBC-source. In the edit summary I put "redundant" [2]--Spoutgale (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regards,

Hi,

From what i can tell, those articles seem to be covering different events (Richard Gere and Shilpa Shetty are not a young married couple). I will now revert your edit. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,,I will never do it again but i want to know about sandbox.Can i write something in sandbox or is there any wiki rules for sandbox ? Faisal6545 (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can write anything, but please check the guidelines just in case. Also, I have deleted your duplicate post and renamed this section. Benboy00 (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Sanctuary church Rouse Hill i try again soon i will try to add more to make it look important thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewyandrew (talk • contribs) 22:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:s ok, but make sure that everything you add is true. If it looks important, but actually isnt, it will still likely be speedily deleted. Benboy00 (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breeze Barton, you may be interested to learn that I have opened a discussion to propose merging the article's contents to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. Feel free to comment. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That criterion at CSD only really applies to sockpuppets. Accounts that are spam username blocked can't edit in defiance of their block unless they are socking as well. The Actia article was created before the block was imposed, and so is quite legitimate in that respect. I've taken the blocked user bit out of the tag. If you've got evidence that 'Actia Group' is one of the Morning277 flock or similar, things could be different. Doesn't look like 277 at a quick look, though... Peridon (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article has been renamed. Why merging it then, instead of expanding? I will look for more info on the subject. As the voting has been archived, I opined on the article's talk page. Mikus (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was agreed (to an extent) on the AfD page that a merger would be proposed after the rename, for various reasons, one of which being that it was in line with the wishes of many voters in the AfD. I personally think it should be merged because there is very little interesting content in the article, and the term seems too vague to allow the possibility of meaningful expansion. If it was not merged, I would suggest it be deleted, and would think about proposing another AfD because it would mean that the close terms of the last one had been violated. Benboy00 (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

do you have a tamplate-infobox for living person? Friendwip.kg (talk) 08:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Benboy00. Thanks for your message. I've done my best, as an utter and complete novice with Wikipedia, to figure out how to partake in a discussion about deleting the Valkstone entry, but can't find it or figure out how.

Let me tell you about the entry. I am going to be talking to a group of year 6 students at Valkstone priamry, where my daughter goes, about how to do research on the web. Wikipedia is their go-to website and I want them to understand a little (which is all I know) about how it works. I want them to see how easy it is to post an entry and that it can be good information or not. To Wikipedia's great credit, there is a process by which entries can be, and are, challenged, to maintain the site's integrity. It's a bit of a lab. If it doesn't result in a useful entry, we'll take it down ourselves.

They use Wikipedia out of laziness. I want them to use it lots, but mindful of the way information gets onto a website and the importance of editorial processes and processes of verification.

I welcome your thoughts.

-- Email from QueenTimely

Hi QueenTimely, First of all, the welcome notice added to your talk page contains loads of great info about how wikipedia works, how to use the various parts, and all sorts of other things. Basically, talk pages are like a personal noticeboard where people (including you) can post things. These will usually be questions or issues of some sort that people want your response from. My talk page, as you can see, is mostly people asking why their page was deleted. You can post things on anyones talk page, although i think they can delete it if they want. More info is available at WP:Talk_page_guidelines. The problem is, at the moment, your article is in what's called the "mainspace". This is where normal wikipedia articles live. The reason that this is a problem is that edits are held to a high standard. This may mean that the article is deleted, or that edits are reverted. A good idea would maybe be to userfy the page. This is when the article is moved from the mainspace, to your username. It wont appear in searches, but it will still be accessible and editable. This will mean that edits to it are not held to as much scrutiny (if any), so you can experiment at will. Another option might be to make an "Article for Creation". This is where you make a page, and then edit it, and then when you think its ready you can submit it. It will then be reviewed and either accepted or rejected. If it is rejected, reasons for the rejection will be given as well as improvements that could be made. I leave it to you to decide what would be best out of those 3 options, although im sure there are more options than that. To reply to this message, first put a colon (:) to indent the message, as it makes it easier to read. Also, remember to sign your posts with 4~'s. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I'll make it into an Article for creation. I know there is a great deal of information about how to do things on Wikipedia, I just wasn't prepared for it to become a project in itself. Although, now that has become one, it's valuable. W is a wonderful effort. QueenTimely (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Benboy00

