User talk:RickyBennison

Speedy deletion nomination of Grounding (earthing) culture


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Grounding (earthing) culture, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.
 * It covers a topic on which we already have an article - Nature therapy. (See section A10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Nature therapy, or to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

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 "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 deleted 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Praxidicae (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Grounding (earthing) culture for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Grounding (earthing) culture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Grounding (earthing) culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Since you don't seem to be interested in my notifications, I'll tell you once only: stop reverting and start discussing on the talk page. This article is subject to arbitration sanctions and requires reliable sources, specifically WP:MEDRS compliant sources. Praxidicae (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice
Praxidicae (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

NB: this has been readded by myself as it is pertinent to the topic ban appeal. RickyBennison (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanction
I'm banning you from editing any pseudoscience, alternative medicine or fringe science page for 12 months, in line with the Pseudoscience arbitration case discretionary sanctions. This is logged at Arbitration_enforcement_log/2020. Nick (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Nick, I do not think you have the authority to do that. You have not warned me and you are involved with editing the same article. Please feel free to enlighten me if I have misunderstood something. RickyBennison (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You were warned that discretionary sanctions are in place by (that's the warning you removed with the inappropriate edit summary I mentioned previously). This warning enables me to then take action such as topic banning you from the area(s) covered by the warning. You'll notice that my involvement relates solely to administrative actions, such as removing inappropriate references and adding a site to the spam blacklist, rather than any editorial engagement with the editorial area in question. Nick (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Nick, you would have to deliver the warning yourself. Another editor who is fervently involved with editing the article can not deliver the warning on your behalf. That would make him a semi-admin purely on the basis of enacting the warning i.e. by laying the technical foundation of the ban he is adopting an administrative capacity. It would also have to be a specific warning in regard to specific edits as opposed to a generic statement. In addition, you removed more than a single source but also a notable amount of text which involves you in the editing of the article. RickyBennison (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm really am sorry, but you're completely wrong. The discretionary sanctions warning can be left by any editor and the sanctions invoked by an uninvolved administrator, which, despite your protestations, is what I am with regards to your editing and the subject area you were topic banned from editing. You need to read carefully the warning message that was left on your talk page by Praxidicae and you need to very carefully read the Discretionary Sanctions page before commenting further. Nick (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Nick, in regard to the alert template, it 'is purely informational and neither implies nor expresses a finding of fault' and 'It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.' That, by definition, means it is not a warning about poor editing practices etc. I think you have misunderstood the situation quite badly. It simply means the range of administrators who have discretionary powers, in the given topic area, has been extended; it does not mean that correct administrative protocol is no longer required. You have also been involved in editing the content of the article. I find these things to amount to an obvious abuse of administrative privileges (how many people have you banned in this manner?!). I have also found this situation to be stressful and alienating. In addition, it puts the survival of the article in serious doubt. RickyBennison (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Nick, I am asking you to reconsider your original decision. RickyBennison (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to get into an argument about the process - you were informed you were editing in an area where discretionary sanctions have been imposed by the Arbitration Committee, the notice that Praxidicae left is all that is then required for any administrator to subsequently impose a discretionary sanction. If you do wish to appeal by explaining why such a sanction is unnecessary, rather than complaining that the process may well be unfair, I'm happy to listen. If you have more complaints about the process itself, then I would suggest you appeal the topic ban at the correct venue Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Nick (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Nick, in regard to the accusation of disruptive editing, I do not meet the criteria or even come close. I had taken into account other editors concerns and attempted to incorporate them into my edits, thus building a consensus. I had attempted to rectify the problems suggested by other editors, such as advertising, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:MEDRS. All of these things refute a charge of disruptive editing. In addition, even if my edits did amount to disruptive editing (which they did not), on the Disruptive editing Wikipedia page: 'Disruptive editing may result in warnings and then escalating blocks, typically starting with 24 hours.' The idea that this escalating scale can be bypassed entirely on the basis of an alert template, and year long bans imposed without a warning, is quite frankly preposterous. And no where on Wikipedia does it say that that is the case. In regard to the article, I found myself to be at loggerheads with editor Praxidicae. Whilst I found their editing unnecessarily harsh, they did suggest using the Talk page more and I acknowledge that I should have done this. In addition, I acknowledge finding out why editors have concerns in regard to WP:MEDRS, especially in regard to specific sources, is also worth pursuing on the Talk page. These are things I will improve on in the future.RickyBennison (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Gaslighting article
I opened a discussion on the talk page to discuss whether your "Weinstein" Pop culture entries are valid as posted, should be cleaned up, or dropped altogether. I'm not one to get into an edit war on a Pop culture entries (or anything); I'd rather find a solution. Normally I wouldn't bother to contest a Pop culture entry, its just that this specific term is misused all the time and I don't think Wikipedia should be part of that. Let's find a solution. Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zersetzung, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punk.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 27 October 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) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Deadlift
Sorry, but no. Those YouTube sources, those websites, they are not reliable or authoritative. Content like "This means that the percentage of 1RM lifted for the stronger phase can match more closely the percentage 1RM lifted of the weaker lower phase" is not something that can go without decent sourcing. Stuff about Romanian or American deadlifts--without proper secondary sourcing that material is not proven to be of encyclopedic value, and it made the very poor quality only worse. Finally, stuff like "It also reduces the potential for injury by avoiding excessive strain on the lower back", that's really a medical matter, and while I'm not sure ( may have thoughts on this) that this material in this article needs to meet WP:MEDRS, it certainly needs much better sourcing than this, which appears to be just a hobbyist's website, without editorial oversight or listed names and qualifications of the writers and editors.You were barred from editing in pseudoscientific areas (after a notification and some comments by in part because of poor sourcing--here is an opportunity for you to prove that you can do better than you did in 2020. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to agree with - I think for much of the content on the Deadlift article, you need to be thinking along similar lines to MEDRS - good secondary or tertiary sources rather than primary sources, no matter how good the primary sources are (though the primary sources you used weren't good). Nick (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I will improve the sourcing. Thank you for the advice. RickyBennison (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Plyometrics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hopping.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 3 May 2023 (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) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023
Hello, I'm Suntooooth. I noticed that you have been adding short descriptions to articles. However, the short descriptions you added are too long to be effective, such as at Ballistic training. The guideline is that short descriptions should ideally be under 40 characters long, and no longer than needed. For more information, see the short description guidelines. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 16:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Suntooooth, thank you for the heads up. I have written shorter descriptions. RickyBennison (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Ballistic training
Well done on your contribution to this article. It is looking like an accurate, informative, and proper Wikipedia article now. When we WP:CITE from expert WP:RELIABLE sources which other editors can WP:VERIFY, our edits are beyond dispute. Regards, 182.239.152.216 (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it's nice to be able to contribute. RickyBennison (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The know noting about mma
The top 15 should stay top 15.not top 10.

Rank 10 till rank 15 your prospects. 6till9 are where you see whom will become next title challenges.

And 1 and 5 are your title challengers. How dear you change and remove something so vital MMAGod777 (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)