Bender176

User talk:161.165.196.84

I understand your frustration, but please try to remain civil and try not to insult the vandals. It can cause more harm than good; might want to step back and take a breather so you don't get too frustrated over it. Falcon8765 (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to remain civil, I haven't really violated it though. I guess you're right I'll try to calm down but if he reverts it again I'm going to report him (civilly) and just warn him for each time he does because it's disruptive. But I'll try not to get too frustrated. And the first two warnings which weren't civil were from me a few days ago just FYI. Thanks, --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 00:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Anon editors also have an opinion

Hey. What's up with this summary? While I agree that it may not have been correct, it wasn't vandalism. IPs have as much of an opinion as the rest of us do. There are some IPs that have as many, if not more edits than some of our admins. Please remember to assume good faith. If you continue with such behavior I won't hesitate to open another ANI thread as the blocking admin asked. Thank you. Pilif12p :  Yo  01:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to hound me as well? After you reported me last night, do you have something against me? Obviously you do because five or your edits consecutively were against me and by the way I did stop after you placed that last warning on my page but you went ahead and reported me anyway. If you have a problem with me let's talk about it. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 01:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to hound you, I just want to know why you think that IP editors don't have an opinion, and why you think that you have more authority than IP editors do. Pilif12p :  Yo  01:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

IP editors do have opinions but we're registered editors so we rank higher. Think about it, they semi-protect some articles so anons can't edit it and registered editors can plus ip editors on average are more disruptive. And yeah I think you hate me because you instantly reported me though I stopped after you did, I did remove it and call it a bad warning, but I stopped and you reported me anyway. You got a problem? Let's talk about it. (Civil Manner). --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 01:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Er, I still don't agree with that. It's kind of like saying that women have less of an opinion then a man does. I'm kindly asking that you try to be nice to editors, and, like the founding fathers said to treat all men and women equally. Thanks. Pilif12p :  Yo  01:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Women have made names for themselves and made it so they are equal to men, but anons don't make names for themselves (literally) so it's different. I am trying to be nice really I am but it's hard to when you all hound me due to a few simple mistakes. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 01:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Your comments are tantamount to a personal attack. As WP:NPA states, "Comment on the content, not on the contributor." By discounting an entire class of editors, you are engaging in prejudice and discrimination. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh please you've violated WP:NPA numerous times yourself as well as WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT you're being disruptive on my talk page to try to prove that I made a few mistakes. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 01:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The difference in rank, if any, is just a difference in editing power granted by wikipedia and built into the system itself. It takes only a few minutes to just register an account for free anyway, so us regular registered are barely any different from anonymous IPs. Note that some anonymous IPs are editing with their static IP addresses with years of editing history behind them (in contrast to dynamic IPs). And generally, a user's contribution history is the one thing that gives the editor a better standing with the community here, regardless of being an anonymous IP or registered user. Assuming any outright privilege just for being registered is being overly pressumptious.Zhanzhao (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well you think the way you'd like and I'll think the way I'd like. But I apologize and my thoughts still stand. I don't believe I'm being "overzealous" though. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 02:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You can think whatever you like. If what you think goes against a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, you can't act on what you're thinking. Like it or not, that's the way it is, and we're not going to change to accommodate you. – iridescent 02:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to "accommodate to me" in any way. And I already said my thoughts about IPs they rank below only in talk pages and semi-protected articles. And yes I'll "THin" the way I'd like, and you can keep your opinions to yourself. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 02:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Just reiterating what I said on the ANI page; Bender, you are welcome to and free to have your own opinions about anonymous IPs. Just don't act on them for that reason alone, or even if you do, follow wiki guidelines when doing so. Need we point out that wikipedia is a community based project, and that you are but one user trying to pit yourself against countless anonymous IPs out there? Zhanzhao (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Alert Placed

I started a thread about you here at the 'Wikiquette alerts' section. Please note that this comment here on your talk page is a courtesy that Wikipedia editors frequently give to each other whenever someone is the topic of a talk page somewhere else. You can delete this comment if you wish, but it is only meant as a courtesy and please do not see it as a hostile act, when it is not. 129.120.176.206 (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Bender176. Thank you. – iridescent 01:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You may want to study the guidelines and such a little more, and not rely on Twinkle so much

OK, looking through, I saw this. Bender, that's not vandalism (he's trying to help), that's unsourced commentary. I recommend looking at Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace some more. It's honestly a bit rude to lump all edit that aren't perfect together as vandalism. You should have gone with {{subst:uw-unsourced1|Superman Returns|subst=subst:}} ~~~~, (same for this), which would have left a message asking him to use sources in the future. You need to cool it with the vandalism warnings until you don't get so pissy about them and until you understand what actually does constitute vandalism. Behavior like you've had towards 129.120.176.206 was why you got blocked before. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I know I said I'd be more careful. And if you insist I'll look at them again just to be sure. They got mad due to one simple mistake which I apologized for. Anyway thanks for saying it in a nice civil manner. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 02:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It was more than one mistake you made with Twinkle today. I've given you a temporary holiday from using Twinkle -- your edits over the past day indicate a need to think through how you're tagging reverts in greater detail. After you practice not marking good-faith edits as vandalism for a while, you can request that you be allowed to use it again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok then, I guess I'll have to redeem myself. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 14:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

What did we tell you?

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:70.134.229.58. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. That user was editing in the sandbox, which meant for test edits. Even if he was a vandal, you do not address as "queer," you do not insult vandals, they either don't know any better or you're only playing into their hand. I really recommend looking at Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace, which has template warnings for various situations. When you do warn a vandal, it makes things easier if you include what article they vandalized in the warning. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not "redeeming yourself". It's exactly what you were warned not to do. I've blocked you for 72 hours. I'm starting to feel that you're simply trolling. Kuru (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't even vandalism. I suggest you move away from reverting IP editors for awhile, and focus on small changes to articles instead, as you need to fully understand what vandalism is, and what it is not before you continue any further. Adding a link to orange peels for instance, into a page meant for testing, is not vandalism.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Compromised account

I'm going to pretend this is a compromised account at this point due to your response. I've removed your ability to edit this page as well. Further unblock requests will need to be handled through e-mail. Kuru (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Vivitar V3800n

Hello Bender176. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Vivitar V3800n, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article about a camera doesn't fall under any of the A7 criteria (person, animal, organization, or web content). Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)