I like to ask you why you keep reverting my edits on Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, I gave a reasonably reason on why the country of Rockstar North doesn't need to be included on the article as it doesn't seem important. I notice other games articles doesn't included the company's country so why Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is important, it just seem pointless as you can find out the company's country on the article where on the game's article you can just get the article's point. I hope you will reply to this post, if not than I'll just revert your reverts. TheDeviantPro (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The proper venue for this discussion is on the article's talk page, as I said before. Please start a discussion there. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the PROD on Into the Storm (Axel Rudi Pell album). I don't think this is a case of WP:CRYSTAL. The artist has announced the release date on his website, and the tracklist has been discussed on a number of forums. Better sourcing is needed, to be sure, but if we are going to accept the notability of Pell as a musician, than his studio albums are probably notable enough for inclusion as well. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the company page I was hired to work on. You didn't even give any warning and while I slept it was deleted. I spent hours working on that for 247 Asian Media, finding the legit 3rd party links, finding the references, etc. They are a legit company who does the same thing, if not more, than Allkpop and Soompi who are listed on Wikipedia AND were put as similar interests. Everything was done right and all my hard work going down the drain is NOT appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsianGuruGirl (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first of all, I did not delete your article, I just asked for it to be deleted. This was because it met on or more of the speedy deletion criteria (probably advertising). If you read the top of my page, you know that this is as specific as I can be. I am sorry that you put so much work into it, but if you submit an article straight into the mainspace, without going through Articles for Creation, it is subject to deletion at any time. This should have been warned when you started making the article. I'm a bit strapped for time at the moment, but if you would like to discuss this further I would be happy to. Benboy00 (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is for Prof._Dr._Khalid_A._AdDamigh.

I linked a lot of words to Wikipedia articles and this page is linked on King_Saud_University#Alumni.

Can you approve it now ?

Hi, Unfortunately, it is not up to me to approve articles, especially when an Articles for Deletion process has begun. Hwever, even if it were up to me, I would still not approve this article because I believe that the subject matter is not notable. This cannot be fixed by changing the article. However, please feel free to give reasons why the article should not be deleted at the deletion discussion (which is linked at the top of the page). Please note that this is not a vote, it is a discussion. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked WP:PROF and there is stated: The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

You can check his personal website (http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/Khalid/Pages/Work-experience.aspx & http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/Khalid/Pages/Committees-and-Organisations.aspx) and you will see that his work experience and what has he done for higher education in many countries beside Saudi Arabia. You can check his awards: http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/Khalid/Pages/Awards_E0328-4387.aspx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfcc sa (talk • contribs) 09:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please discuss this on the appropriate page, which in this case, is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prof._Dr._Khalid_A._AdDamigh Benboy00 (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the company page I was hired to work on. You didn't even give any warning and while I slept it was deleted. I spent hours working on that for 247 Asian Media, finding the legit 3rd party links, finding the references, etc. They are a legit company who does the same thing, if not more, than Allkpop and Soompi who are listed on Wikipedia AND were put as similar interests. Everything was done right and all my hard work going down the drain is NOT appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsianGuruGirl (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first of all, I did not delete your article, I just asked for it to be deleted. This was because it met on or more of the speedy deletion criteria (probably advertising). If you read the top of my page, you know that this is as specific as I can be. I am sorry that you put so much work into it, but if you submit an article straight into the mainspace, without going through Articles for Creation, it is subject to deletion at any time. This should have been warned when you started making the article. I'm a bit strapped for time at the moment, but if you would like to discuss this further I would be happy to. Benboy00 (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Actually, the Wikipedia page was in demand by Asian entertainment agencies and THAT is the reason it was created. The site was down today because it was a part of the whole HostGator shutdown today where millions of sites were down. How about contacting me directly instead of talking about something you didn't even bother to research. Who goes to a site, looks at it once, sees it's down, and doesn't question it?! Have a discussion with me, like a normal person not hiding behind a computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.59.62 (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said "You deleted the company page I was hired to work on". This means that you are being paid to edit, and there is likely a WP:COI. I have bothered to research the site to the best of my ability, but when I first checked, the site was down. I have now included my proper opinion of the now up site on the deletion page. I am trying to follow wikipedia policy, and i suggest you do the same. Please refrain from making WP:UNCIVIL remarks. Benboy00 (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edit reverted here was not vandalism. You inappropriately warned the editor. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im pretty sure that repeatedly changing the font size of a few words in an article to this size counts as vandalism. I stand by my warning, and would do the same again. Benboy00 (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. I direct you to read WP:VANDAL. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for using the term vandal. However, as I have stated, I still think that my warning was appropriate except for the usage of the term vandal. Benboy00 (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for conceding the point. WP:WARN has a list of useful templates. Perhaps a warning for "disruptive editing" would have been appropriate? Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Benboy00 (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly this is absolutely ridiculous, it was not in place to issue a warning at all. The user single-handedly created that article; lack of formatting knowledge is not a reason to give a warning, but a reason to help, guide and direct the user to the correct forum in order to learn more. Frivolous warnings are detrimental to Wikipedia. Try to get the big picture first before issuing a warning of any sort, even if you perceive the edit in question to be disruptive. CFCF (talk) 06:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in this subject. Benboy00 (talk) 07:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks you for the notice, I add the more information request: articles and external sources in Renato Talamini. Thanks, Andrea.gini.87 —Preceding undated comment added 11:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrea,

