User talk:Benfxmth

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Vandalism-only accounts


A tag has been placed on Category:Vandalism-only accounts, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
You need to be very careful when reverting other peoples edits. On today's featured article, I find where you reverted an editor who had themselves correctly reverted two vandalism edits. The result of that was that the vandal's edits were reinstated. This is not the only instance: it happened, and in some other cases which you self-reverted. If you continue to do this sort of thing, you might be considered to be a vandal yourself. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You also reverted valid edits, and . -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Ice thickness
You reverted my correction of ice thickness in the amundsen scott south pole station article. I actually took the official values stated in the reference for this section to correct the obviously false value in the article. (see talk section) As you undid it, you must have a better source than the south pole station homepage, which I really doubt. If you know a better reference then please add it to the article and write a mail to the south pole station and point them to their error. Otherwise, revert your undo and make the article match it`s reference again. Take the official thickness from the most respectable source for this data, the station itself. You should check the facts behind an alteration before reverting other user`s work or simply don`t do undos if you are too lazy for checking. Blind undo`s without checking feels like vandalism too. Christoph194 (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa updates
Thank you for helping to keep the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa page up to date. but please don't do this, changing the names of the 'cites' etc., without also doing this, changing the refname of the original reference. This 'breaks' the reference, causes a big " WHO2015_05_07 ... " etc, in the references section and the source cannot be accessed.

I now see that you correctly did exactly that here. On a quick look it seems you forgot to alter the refname the last two updates, and no-one noticed the error message. Please be a little more careful and preview the page to check for such problems. Regards, 220  of  Borg 04:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Davis Lgb 46 AWS


The article Davis Lgb 46 AWS has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "This is not a whole-ass research station, it's a weather monitoring station. We don't have articles for each individual weather monitoring station unless they're extremely notable for some reason and I can't find any sources that indicate this one is especially notable or unique in some way."

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Extremes etc
Hello. Your editions in the article of Valencia are persistent. If there is separate article of climate (in this case exists - Climate of Valencia), in the main article about the city, we use only basic climate data. For detailed climate data like extremes etc, there is Climate of Valencia. Subtropical -man ( ✉  | en-2 ) 10:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Your edits in the page Cádiz
Hello. Your editions in the article of Cádiz are persistent. You're removing useful data and making claims about data that was deleted priorly yesterday as it was unsourced data, yet you didn't even stop to read it which shows your editions have a clear intent. I suggest you to stop before making an edit war as the next step is making an Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents incident involving your changes as you're on the edge to break Three-revert rule. --TechnicianGB (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not, and will not, have intentions or anything as you say, of any kind against your edits, but you, earlier on, added a claim that Cádiz had the second warmest winters in Europe, which I removed yesterday, and as well as a paragraph that snow has not fallen since the 19th century, which Average Portuguese Joe had removed, and the last snowfall there is actually in 1954. Therefore, if you are going to make a climate look warmer than it really is, at least put some effort to it, and watch your edits which use BS sources being reverted. --Benfxmth (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not accusing you to have something against me, by saying "clear intent" I was referring to deleting data, just as you have done yesterday. That's why I came here to solve this problem without making edit wars nor disputes.

Then, look, I didn't add such a claim, but someone else did in late 2018 as you can see I have deleted it yesterday trying to accomodate to your edits as another user has already said that was unsourced. And since it was unsourced, I have changed it yet you manually reverted my entire changes without even reading what I wrote and then you added again for example the SST thing which is properly sourced with a proper .org website showing that you simply reverted my changes without even looking at them.

Then you have reverted again my changes without even looking at what I wrote in both the edit and the summary, as I have deleted that phrase you're referring to, since it didn't had any source. But you didn't even read my edit summary.

There isn't anything such as "trying to make a climate look warmer than it really is" because it does have above 3,000 sunshine hours and you deleted that for no reason. Today you have deleted the phrase "it's one of the sunniest cities in Europe" (you didn't yesterday, but again you have just reverted my changes) with no reason, as very few European cities surpass 3,000 sunshine hours, and these are found only in the Algarve and Malta. It does have very mild winters for European standards as winter averages above 16/10 coming from the official station, that's basically the 2nd warmest in Europe including islands too, but since this is based on original research I won't say is the warmest (neither did I say "is the 2nd warmest" as I have deleted it) but it's undoubtely one of the warmest.

And about the snow thing, I didn't delete anything as it had snow after the 19th century too, but it's 1935 and not 1954 (that's the only thing I have changed, lol) just translate the source as it specifically says in 1954 it didn't snow in the city of Cádiz but it did in the province and nearby areas. The last time Cádiz had snowfall was in February 2, 1935 and that own source is showing a newspaper footnote and a photo. I left that source and data instead of changing it to the "19th century" that was before Joe's edit which I didn't remove... I just changed from 1954 to 1935 as the other user probably misunderstood the source as in Spain, most provinces have the same name as their cities, check Cádiz (province) Cádiz can go much further inland at higher altitudes, yet it's not the city itself.

I hope everything is properly explained now and I hope that we have solved such a dispute for a couple of phrases. It's not even worth to make a sand castle over a grain of sand. Regards. --TechnicianGB (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Plateau Station
Hello, I read the wiki article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plateau_Station) and noticed that it was you who added the climate table of the station before, but there is no source. I am curious about where you got these numbers and data. 七战功成 05:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)