User talk:Bender235/2008 archive

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bender235. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Terrelle Pryor, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Despite your edits to the June Jones article, he is still the current head coach at the University of Hawaii. Perhaps the discussion page on the article could be used until an official announcement has been made. —C A Morris (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your question, the 1976 article is mainly about the progress of the 1976 season in Division I, though there's also a section about the results of the Division II and III playoffs and the NAIA playoffs, with room for anyone to add on. Thus, it really is about that particular year in college football. Starting with 1978, there are articles about Division I-A and Division I-AA seasons, and it's conceivable (but not likely) that someone will do a spinoff article about the Division II season of 31 years ago. Until then, "19__ college football season" is a good way to incorporate all the information. Mandsford (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Terrelle Pryor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DJBullfish (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from reverting changes concerning U.S. College Football coaches until you have fully researched the changes. Bob Stoops has become known as Blown OUt Bob amongst students of rival schools, specifically the University of Texas and Oklahoma State University. This has been verified by multiple media sources. Unfavorable press is legitimate as an entry in this style of article. It is very similar to the section on Mack Brown being known as "Coach February" Thank you for your diligence however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgwilliams (talk • contribs)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk • contribs)

Very funny. --Bender235 (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop it, you two. Keep discussion to the talk page and remain civil or you'll both end up blocked. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I will fix that.--Kumioko (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Whitney Lewis, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I notice you are a vastly experienced editor here at Wikipedia, and I was wondering if you could take a quick look at User:Refsworldlee/Oliver Golding, and let me know whether it would pass being introduced into mainspace, on grounds of notability (the subject may have given up acting, at least for now, and does not yet play tennis to the very highest standard, being a minor) or any other criteria you think may fit. This would be appreciated. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I pretty sure this article is ready to being introduced into mainspace. ––Bender235 (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Bender, I was thinking today about creating Darrell Scott but I see that you beat me to it. It is a very nice article. I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, especially those that touch on UT football, of course! I want to thank you for your hard work by presenting you with this barnstar:

		The College football Barnstar
		Thank you, Bender 235, for your hard work on college-football related articles, such as Darrell Scott. Johntex\talk 04:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that you made a small improvement to 2005 Texas Longhorn football team recently. I thank you for that also. Even though it is one of our Featured Articles it is nice to see that some improvements are still being made. Since you have great language skills in German, I wonder if you would be interested in translating onto the German Wikipedia? I think it would be great to have an article there. Naturally, it would not necessarily need to be as detailed, but if we could get the article to be FA quality on two different Wikipedias that would be amazing. Johntex\^talk 04:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about that, too, but besides it's a whole lot of work, it's also difficult to do. A couple of words and phrases can't be translated into German, such as "he rushed for 4,000 yards" because there is no word for "rush" in German. It's the same "he recovered a fumble" and a couple of others. I already tried to translate the Vince Young article into German, but I gave up. ––Bender235 (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the German Vince Young. I don't read any German but I think it is good to have even a basic article like that. Short articles are valuable too! Thanks again for your work. Johntex\^talk 19:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

While your edits for UK based rugby players are obviously well-intentioned the weight should be in stones and pounds first rather than kilograms.Londo06 14:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? The official websites of their clubs also have kilograms first, see [1] for example. ––Bender235 (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The convention is that for the country the most commonly used term would be used. ie if a Queensland Reds player was detailed on their website in m, he would still be detailed in cm as that's what it would be on the Wallabies page. The same goes if a Scot moves to a French side, it would be the country that is key.Londo06 14:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I didn't know that. I'll keep that in mind. --Bender235 (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The February 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Never having worked with vector graphics (SVG), my new uploaded images do to seem to work. You asked me to change [Image:Singlewingformation vs5.gif‎] to another format. Apparently, none of my graphics programs will open .svg. —Preceding [Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned] comment added by Bill Spencer5 (talk Bill Spencer talk) 13:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)• contribs) 13:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I didn't ask you in particular. The {{SVG}} template just labels graphics in general, that could be replaced with SVG versions. --Bender235 (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. I will try to find appropriate imaging software. Bill Spencer (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that you rated Walkersville High School as low importance and categorized it as an article with no info box. Does the info box that it contains not qualify as an info box or were you mistaken? And out of curiosity, what makes a high school low importance according to some editors and medium to others? I used the same style and template with every high school page that I have created, yet they are never consistantly rated. Just curious. I would appreciate your feedback. Wallstreethotrod (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was in kind of a hurry when I added the Template:WPSchools and thus forgot to add the infobox=no parameter. The infobox the article currently has is alright.

