Benniejets

April 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Marche has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Marche was changed by Benniejets (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.869284 on 2017-04-18T18:45:39+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Josh

It's Estimates from 2017 IMF(18 April 2017 - 2017/01 database) --> List by the International Monetary Fund (Estimates for 2017). So no problem.Bunny2090 (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The first table includes estimation for the year 2017, for all current 187 International Monetary Fund (IMF) members, as well as Hong Kong and Taiwan (the official list uses "Taiwan, Province of China"). Data are in millions of international dollars and were calculated by the IMF. Figures were published in April 2015. The second table includes data mostly for the year 2015 for 180 of the 193 current United Nations member states, as well as the two Chinese Special Administrative Regions (Hong Kong and Macau). Data are in billions of international dollars and were compiled by the World Bank. The third table is a tabulation of the CIA World Factbook Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Purchasing Power Parity) data update of 2016. The data for GDP at purchasing power parity have also been rebased using the new International Comparison Program price surveys and extrapolated to 2007. Bunny2090 (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

All world countries are not on 2017 estimates but on 2016 real data.that brazilian guy uses 2017 for better forecast of hid country.somebody already stopped and warned him.Also Brazil mudt br reverted.Benniejets (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Germany

In this edit you used the edit summary "Stopping vandalisn from Brazil". This appears to be reverting changes that update GDP figures from 2015 to the current 2017 estimates and are supported by references. So it does not appear to be vandalism. Could you explain? --Boson (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC) edited --Boson (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC) PS: The references still seem to point to the 2017 figures. --Boson (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This brazilian guy uses 2017 data that are forecast and not final data 2016 like for all countries.somebody alteady warned him.also brazil must be reverted. Benniejets (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

He uses them becaude 2017 forecast sare better fot brazil.the matyrr is thst since this year are accepted only 2016 FINAL DATA FOR NOMINal GDPS.see article list of countries by nominal gdp Forecast change too much in the year Benniejets (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This looks more like a content dispute than vandalism. Can you point me to a discussion about which years should be used in country articles? At first glance it looks as if the current references point only to 2017 data (staff estimates). It looks as if the restored data is supported neither by the by the cited source nor by the previous source. The figures for 2016 and 2017 are both given as staff estimates. If 2015 data are not used, the heading needs to be changed. I would suggest using this as a source for the four items. --Boson (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Least of the Great Powers

Hello, thank you for your contributions! I'm not a native english speaker but I have made some grammar corrections and minor adjustments to your changes...so we can keep what you added in the context of the section you edited. Please don't revert it, cause some sentences didn't make sense...either because a subject (or an article) was missing or because they were isolated in the middle of a different context. Also, puntuaction is important. You have to keep a space between a dot and a new sentence, and remember to add sources (or to link to other articles that provide the sources). Thanks again. Sorry if we had this "mini-EditWar" Barjimoa (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again

Thank you for the information on garibaldi! Barjimoa (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Wages

People are vandalizing the article of average wages in Europe.Can you help me?79.56.134.34 (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Please help me again against that vandal.79.56.134.34 (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok.Benniejets (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Italian

Hm, I like the fact that you speak so many launaguges, especially Italian, mind if I add some Babel to your userpage or point you in the direction where you can Find them? Dinah In Wonderland 16:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Un panda per voi!

🐼Guardate che faccia! Il vostro argomento non è valido.

Ho fatto questo circa 2 mesi fa, spero vi piaccia. Questo è per la Barnstar è ricompensato di me. Dinah In Wonderland 13:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits

In case you didn't know, spaces are normally used with punctuation marks.

Instead of this:

• I like bunnies(rabbits).They are not only cute,but friendly too.

Try this:

• I like bunnies (rabbits). They are not only cute, but friendly too.

Thank you, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Verifiable

Documents on your hard drive are never RS, they need to be verifiable.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Read.Now you've 1 tonne of reliable references about italian nuclear program.I've more.Neither other in that article have so many.Avoid to be anti italian.Italy has had a nuclear program.Nobody wrote it has nuclear weapons.Every one can think as he likes.Benniejets (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Then remove the contested parts and the dubious sources (such as those stored on your hard drive).Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the 2 parts without references as you suggested.Benniejets (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Here to solve this(I was taking a break T^T) why don't I highlight the things that need sources that you put out bello? Dinah In Wonderland 18:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I deleted parts without at least a clear reliable reference as asked.Benniejets (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

"Today is common belief that Italy stores its own nuclear weapons in La Spezia Italian Navy arsenal."

