User talk:ResignBen16

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary. Stillwaterising (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Sathya Sai Baba. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. NotedGrant  Talk  12:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of reputable sources that stated that Sathya Sai Baba is a major fraud. So the information is not unsourced, but adding a category based on this accusation is another thing. Andries (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What part of confidence trickster is he verifiably not: the confidence, or the trickster? The categorisation's apt, defensible and numerously relatable to evidence and references. And there isn't the alternative of Category:World's greatest confidence trickster, sorry.ResignBen16 (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was topic banned by the arbitration committee because of possible overly negative edits on Sathya Sai Baba and your edits are more negative than I ever made. So I think that you had better be careful if you want to keep editing that article. Andries (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What is it that characterises an edit as 'negative'? The quality desired is accuracy. As many references classify him in that category as do in each of the others. What's the drama. The alternative is to assert this is a person telling the -truth- about 'appearing' objects as a Sign of divinity. Why does it take someone in another country to put the reality of it as no more than a Sign of the size of what's able to reside in and depart from his own 'holy' anus?ResignBen16 (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that there is no middle way. But as per Wikpedia standards, he should only be categorized as a confidence trickster or added to a confidence trickster template if this is stated as such as an undisputed fact in the article. It never was like that and it will most probably never will be because this man has too many supporters on Wikipedia. Andries (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The only 'disputation' is words of denial and 'displays of anger', not demonstrations in a controlled environment of claimed extraordinary abilities. Categorisation as BOTH 'religious leader' and 'confidence trickster' must be there as they are two important aspects of his reception. To say he's the first and no way the second is the error of bias. Characterisation as the second would change if he came clean about the magic tricks, but I don't see that he has. It not just categorisation as magician or illusionist because he actually does pull in direct and indirect patronage as a result of the conjob displays (like we see in the video), am i wrong about that?ResignBen16 (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Your username
Would I be right in assuming that it is meant to be read as "Resign, Pope Benedict XVI"? I dont have a problem with a name like that myself, but given the subject material youre editing, some other people may, and it would be good to get the problem out of the way now rather than in the midst of an editorial conflict.  — Soap  —  17:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong guess. Ben's an ordinary name and 16's of course a lucky number/person's age/etc. Don't hint at problems that don't and won't exist. Knowing Ben as I do and you don't, he'd laugh it off completely.ResignBen16 (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is rather easy to infer that you are referring to Pope Benedict XVI with your username, as you have been editing several articles, such as Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Portland (Bankruptcy: mm that's right. Keep the assets for your preferred creditors, not the abuse sufferers lining up to bring you to Uncle Sam's justice.) diff, Roman Catholic Diocese of Peoria diff, Roman Catholicism in Australia {faaaar be it from Catholics to ever omit or coverup such inconvenient notoriety) diff, and many other pages, adding a template on articles relating to Catholic Sex Abuse. The Pope has been in the news recently for apparently condoning abuse. Your user name, coupled with your heavy involvement in articles about the Catholic church sexual abuse scandal is without a doubt going to raise issues when you inevitably get involved in some sort of editorial conflict that could find that you have some sort of Conflict of Interest. Thanks,  Ono pearls  (t/c) 01:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your concerns are allayed. I have no declaration of conflict to make per that policy. I'm not in the pay of that childperverting Church or of its opponents. So what if editorial conflicts occur; they're resolved by what the sources have to say. If you think an article about a Catholic diocese ought omit all reference about the existince of a Wikipedia article on the specific subject of that Diocese's own child abuse scandals then have at it, Hoss.ResignBen16 (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am in no way saying that I think articles about a Catholic diocese should omit that, I am just pointing out that your username and aggressive editing could be used as evidence of a potential CoI. Just a heads-up.  Ono pearls  (t/c) 02:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have opened this matter for broader discussion at Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. I am not commenting here or there on your edits themselves, but I find as a fact that your assertion that your contentious username is just a coincidence is not credible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC) This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, ResignBen16, does not meet our username policy.

'''Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).'''

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

Please choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. However, do not create a new account if you wish to credit your existing contributions to a new name through a username change. To request a username change:
 * Add  You should be able to edit this talk page even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
 * At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
 * Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a list of names that have already been taken. For more information, please see Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tim Song (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I prepared the following before the block occurred. I have noticed your edits and consequently recognized your name when I saw it on ANI. Please take my comments here as an honest attempt to help. Suppose you are correct and your name is nothing to do with your editing interests, and suppose that the people opposing you are entirely wrong. Yet, you need to agree to a name change because a significant number of your fellow Wikipedia editors think that your name may indicate a campaign, and this is a collaborative venture – since your username is not an attempt to campaign, you might be keen to allay the concerns that have been expressed. Strenuously sticking to your two-day old name rather confirms the concern. An alternative to a name change would be to stop editing. There are many topics where people are in bitter opposition in real life, and this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Consequently, to protect against disruption, many strong policies have been developed to ensure the departure of any editors who aggressively pursue an agenda. You may not be aware of WP:CIVIL (and its stronger WP:NPA cousin), but this comment is totally unacceptable here. Many new editors think that Wikipedia must be like other Internet forums where anything goes; that is totally incorrect as you will find. You must not accuse editors who disagree with you of personal failings – we comment on edits not on editors. Please note that you are certain to attract the attention of people who really do have an opposite POV, and it might be helpful to regard this username incident as preparation because when you are in a serious dispute you need to have a good understanding of Wikipedia's procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This editor seems to have created a block-evading sock, User:Ben16R esign, who should be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:SACC
Template:SACC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)