The importance rating is subjective. I don't really know where to separate between medium- and low-importance schools. In my mind the rating depends on how "well-known" a school is. Schools like Mater Dei (CA), Oak Hill (VA), Cardinal Mooney (OH), Highland Park (TX) are qualified for "mid" or even "high" importance because of their well-known athletic programs, for example. I wasn't really sure whether Walkersville has any well-known program, so I gave it a "low" importance rating. But you are free to change it. --Bender235 (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The March 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

When will this kid commit already, so we can have an end to this stupid vandalism? Grsz 11 14:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He should've committed on Signing Day. --Bender235 (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"I hate attention." What a joke! Grsz 11 16:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha, what a fool...started a fight after a game; could be suspended; i really hope so. [2]

Thank you for uploading Image:Melaniebernier.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the copyright holder of that image, so I don't know exactly what to do. --Bender235 (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Bender235! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be. Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany | watch Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board | watch

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the recent edit you made to Amobi Okoye, but could not find anything in the NY Times article you referenced denying that he had been offered a Harvard scholarship. The original reference (9th paragraph) is at odds with your edit summary. Have I missed something? Please clarify when you get a chance. Thanks! —Travis^talk 01:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually doubt that Houston Chronicle article, because there is no other newspaper verifying Okoye's Harvard offer. Not a single one. At least I couldn't find one. I only found Okoye's statements that his father wanted him to go to Harvard and that he was admitted. But no one mentions an academic scholarship besides the Houston Chronicle. --Bender235 (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Compromise, see the article. --Bender235 (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you really can’t find anything else to back up the Chronicle story, feel free to change the article back to your earlier wording. (It certainly wouldn’t be the first time the Chronicle got something wrong.) I also haven’t seen any other reference to a scholarship from Harvard. —Travis^talk 13:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And, of course, all of the Alabama newspapers want me to pay $2.95 per article :/ —Travis^talk 14:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask why you did this without an edit summary and reason? I'm a rather involved editor in this project, and I usually consider it rude for a real editor like yourself (as opposed to a troll) to not at least inform an experienced editor like myself why my edit was summarily reverted? Doesn't happen to me except usually by nutjobs, and you don't appear to be one!!!! Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I was involved in that article, too. I actually made that example list. If you look at that list, you might recognize that there are always links to the volcanoes despite there are specific articles on the eruptions. That's why I reverted it. --Bender235 (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The rules at Wikipedia:Did you know#The hook specify: "* Entries should start with an ellipsis of three full stops (not the ellipsis character …), and end with a question mark." So if you want to replace the dot dot dot with an ellipsis character at the Template talk:Did you know#Suggestions instructions, then you should remove the rule to allow either form of an ellipsis. If not, we could agree to revert your edit.

As it is, I edit ellipsis characters in hooks to change them to dot dot dot, to conform to the rule. If the suggested example tells newbies to do it "wrong", that is, wrong from the rule's point of view, then that "error" may occur more often. I don't know of a good reason for the rule, as either form of the ellipsis looks the same to me, except on the edit page. But maybe it looks different on someone else's system, so I have been making them consistently dot dot dot, even before someone else added the dot dot dot rule.

I hope you didn't intend for everyone to have to use the ellipsis character for all hooks. Newbies can add three dots by imitating existing hooks, but an ellipsis character requires them to see &#x2026 in edit mode, and grasp what it means. One of us would have a full-time job changing dot dot dots to an ellipsis character. Art LaPella (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm changing it back. Art LaPella (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. --Bender235 (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the Saskatchewan WikiProject! The Saskatchewan WikiProject is a fairly new WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories, and Wikiprojects, to do with anything Saskatchewan.