"A great exchange of issile product was exhanged with french nuclear plant of Tricastin. CAMEN had a research nuclear reactor and in the production of nuclear weapons were involved also the nuclear plants of Trino Vercellese and Latina(one of the largest in Europe)."

That's all I found. Dinah In Wonderland 18:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

In fact i deleted it.You are right)Benniejets (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

👍 okay now I'm back on my break. Dinah In Wonderland 18:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

So this (yes this is the cite)" file:///C:/Documents20%and20%Settings/xp/Documenti/Downloads/estratto-libro-italia-usa-getta.pdf" passes RS?Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

This reference is useless.The others are sufficient even without it.They tell same things.Benniejets (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Guidance

Remember me? You just gave me a barnstar. Thanks for that! I'm here to help in return, with good advice:

I understand that you feel very frustrated. I can see that by how many times you reverted.

The best advice I can give is about WP:BRD. It is really helpful. When you get back to editing, please, please, don't revert like that. Be patient with articles. Use the talk pages a lot. Get agreement. I know how people feel when the article isn't the way they like. The key is patience and knowing that the article will eventually finds its way. I'm here if you need me. My aim is to help you never be blocked again. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Anna Frodesiak, I add that user Benniejets need to be more patient and work with good faith without Personal attacks, be patient and talk on talk page for consensus, always!.--Ivankazz (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

User: Anna Frodesiak and User:Ivankazz you have to know that like User:Antiochus the Great,User:BilCat and others that helped them are all a band that acts in bed feith.User:Acroterion immediately helped them without reading reliable sources i posted.This a carnival and people in the world already know it.They are widely anti italian and Antiochus hates me a lot because he knows my knoledge is much better than his ones .He cares a lot of me and i'm sure he constantly studied and will study (even by his band) my edits in my history profile.They used the knife in my shoulders in every way.I hope to do not meet them in REAL life Virtual life is just for brainless people).They can be one or more than one editing,i don't care.Benniejets (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I have noted that you don't have talked on Talk Pages... Why you dont try to look for " agreements" in an " Intelligent" way? two weeks go fast! then we can all work together in good faith ok?, Lets try it?--Ivankazz (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Ivankazz can you revert Italy from green water article,It can't be at the same time a blu water navy and a green water navy.It is officially classified blu water navy but Antiochus ,this evil person (or people) ,reverted.Can you do it?Please?Benniejets (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Ivankazz are you fearful of such people?)Freedom before.Benniejets (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Talkpage access revoked due to continued proxying requests after explicit warning. Acroterion (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

already by sources Italy is called " Blue water Navy" in the main page Italy appears in the same place of India, Russia, Spain and Brazil ( Blue- water navy ) I have added this morning " more" sources that Identify Italian Ships as Blue -water Navy. But you Know something.... I will not help you this time, in "green- water navy" is your favorite , you can make it after the two weeks. ponder what I told you.--Ivankazz (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Benniejets. Nobody hates you, and nobody here is anti-Italian. You should listen to the advice of your friend Ivankazz. Try deal with content disputes more calmly and more "intelligent", rather that edit warring, being disruptive and accusing people of things they are not. It is also not a great decision to abuse multiple accounts in the way you did. Your block is only two weeks, so just cool off, and when you return I know you can be a useful contributor to this project. Kind regards. Antiochus the Great (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Benniejets (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #18926 was submitted on Aug 06, 2017 22:07:46. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Benniejets (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #18928 was submitted on Aug 06, 2017 22:36:21. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Block extended

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months for using an IP for block evasion the day after your block was extended for block evasion!. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Just Chilling (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

It appears the Bennie is continuing to use IPs to edit war, including Special:Contributions/80.182.181.119, Special:Contributions/91.252.183.31, and Special:Contributions/91.253.150.30. Do we need to run an SPI or Checkuser? - BilCat (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

There is an casepage at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benniejets. - BilCat (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benniejets, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benniejets, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benniejets, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Adamgerber80 (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)