User talk:Bennv123/Archive 2

Follow up
Thank you for informing me of my erroneous redirects. I will try to fix them soon. Galactikapedia 13:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for being willing to take the time to correct them. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Article deletion
Hi, I was wondering why you chose to delete my article? Jjristine 17:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I nominated your article for deletion because it doesn't indicate that the subject is significant or can meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Note that the notability guidelines for athletics can be found here: WP:NTRACK. Bennv3771 (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Justin Ristine is in the national track and field hall of fame, therefore making him notable Jjristine 17:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjristine (talk • contribs)
 * Hi. Can you provide a link to a reliable source supporting this claim? I cannot find anything on google about this person being in a hall of fame. Bennv3771 (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cNemrTMzZ9UC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=Justin+Ristine&source=bl&ots=NZhE9zAJ4B&sig=lVt03B0iRrFouT1IubN6KGm2QeA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiapZ-C8IbVAhWED8AKHZ3GD_A4FBDoAQgoMAI#v=onepage&q=Justin%20Ristine&f=false Jjristine 17:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjristine (talk • contribs)
 * I'm trying very hard to assume good faith here, but a book about Osama bin Laden has nothing to do with the notability of a junior varsity track and field runner. And I do not believe that a runner who recently placed 110th at a junior varsity high school track and field meet is in any National Hall of Fame. Let it go and stop wasting both our time. Bennv3771 (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I saw Justin Ristine running on that day, he held up a trophy saying 'I'm in the Track and Field hall of frame', you're wrong, I can provide photo images of this too (his induction into the track and field hall of frame)Jjristine 19:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjristine (talk • contribs)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
 * Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.
 * Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Page Curation/Suggested improvements
 * The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
 * User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
 * User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:
 * Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

List of best-selling girl groups
Ok, fyi someone is messing around with the top girls albums and I am trying to fix that since many instagrammers including myself have noticed those changes. But now we can't change it back since you're on our backs, saying to nit change it or we will get banned. If you actually new what was going on, then you would have left it the way I made it. So if you wanna ban me, just do it. Sone4Life (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. If someone has messed with the top albums, please point out the specific issue on Talk: List of best-selling girl groups.
 * Please don't get the wrong idea that you'll be banned for making any changes. You are free to edit the article and change whatever you like, as long as you provide reliable sources to support those changes, which you didn't. Note that you weren't editing the "top album" sections but rather the "top group" section, and that your random changes of the groups' names and sales records against what the cited sources say does constitute disruptive editing. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Article deletion
Why you delete a important page Mander James (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I nominated Swervy McLane and LML Audios for speedy deletion (and an admin deleted them, not me) because they did not indicate that the subject is significant/important or even near meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines. For a musician to have a standalone article on Wikipedia, they should meet WP:MUSICBIO or at least WP:BASIC, and for a record label, they should meet WP:NCORP. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Anoptimistix. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Pankaj Charan, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Anoptimistix (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. Pankaj Charan has already been marked for speedy deletion (and will most certainly be speedy deleted), as such it will not be indexed by Google. I have watchlisted the page and will thus restore the speedy deletion template if the creator removes it. Is there a reason you unreviewed it? Seems there is no point to leave it in the unreviewed queue on the New Pages Feed. When someone with the NPR user right tags a page for speedy deletion, it is automatically marked as reviewed anyway. Bennv3771 (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information Ben, I unreviewed it as I though it may be indexed by search engines before getting deleted. I will take care next time. Anoptimistix (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Article deletion
You deleted my article and said that person isnt notable enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilli pepper (talk • contribs) 15:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I am not an administrator so I cannot and did not delete your page. As for the deleted page, if you're referring to Kang Daniel, that was deleted and redirected based on consensus here: Articles for deletion/Kang Daniel. And yes I was one of the editors who voted for the page to be redirected based on the nomination rationale that Kang Daniel currently fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. That doesn't mean that he'll never have his own Wikipedia page, just not now. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC

So its just hilarious that 3 ppl voted for deleting 1 article while so many other ppl want to create the page. He got voted 1.5 milions votes and still not notable enough while the second one can has his article ? So unfair and 1 sided. Go ahead to block me but sorry I dont care
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy and thus such decisions are not based on the number of votes, but on the policy-based consensus. If more people had voted to keep the article but did not support their rationale based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (especially the notability guidelines), then the article would likely still have been deleted and redirected based on the policy-based votes. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with the notability guidelines, and if after that you still believe that Kang Daniel should have a standalone page, you can bring it up for discussion either at Talk:Kang Daniel or by starting a deletion review. Just please don't continue the disruptive editing as that will just get you blocked instead of getting the standalone article you want for Kang Daniel. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. However, I dont mind getting blocked , it doesnt matter to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilli pepper (talk • contribs) 16:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

List of best-selling girl groups
Hi Bennv3771, I see you have taken responsibility for patrolling changes to the above article – it was something I tried to do last year but eventually I gave up due to the massive problems the article has. It's just impossible to say what the best-selling singles or albums in each country are, as certifications are not a reliable indicator of sales. For example, the section for the "top ten" best-selling singles by girl groups in the US is just a random list of ten singles that have sold more than one million copies: you cannot say with any certainty that these are the ten best-sellers. For example, Motown records were notoriously poor at asking for records to be certified (certifications aren't automatically bestowed, they are requested and paid for by the record companies), so very few Supremes records were ever certified – there is absolutely no way of knowing whether one of their singles sold three million copies or more, and therefore should be at the top of this list. I had a list of all the 1 million+ sellers in the US: how was it decided which ten made the cut-down list?

I don't want to go back to patrolling the page as it was taking up too much of my Wikipedia time, but if you want to discuss any of the problems I'm happy to give my opinion. I did open an RfC last year (which has disappeared somewhere into the archives of the article's talk page) where I said I thought the whole article was meaningless and impossible to verify, and therefore should be deleted, but there was no consensus on what to do about it. Richard3120 (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Yes it is very difficult to patrol that page due to the nature of its topic. That's why I really only do the barest minimum of "quality control", which is to make sure any changes are supported by at least a somewhat reliable source (i.e. no blogs, fansites etc). As long as there is a somewhat reliable source, I don't bother debating changes because the potential edit-warring/drama from angry fans isn't worth it.
 * As for the list of 1 million+ sellers in the US, it was removed by an IP who gave this explanation. There was no discussion. I agree that girl groups from the 1950s and 1960s are under-represented on the list, but I'm not sure what else can be done other than more editors willing to take the time to find sources and record numbers for all these groups. I do think the article's topic is notable enough to survive an AfD because independent sources do publish lists of "best-selling girl groups" from time to time (eg. billboard, itv.com). Perhaps the way to go would be to narrow the scope or to separate the 1950s/60s groups from their modern counterparts, based on the massive difference in the record industry then and now. The article already separates the pre- and post- streaming groups in the country-specific lists, so perhaps another separate table for the 50s/60s group might make sense. Bennv3771 (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh and if you're not too disillusioned by boy bands yet, you might want to chime in on the mess that is the list of best-selling boy bands at Boy band. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's the problem with these kinds of articles: the Billboard list you mentioned in your reply is (a) within the US only, and (b) based on a points system, not sales. There was a reliable Billboard sales-based list (with figures provided by Nielsen Soundscan, so it doesn't get much more authoritative) in this article which was the one I used to use, but obviously other editors have their own ideas about what should be the top ten. The ITV list is fine... but now we have the issue that it completely contradicts the current Wikipedia list, and also gives different sales figures. So which one do we use for the top ten best-selling girl groups worldwide? No Andrews Sisters on the ITV list because they are not considered a "girl group" (another issue with the article, that there is no clear definition of what bands constitute a girl group)? Should we be listing a claimed sales range, considering for example that in one source the Spice Girls have sold 85 million and in another 110 million?
 * I don't understand that edit by the IP – it's true that all the singles in the top ten that (s)he added have sold 1 million+, but so have plenty of other singles in the US, and the previous list was all sourced from Billboard, the RIAA website and the British Hit Singles book, so I don't know where the idea that the sales were "falsified" came from... in fact most of the songs listed didn't have any sales figures attached because nobody knows the total sales, just that they've all sold enough to gain a RIAA certification for at least one million sales. Trying therefore to cut it down to a top ten is WP:SYNTH in my opinion. It doesn't help that the RIAA website doesn't know its own certifications – they were halved in 1989 (a fact they could easily verify by looking at the front cover of the Billboard issue of November 12, 1988, or any Hot 100 chart in Billboard magazine before 1989), so according to RIAA's website all singles certified before 1989 have sold half of what they actually have done in reality. Anyway, I won't take up any more of your talk page on these matters, they're for discussion on the article's talk page. Richard3120 (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding deletion
You imply that I have tried to promote a band via Wikipedia, which is not true. What I did in the article Nyköping was simply changing the name of the band, earlier, the name presented on the Nyköping page was incorrect, which might lead to confusion. I am not trying to promote a page. If simply creating a page is looked upon as advertising, how should one be able to ever create a page?
 * Hi, please remember to sign your comment. To answer your question, I was not referring to the edit you made to change the name of the band at Nyköping...I was referring to this edit you also made to add in the non-notable band, along with other non-notable individuals (all red-linked i.e. no articles on Wikipedia). The content you added was 1) non-notable and 2) unsourced, so yes it does seem like it was added merely to promote those individuals and the band. There was no indication of why those individuals or the band are significant to Nyköping. I'm sure Nyköping has many musicians/shops/people/things etc, we cannot and should not mention them all in an encyclopedia. So unless they have demonstrable and verifiable significance, such name-dropping is seen as promotional or WP:UNDUE. When adding content into existing articles, please follow the Wikipedia verifiability and neutrality policies. If you have a conflict of interest with the topic (e.g. you are closely associated with the band/individuals in real life), please also read and follow WP:COI.
 * As for creating articles, please ensure they meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. For bands, they should meet WP:NBANDS specifically. Otherwise, the articles can be speedy deleted or nominated for deletion. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Graybar Hotel
Hello! Your submission of The Graybar Hotel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! YE Pacific Hurricane  03:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for The Graybar Hotel
IronGargoyle (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding my speedy deletion in "Mesfin" page
Hi Bennv! Sorry for not explaining my edit - the reason for removing the content is because the name "Mesfin" can only be used, in Ethiopian culture, by those who have received the title or have it in their family. Hence, it is not a name "per se>" 204.155.226.109 (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)7/27/2017