I removed the BLPPROD tag, but if possible please try to find more sources about him as a person, rather than just his research papers. Other than that, the references look good. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a user-space draft. I removed your speedy tag, and replaced it wih a noindex tag. If you wish to delete it, a proposed deletion would probably work better. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Yes, that's him along with Laghari asif. He has been trying to get his theories on Wikipedia for awhile now. The SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Princeneil, but the most recent accounts are obvious ducks as he is very easy to spot and I didn't feel it was necessary to file a report.

On a side note, I blocked another editor whose article that you sent to AfD. Tunganya is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KANYABIGEGA Silas and he has been trying to publish his autobiography for years. He is fairly easy to spot, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This tag bomb was a bit over the top. When tagging a page, limit yourself to the tags that are mostly likely to evoke improvement, and don't use redundant tags. For example, adding both "refimprove" and "unreferenced" to a single article is pointless; if the article has no references, then there are no references to improve, and the single "unreferenced" tag is sufficient. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	A Tesla Roadster for you!
	Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citation Needed (talk • contribs) 23:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide reasoning for marking the page for speedy deletion? It is not promotional, so please explain how you perceive it as such. It has since been deleted by someone quoting your exact reason for speedy deletion markings with no further rationale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indlebe 1984 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the information at the top of this page. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read the information at the top of the page, and the Peter Suedfeld page was deleted long before I had even read your message, much less a chance to get to save it. I think you're a little trigger-happy on the speedy deletions. This guy invented the isolation chamber and deserves a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indlebe 1984 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like it says, if it was speedy deleted after I nominated it, then an admin agreed with me that it was promotional. Is there anything else I can help you with? Benboy00 (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with the deletion. I did find the Sandbox and will start using that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrainDad (talk • contribs) 15:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

You requested a speedy deletion of a page I built yesterday. Sadly, it was deleted over night so I've only just noticed but, anticipating this might be the case as I've never written a Wikipedia article before, I have kept my original draft which seems to comply with your intro.

Please note, I am not in anyway connected to the band but I saw them mentioned on the Watership Down page which made me want to look them up. I'm surprised they're not notable enough to already have a page, especially as one exists on the Italian Wikipedia and they're not an Italian band. They do seem to have quite a cult following which I think warrants their inclusion, as well as being able to link to them directly from related articles.