As you have shown an interest in Don Ettinger - Steve Clarkson we thought you might like to take an interest in this growing WikiProject.

Please assist with any ongoing requests

You might like to take an extra interest in our To Do list

Another project dedicated to Saskatchewan is the Saskatchewan Roads and Highways Wikiproject

Also, a descendant project for Saskatchewan is the WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods

We look forward to welcoming you to the project! SriMesh | talk 22:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The April 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Si cover 1963 10 21.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I thought it was okay to upload magazine covers for encyclopedic purposes. --Bender235 (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you edited the main page of the annual lists of Wealthy historical figures and placed two members from the Fugger family. I appreciate your contribution to the list, however, the list remains as it is until the next one(which is set to come out on March 2009). For that reason, I have to remove the members from the list. However, you can send in more infomation as to who these people are and where their wealth came from the citie the sources and then they could be put on the next 2009 list. Thanks. Jughead.z(1) (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Bender. I saw your edits to Geology of Mars, but I was puzzled what they were intended to achieve. Collapsing templates like that just makes the source harder to maintain and it wastes your time. I've left your changes in place, but please reconsider whether you really want them. Also, as I'm regularly reminded, edit summaries are your friend. Cheers,LeadSongDog (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually I didn't intent to collapse the template data. I just wanted to update it. So I copied the template from its documentary page, where it happens to be collapsed. --Bender235 (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The May 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in LeBron James. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Zodiiak (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in LeBron James, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Thank you. Zodiiak (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ladies, gentlemen, and other Wikipedians of good cheer: Might I suggest some informal mediation or a third opinion here? -- JeffBillman (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tiptoety ^talk 17:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the one who reverted three times. That was User:Zodiiak. --Bender235 (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that the three revert rule clearly states that editors may make three reverts and can only be blocked on their fourth revert. I am simply leaving you a message to infrom you that edit warring can lead to a block of both parties involved. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 17:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, thats a mis-statement of the rules. You almost undoubtedly *will* be blocked for 4R in 24h. But there is no entitlement to 3R; you can be blocked for edit warring for less. Meantime, please also note the convention of marking your reverts with "rv" or somesuch; not doing so can look underhand William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bender! I've noticed you were listed in a mediation cabal case for LeBron James. I've adopted the case and come up with a few questions that I'd like to hear your answers to. If you could reply to them whenever you can, I'd very much appreciate it! Thank you! Kntrabssi (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bender! Firstly, I apologize for being gone for so long. I didn't receive a notification on my talk page that you guys had responded so I sort of drifted off I guess! Anyway, I've offered a compromise at the page. Take a look! Kntrabssi (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Try actually reading the edit before undo-ing it. This list is supposed to be someone alphabetical. (That means its in the order of the alphabet) Josh Shipp does not come after Russell Westbrook. At least not in our alphabet. I'm moving Josh Shipp back to his rightful place in the alphabetized order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.4.159.21 (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done a lot of work lately on the Prairie View A&M coaches, and then noticed that you have a Template:PVAMUPanthersCoach already in place. Sorry I missed it! I re-directed Billy Nicks to a page that several of us already developed, but I'd like to delete the template you made because there's another that's more complete. Sorry I didn't realize you had work in progress, I would have built on that.

WOuld you mind going to that template and proposing it for speedy delete? Also, please check over our work and see if anything we missed needs merged/corrected/etc.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, since my template is obsolete, go ahead and propose a speedy delete. I am fine with that. --Bender235 (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The June 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete URLs when you add DOIs. The redundancy is useful in this case. You will note that both fields exist in the template. One does not make the other pointless. Please do not force others to access information in a way that you dictate. Choice is good. Cheers. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