A cheeseburger for you!
http://popfn.com/Thread-Beyonce%E2%80%99s-US-Worldwide-Album-Sales read the new sales stupid! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.173.18 (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and personal attacks. Bennv3771 (talk) 07:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
 * has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
 * Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

Need Your help about an issue
Zakir Shikhli --Zakir 11:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)   Zakir 11:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Help with vandal editor
Hello, I see you issued a warning to ISP user 108.218.57.36 for edits to the Lost Cause of the Confederacy. I have issued a similar warning for their editing to Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials. I do not know the procedure for blocking, I see that this ISP editor has reverted your revert on the Lost cause page. If you know how to deal with this I would appreciate it. Thanks. Dubyavee (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. If their edits constitute WP:vandalism then you can report them at WP:AIV. I've informed them of the 3 revert rule, so if they continue to edit war and violate WP:3RR (i.e. they've made more than 3 reverts in 24 hrs), then you can report them here. Bennv3771 (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Help with Kang Daniel page
I'm currently constructing Kang Daniel biography page and adding sources to back up the article. is it possible if you don't revert the page and advise me how to construct it into a good and accepted Wikipedia page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moon Gin (talk • contribs) 10:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. The policy-based decision was that Kang Daniel should be deleted and redirected to Wanna One based on this discussion from June 2017. It's unlikely that he's become notable for his own Wikipedia page in just 3 months since. However, if you think he does now meet the notability guidelines for an article of his own, I would recommend you create a draft (not an article) for Kang Daniel, and submit it through WikiProject Articles for creation for review. You can create a Wikipedia draft here. Bennv3771 (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks I'm making the draft now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moon Gin (talk • contribs) 10:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
 * Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!
 * The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: 
 * On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
 * Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

Best-selling girl groups part 2
Hi – I've made a table in my sandbox along the lines of what we were suggesting, and removed the citations to the InsiderMonkey and ITV sources, as they appear to be WP:CIRCULAR. I've set the cut-off point as minimum 20 million records – I'm certain the Pointer Sisters and the Bangles have also sold 20 million+ records, and probably Fifth Harmony as well, but I'd need to find sources for them. Any comments? Richard3120 (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking on this task. It looks good to me and the cutoff of 20 million is still manageable. Bennv3771 (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
 * We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.
 * Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.
 * The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