Anyway, If you could give me any advice on what I should add to avoid deletion should I resubmit it, that would be great! I'm not entirely sure how I should go about sharing the draft of the article I have but if you get back to me, I'm sure we can find a way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KonamiKode (talk • contribs) 10:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you can share you draft by making a new page in your userspace (Help:Userspace_draft). I would be happy to help if you provide a link to the page here after you create it. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the email and suggestion. User:BrainDad (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You requested a speedy deletion of the page I created for Executive Insight. I edited the article based on the reasons given for deletion and saved it as a user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JustinGage/Executive_Insight

Can you please take another look and offer suggestions on how I should proceed? Thanks! JustinGage (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first of all, thanks for reading the notice, many people just ignore it. There seem to be two basic problems with the article. The first is that it seems to be somewhat promotional (WP:PROMO). Usually articles on publications dont have "partner links", and some of the language could be considered promotional. This isnt really a big deal here, as its a borderline case. The other, more important problem is notability. The publication does not appear to meet any of the notability criteria (for publications, these can be found here). Unfortunately, this is not usually something that can be fixed by changing the article. Many, maybe even most (certainly most of the pages I nominate) of the pages that are speedy deleted are deleted due to lack of notability. This again is because since notability is something that cant be fixed by the editor, there is usually no point in giving the editor a chance to improve the article because the subject is fundamentally unsuitable for wikipedia. In this case, the magazine may become notable at some point in the future, but until then an article should not be created. If you can find evidence that it meets notability criteria, I would be happy to help you with it further. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I read the notability criteria and I believe this publication meets #3 (considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area). The partnerships with other healthcare organizations speak to this, which is the main reason why I included them. Those organizations have partnered with Executive Insight because they trust the publication's authority on topics related to their members and want to deliver content produced by Executive Insight to their members. The organizations I listed are all large, well-established groups, so I hope that will help make this point. Is there anything else I can do to reinforce that? JustinGage (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did consider that, but as far as I can tell, that criterion seems to refer to other publications, for example, if the New York Times published an article about Executive Insight, and implied that it considered it to be authoritative, then it would be appropriate. I see that you have recreated the page, and since this is not a clear cut case, I will start an AfD. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you actually have a lot more than 500 deleted contributions. But tagging pages for deletion gets nowhere for AWB. To prove that you can handle AWB, edit pages to add content, or correct others mistakes. 400 of these sort of edits will prove your capability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benboy00, Thanks for letting me know about your nomination to delete the page I created for the poet Leon Weinmann, which you felt was too promotional. I had planned to add more and edit the page as I had time (I was trying to follow the same basic model for pages already created for other contemporary American poets I've studied in graduate school, like Gjertrud Schnackenberg), so I would be grateful for more specific feedback if/when you have a chance. Neutraltones (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Neutraltones[reply]

I'm working on it again, and I think it's an interesting subject, I believe he will make one's mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messininbacagi (talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. If you think he will make his mark and become notable, as per WP:NOTABLE, then that is great, and I hope he does become a success. However, Wikipedia is not supposed to be used as an advertising platform to help him become notable. If/When he is notable, it would be completely ok to have an article about him, but until then, the article is not suitable for wikipedia. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a new user on vikipedi so I don't know about 'How should be a vikipedi title' I'd like investigate Gin Riali from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messininbacagi (talk • contribs) 01:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as I explained before, he is not yet notable enough to have an article on wikipedia. Again, please actually read the link here: WP:NOTABLE. It explains quite well. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, I see you've been having a bit of a contretemps with user:Susan Macafee over the article on the Ribbon International -- specifically, about "comprising" vs "comprised of".

In this particular context, Ben, she's right. Please stop changing that sentence. Okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonflySixtyseven (talk • contribs) 02:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a bit confused as to why you didn't sign your comment. As for the "comprising" thing, she is in fact not correct,m and I am not really sure why you would ever think she is. Comprised of is not an accepted phrase, and is gramatically incorrect. If you can provide a reliable source which says otherwise, then I would be happy to stop changing it. My last edit was actually about more than just changing "comprising", as I had to revert her changing the links from magazines to disambig pages (again, not sure why she did that). Benboy00 (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having just read her post on requests for assistance, I'm a little bit offended. I'm not sure what she means by 100 edits, but I am not particularly bothered by my edit count. I posted when I got 1000 edits because it seemed appropriate, not because I crave edits. As for the issue at hand, she seems to be a bit confused. This is my first edit on that page, attempting to fix the incorrect comprised of. This is her edit incorrectly changing it back. This is my next edit, suggesting a better alternative to my first alternative. This is her next edit, not only changing it back but changing some valid links so that they point to disambig pages. I reverted this edit, which she just did again. Finally, I manually changed it back, and again fixed comprised of. The source she posted for her usage of the word is not a reliable source, in any sense of the word. Not only is it just some random blog post (http://grammarsource.com/2007/03/comprised-v-is-comprised-of/), it doesn't even say that comprised of is correct! It just rambles a bit about blowhards and then stops. If you actually read the comments, they do a better job of exploring the grammar than the actual post does (and they explain why comprised of is incorrect). Any thoughts? Benboy00 (talk) 11:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Macafee, do you have any input? Benboy00 (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't sign because it was late and my cats were distracting me; oops. The blog post in question goes into further detail than just rambling about blowhards, and refers specifically to a page on the site of the guy who wrote "Common Errors in English Usage". I've modified the sentence so that it no longer contains the word "comprise" in any form; this should help. As for the edit count and the magazine links, I don't really know. DS (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although I'm not so sure that will be the end of it... Benboy00 (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benboy00,

You recently tagged on of the articals I wrote to be deleted. I read your disclaimer at the top of your talk page and understand that you might not remember my specific case but I wanted to try asking about it anyways. The artical I wrote displayed an abstract written by Nathan Han. I belive You marked the page to be deleted because I put his abstract on it. He was sitting next to me at the time and he gave me his permission to use it. I also cited the abstract so I am curious as to why it was deleted.

Thank you for your time Pmaurais — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmaurais (talk • contribs) 08:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it is not enough that he gave you his permission to copy his abstract, he must release his work under a GPL compatible license, which is somewhat complicated, and again something he may not want to do. Again, please read this page: WP:COPYREQ. Benboy00 (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmaurais (talk • contribs) 13:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so incessant about making reverting edits? I though so said you weren't concerned with the amount of edits you make. You reverted back to the bot who added magazine to The Ribbon International page. First of all the sentence is a direct quote. Number 2 - Not all of the publications listed have had magazine added, the additions look out of place. Number 3 - Magazine was put there because of a bot concerning disambiguation pages.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia...of.../Disambiguation_pages Wikipedia Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are designed to help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term

Disambiguation (disambiguation) - Wikipedia, the free ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disambiguation_(disambiguation) Wikipedia Look up disambiguate, disambiguation, disambiguations, or disambiguator in Wiktionary, ... This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title