Excuse but umm I deleted it because I wanted to also some of what the article says is completely false and i understand u are part of Wikipedia but it is just meh and u be u and i be i thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesome christopher (talk • contribs) 23:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

second cited?
Yes I had read the source, but the article says "According to NCRB 2017 statistics," the source that you were referring, cites stats from 2015 and not 2017. Capitals00 (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. Apologies. I'll rephrase the sentence. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Turns out both sources cite the 2015 report as it is the latest, so I've corrected the year. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I completely dispute any accusation of me being engaged in an edit war. Please read the actual edits and talk page. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I did read both the "actual edits and talk page" beforehand. You were edit warring. Please read WP:BRD and WP:3RR. Bennv3771 (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey
Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:


 * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.


 * Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Apology
I'm actually here to apologize. I'm new here so I didn't realized that my context was not based on facts I'll keep that in mind for the next time. And thank you for giving me those tips. Sorry again! Mehral Naveed (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't apologize. It's a common mistake for new editors! Also, it's not that what you wrote wasn't based on facts, it's that you didn't cite sources to verify your claims (see WP:V). If you can find sources to support your claims, then go ahead and make those changes! Bennv3771 (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much @bennv3771 for giving me those tips and still encouraging me to better. I really appreciate that. I am new here so I don't know much but I'll try to be better for sure. Mehral Naveed (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Outreach and Invitations:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
 * Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!
 * If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: . Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive
 * A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
 * Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. —  TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) 
 * ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
 * The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

Antoine Griezmann
Hi, just to let you know, when you reverted an IP's edit on Antoine Griezmann your revert resulted in some vandalism being restored, which has now been removed. Thanks. Have a Merry Christmas --ChocolateRabbit 09:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I missed that sneaky vandalism. Perhaps you would like to inform Beauty School Dropout too since that was where the vandalism was originally missed. Bennv3771 (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Have a Merry Christmas --ChocolateRabbit</b></b> 11:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

One Direction page
I am not a fan of the group, I just happened to see a thread where many people asked about what countries they had visited...there were many requests for such a list to be compiled...and since Wikipedia is a great encyclopedia of information, I thought it would be good to add. Point taken, I will discuss on the talk page next time first. AspiringCheetah (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)AspiringCheetah
 * Such information should probably be compiled on a One Direction fansite (I'm sure they have many) than an encyclopedia though. You may want to consider compiling it for the One Direction Wikia instead. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks...still new at this, trying to help where I can. Not really a big enough fan of the band to stray further than trying to learn and help more on Wikipedia. AspiringCheetah (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)AspiringCheetah
 * Welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you enjoy contributing here. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

AIV
I blocked two ranges (175.136.224.0/24 and 175.136.225.0/24) for a month which should cover many of the IPs related to your report at AIV. If the problem continues from different IPs or returns after the blocks expire, please just let me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Noted. Thanks a lot! Bennv3771 (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * One more thing: is there a registered account and/or SPI for this individual?  -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no registered account that I know of. I haven't started an SPI since there's no account. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking around a bit, I found Sockpuppet investigations/Lowlihao which seems to be related. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

come on
who cares? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.239.195.9 (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

ok im sorry but i dont think u understand the meaning of alphabetical order.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.225.203 (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

the list of sex symbols 2010s ISNT in alphabetical order currrently do u not see that ?? or how are u seeing it?? u see it as A~Z for the names?or what — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.225.203 (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is alphabetic A~Z according to their last names as per the Wikipedia manual of style. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: Phillip K. Dick
Alright, fine. I'll doublecheck my edits to follow the rules. Thanks. 24.10.16.165 (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way, you're welcome. Just simple. 24.10.16.165 (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:


 * The total number of reviews completed for the month.
 * The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Reply
I apologize for that. I saw an IP removing a section containing Hillary Clinton with no edit summary, and knowing that US political stuff is a hot bed for vandalism, I reverted it. I should have looked more closely at the page itself. Sorry about that. Abce2 (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Family dictatorship
So you consider Cromwells to be dictators while Nassau-Orange princes were not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visoot (talk • contribs) 18:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've never claimed that so please don't reach. If you think another entry doesn't belong in that article, then by all means make your case and remove it. Either way, "dictatorship" is a strong claim and per Wikipedia's policy, it should be verified by reliable sources, not merely your opinion. Especially since some of these people are still alive. Bennv3771 (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I've now included a reference to William Aglionby's account of the Stadtholders as being dictators. So it's his opinion but mine. His opinion was published in a series of books written for the Royal Society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visoot (talk • contribs) 08:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. Remember to sign off your comments by using the four tildes "~" . Bennv3771 (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for dealing with the Power Rangers hater. That user is driving me nuts. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've requested a rangeblock on ANI, so hopefully this ends. Bennv3771 (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Geddert
Your information on Geddert is false, biased and deragatory. He is the most decorated coach in Michigan's gymnastics history and had nothing to do with the Larry Nassar abuse. He is quickly being targeted by many who have never gotten along with him because now is the time they can truly destroy the man that has worked his whole life for the sport of gymnastics.
 * It is not my information. I have no idea who John Geddert is and I have never written a word on that article except to revert vandalism/disruptive editing. If you want to remove sourced content, take it up on the article's talk page instead of edit warring. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, please read Wikipedia's policy on verifability: we go by what reliable sources say. So if the information is indeed false, please provide reliable sources to verify that claim. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

What constitutes 'Notable People'?
Benn,

What are you thinking? You recently removed an article I spent quite a time writing, about a friend of mine who died in BC. Your critique was that Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize friends.

Generally, I agree with that statement. However, on the town of Nakusp page it clearly lists two 'NOTABLE, people, one being only a sports person! Aside from providing entertainment for a segment of citizens, how on earth do you compare a hockey player that made no real contribution to the town and of course didn't play professionally in Nakusp? Peter who served the community for over 30 years! Peter was so well thought of, that when he died, people from both Nakusp and New Denver attended the ceremony along with the New Denver Mayor. Peter had worked as a firefighter in Nakusp, built trails (awarded The Peter Roulston Trail),and done guiding and search and rescue.

Those are qualities of a NOTABLE person. I will remove my personal sentiment as I was doing when my article was taken, but I'm suggesting that if you can leave a hockey player that didn't save any lives, then leave Peter Roulston in an article for a town that thinks very highly of him. I was just in B.C. following my late notice of his death and the residents are still speaking of their loss. I would include New Denver in this article.

Ian MacphersonOutdoorsIan (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said on your talk page, please read Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This has nothing to do with my (or your) personal opinions on who is/isn't notable. We are editing on Wikipedia so we are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Those other two people in the "notable" list have their own articles on Wikipedia, hence they have been deemed notable by Wikipedia's notability standards. Bennv3771 (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

All right then. I've read the guidelines. A hockey player isn't known around the world, I've never heard of BRAD LARSON, nor did I read he helped save lives or make the community safer. A sports person is ONLY noteworthy because of the corporate money spent and the television exposure. That doesn't make that person significant to everyone. Peter Roulston worked for over 40 years ( not a short sports career) to keep his two communities safe. He made a difference to a whole region, that was the world to its residents. I want a page for Peter Roulston, he deserves one. Please explain how we can develop this page.OutdoorsIan (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you don't think Brad Larsen meets the notability guidelines for Ice Hockey athletes, then go ahead and nominate it for deletion. If you think Peter Roulston meets the relevant notability guidelines, then you can submit a draft on him at Articles for creation and see if the reviewers accepts it. Bennv3771 (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You can use Article wizard to help you through the article creation process. Bennv3771 (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Who deserves a page on Wikipedia?
All right then. I've read the guidelines. A hockey player isn't known around the world, I've never heard of BRAD LARSON, nor did I read he helped save lives or make the community safer. A sports person is ONLY noteworthy because of the corporate money spent and the television exposure. That doesn't make that person significant to everyone. Peter Roulston worked for over 40 years ( not a short sports career) to keep his two communities safe. He made a difference to a whole region, that was the world to its residents. I want a page for Peter Roulston, he deserves one. Please explain how we can develop this page.OutdoorsIan (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)OutdoorsIan (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: New Year Backlog Drive results:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
 * We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!
 * We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
 * Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.