Number 4 - The publication titles are highlighted in the color blue, providing direct links and direct access to the Wikipedia pages concerning these publication's titles, showing the word magazine in bracketed parentheses. The sentence leading to the listing of the publications states "in national publications with large circulations, such as". Susan Macafee (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont particularly care about the amount of edits I make? Are you saying that I therefore shouldn't make any edits? Not sure exactly what your point is. The reason I reverted the edit is that you keep linking to disambig pages, which should not happen. The reason someone went to the trouble of creating a bot and getting it approved is because its quite a common problem, that is usually easily fixed. I don't really care if the actual text says "Time (magazine)" or "Time", as long as the actual link isnt to a disambig page (although maybe this isn't what youre talking about, and you actually want to link to a disambig page?). Simply put, this edit you made (ignoring the comprised of part because that argument is no longer relevant) is incorrect, and against wikipedia policy. Please do not make edits like that again. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benboy, I have rollbacked your CSD A1 to Kotapur. A1 is clearly not applied to stubs, and the article as it is is about a real place and can be identified. If you feel strongly that it should be removed you are welcome to take it to AfD, but I have a feeling it does meet the notability guidelines for places. Zeus ^{t | u | c} 15:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you picked up another edit for your brownie points; I thought you said you weren't trying to collect brownie points. I reverted your edit. The map of The Ribbon Route has been on the page since March 7th. A bot removed it due to the "no copyright" status. I spent a week getting the "no copyright" status approved and cleared through Commons. There are two descriptions of The Ribbon route on the page. For people that have not been to Washington D.C., the map provides a visual image of The Ribbon route, showing the location of the Pentagon, the National Mall, White House and the U.S. Capitol. Susan Macafee (talk) 04:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please stop implying bad faith. Repeated accusations could count as harrasment, and will be reported as per WP:PERSONAL. Do not do it again. I reverted the addition because I agree with user:TheRedPenOfDoom. His edit summary read: "Undid revision 610080212 by Susan Macafee (talk) not sure that has any relevance and the article is already overcluttered with images, call out quotes, gallerys - yipes". The revert by user:krd was erroneous because it was correcting a previous bot mistake that was no longer relevant. The image had been removed by a bot, and then readded by someone. It was then removed for an entirely different reason, and readded because the bot author thought that there had been a mistake (when there hadn't). I fixed this. If you disagree with user:TheRedPenOfDoom and I that is a different matter. On a related point, I think you might have a problem with regards to WP:OWN and WP:COI. You should read the guidelines on WP:COIADVICE. Benboy00 (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i second the history of events outlined and the impression of WP:OWN and WP:COI. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated numerous times that I am THE ONLY PERSON who is computer savvy and knows how to do this page. Everyone is in the 60s or 70s and does not know computers, including the html coding. Their knowledge about computers is email or a word document. I have been asked for the last four years to do this page, and it has become a nightmare from hell. I have been creating and editing pages on Wikipedia for 10 years and I can't believe the attitude of the people currently involved with Wikipedia. It's taken me months to track down people from 30 years ago to get information and images, and then encounter editors with no regard to the work that goes into a page. I have not had one positive comment concerning this page. Susan Macafee (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This post seems to confirm what I said about WP:OWN and WP:COI. You are not the only person who is computer savvy, you are the only person *from that organisation* that is computer savvy. This is the whole problem. Ideally, no-one involved with the project would edit the page. This is standard practice for most articles, especially corporate ones. Country articles are more problematic, as it's unrealistic to ban people from a country from editing a page. However, this editing does cause problems, due to nationalistic bias. I would say that it probably isnt reasonable to suggest that no-one from the ribbon edits the page, as it is probably quite low traffic. The issue starts when you try to turn the page into something it shouldnt be. I think possibly reading WP:NOT will help you. It is not for advertising, promotion, opinion, or anything of that ilk. While a lot of the material you have added is helpful and informative, a lot of it uses very emotional and flowery language. Wikipedia is not a book, it is an encyclopaedia, and you should try to adhere to WP:MOS. I find it difficult to believe that you have been editing for 10 years, especially since wikipedia has only been around for 13. If you have been around for so long, do you mind if i ask why you created a new account just for this article? Benboy00 (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been waiting for two people, one a college professor in Mexico to finish with the school year and the other, who I recently contacted, had to prepare for an oversee trip. Both of them were time involved in other projects, to currently add to the page. This is the 4th time I have mentioned about the age of the people involved with The Ribbon International, they are in their 60s and 70s. There have been additional people, besides myself who have contributed to the page and are listed in the History. Since a number of people couldn't figure out how even to read the edit page, add information and the coding, the additions and editing were sent to me to add. As for the photos that other people have added, I had to write detailed procedural steps for them to follow, in addition to being on the telephone with them at the time they were uploading photos. Does your grandmother edit on Wikipedia or know how to do html coding?. How is a intern who wasn't even born, like yourself in 1985, to add information and photos for 1985 to the page.

Do you ever go to church or participate in a church service? The two day event in Washington, D.C. was an emotional event for all the people who came from all over the world, and contributed panels for the event. Other pages on Wikipedia contain emotional descriptions concerning historical events March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom and Woodstock. Have you ever heard of these events or participated in them? I haven't put links on other Wikipedia pages, as was waiting for the additions, as former and current members of Congress that have panels, will be looking at the page, in addition to people from the United Nations. Yes, I have been creating and editing pages for ten years, the last page I created was in 2010 and have NEVER ENCOUNTERED SUCH AN ATTITUDE BY AN EDITOR in creating pages. I NEVER had any problems with being the only creator of a page, until this page. I used my name for the validity of the photos and logo. Susan Macafee (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that youre trying to expand the page, but you seem to be going about it in the wrong way. You have worked hard on the page, and that's great. What's not great is the way you have repeatedly inserted irrelevant information, flowery language, overemotional prose, and (apparently) generally tried to make it uncyclopaedic. I am fully aware that the people involved are most likely very old. I understand that it is difficult to gather information from non-internet primary sources. This does not give you a free pass to make the article into what you want it to be. If the edits you make clearly go against wiki policies, which several have, they will be reverted. If you want to have full editorial control, you are very welcome to make your own website. There are many options for website hosting, paid and free. There are dozens of companies that will help you, and maybe even some who will do it for free if they see it as charitable. If you want to stay with wikipedia, you must follow policy. I have linked several of the policies that you seem to have violated, but you dont even seem to have read them. For an experienced editor like yourself to not be aware of said policies is very surprising, which is why I question your experience. I still dont understand what you mean by "I used my name for the validity of the photos and logo." I would find it helpful if you could elaborate. Could you also give the other username(s) that you edit under? Also, why is my church record relevant? In regards to woodstock, please read WP:OSE, as I'm sure that will help. Benboy00 (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Benboy00, you set my article, BT-7 Thunderclap for deletion. I have fixed the problem, and would like it if you took it off the list for deletion. As this is my first article, may I get some advice for my later articles?

Hi, first of all welcome to wikipedia, and please remember to sign your post with 4 ~'s. The problem with your article is that it does not seem to belong on wikipedia. It is not notable (per WP:NOTABLE) outside of the star wars universe. This is why i say it may be suitable on a star wars wiki, indeed there are already several pages on this subject on star wars wikis (like this). For this reason, I am now going to start the Articles for Deletion process. If you have good reason to contest deletion, please make your case on the AfD discussion page. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I saw the comments about the article and decided to delete useless information and trademarks - I didn't realize that they were against Wikipedia's policy, so I went through it. I would like to make the article acceptable for Wikipedia and will stick to the rules. If any other remarks, please contact me: Valgetova (talk) 06:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the problem isnt really the symbols, its what them being there means. First of all, as I stated, I dont think there is anything that can be done to make this article acceptable for inclusion in wikipedia, because the subject is not WP:NOTABLE. The second problem is that the edits you have made make me think that you are a connected to the subject in some way, and have a WP:COI. Is this the case? Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Barbarash said he's will making new 4 film cube movie before is was his 3 movie Cube Zero (2004)" the poster cube 4 is not already yet..Ernie will shot this film from Canada in May 2015 and studio lion gate..

Please don't deteled this page again is done yet it need more time

Hi, Welcome to wikipedia. First of all, please sign your posts with 4 ~'s. I cannot find any sources for what you are saying. Please post any if you have them, or explain why you think he is making a new cube film. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... This is an article about a real Rock Band, without nonsense things or lies --Leofazio (talk) 00:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit] This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... And I believe that every kind of art is valuable and should be registred in the history of human kind, sorry for bothering you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leofazio (talk • contribs) 00:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please leave any contested deletion comments on the article talk page, and not here. Benboy00 (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See: Talk:Solar_Roadways#Request_for_comment_because_of_deletion_of_referenced_criticism_sections

Thoughts? Please comment on the article talk page. Thewhitebox (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey.. I'm gonna help you fixing this article. It is a bit advertisement like, but the guy is one of the most influential business man in Brazil and founder of the largest privately held advertisement company in Brazil, deletion makes no sense. I'm fixing it now and will remove the flag afterwords. Thanks for bringing this up.. it was probably someone who works with him that put up the page, i would guess. Pedlvasconcellos (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, I appreciate what you're saying, and feel free to edit the article, but please dont remove the deletion notice until the discussion is finished. Doing so is against WP policy, and while the bot will just revert you anyway, you may be accused of vandalism. You are also welcome to participate in the deletion discussion. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you nominated a page I created for the Pasadena Recovery Center. I have new content that I feel would fall under Wikipedia's guidelines and would like to try creating that page again. Where should I go first to get this process started? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incredibleshane (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Incredibleshane, The best place to start would be the WP:AFC, which can help you make a good article. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]