See Template talk:Cite journal#DOI and URL? —Bender235 (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Where someone said "It's intuitively clear what clicking on a hypertext title means. Most readers will not know what a DOI is (I work for a high tech company, and this is my experience anyway. Random readers are probably even less likely to know.) Furthermore, the doi "looks" random, and users are taught to be wary about clicking on random looking links (these are often phishing or spam tracking links)." I agree with that. Please do not delete URLs. I'm not asking you to go out of your way and add them. I'm not asking you to not add DOIs. Just please please do not delete URLs just because you are adding a DOI. Thank you. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I saw you moved several hurricane articles, for example, 1945 Southeast Florida hurricane, to a name with a capital "H". Per the Manual of Style, this is not correct. If you feel an article should be named differently, you might want to leave a note on WT:WPTC. Cheers! Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, in regards with your reference to the article i want to tell you that i didn't actually mean to readd the nonsense. I thought the last edit was the one that vandalized the page. Really sorry. Sergiogr (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not nonsense at all; it's our most fundamental policy, non-negotiable and not fulfilled by implication that the source is is the case itself. If you confirm that you used the case itself for the information, I'll do it for you, though you'll still need a reference for the statement that the case is a "landmark".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually read the Law journal article by Blakey? ––Bender235 (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No and reading it is irrelevant. If it says the case is a landmark case then cite it as a source. A further reading section serves to point people to...further reading. It does not act as a reference for the material because you are not citing it as a reference. If you tell me that it says it is a landmark case (not necessarily in those words), I'll reference that for you as well. Let me make this explicit. Tell me what information in this article comes from what sources, and I'll do the heavy lifting.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please add references to Allen Wilson (American football). It's especially important that living people's articles be properly referenced. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. —Bender235 (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your edit summary [3]:

you might prefer to read Wikipedia:Image use policy before making that type of stupid revert again

You may possible prefer to read this long discussion on talk[4], and read WP:CIVIL before doing a change that now has been reverted 4 times (for you alone) [5][6][7][8]. (Note that the very first revert - pointed the discussion out for you).
May i suggest that you either convert the existing PNG to SVG, create a better SVG, ask the original contributer to make one, leave the PNG alone or try to get consensus for the change on Talk? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

PNG

SVG

Huh? Why should I suggest to convert the exisiting PNG to SVG? It's already been done. Compare those to graphics. I can't see any difference, besides the colors. So what is wrong with that SVG version? ––Bender235 (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bill Blankenship, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Blankenship. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Thanks for cleaning up the references. Crowsnest (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

To give the cost of an event in present year dollars, you need to inflate the cost of the event at the time. If a storm caused $100 million in 1950, that is about $900 million in 2008 USD - irrespective of what happened to the area afterwards.

Consider the following two extreme events:

1. A storm, such as the Indianola Hurricane of 1886 completely destroys a city which is then not rebuilt.
2. An earthquake identical to the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, except that it occured 500,000 years ago.

The first will have an enormous cost, but a 2005 wealth normalization would give an insignificant value - as the population is non-existent. The second is even more extreme: As its before humanity was there, the cost is obviously 0. However, by definition (the calculation Pielke used would break down), a wealth normalization would give an identical figure to that of the 1906 earthquake - about $120 billion (2006).

Which of my hypothetical events has a higher cost, the storm that permanently destroyed a city, or the earthquake that hit an uninabited area? If you looked at wealth normalized figures the earthquake would be vastly more damaging, which is absurd. This is because wealth normalization attempts to say what the event would do IF it happened today, it is not the value of the damage caused in present year prices. That is what an inflation adjustment is for. Wealth normalization is a useful figure to know, but it is NOT the cost of an event.--CycloneAlley (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You are making absurd comparisons. The whole wealth normalization thing is just a better way to compare the damage of early 20th century and present day storms. Even the WMO says "recent increase in societal impact from tropical cyclones has largely been caused by rising concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal regions." —Bender235 (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was taking it to extremes. Yes, wealth normalization is a better metric. However, wealth normalization is not now, has not been and never will be "cost" - do not ever conflate the two terms!--CycloneAlley (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Fact is that inflation adjustment is just the same, just not as precise as wealth normalization. ––Bender235 (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The cost of an event is related to the damage caused not the damage potential. If a hurricane destroys one house on a sparsely populated coast its inappropriate to say the value of the damage caused is the value of the town that developed there after the event. Hurricane Katrina is the most costly storm in US history, that fact the Miami hurricane would do more damage today doesn't mean it was actually more costly. $100 in 1950 is equivalent to $900 in 2008, so saying something did $100 damage in 1950 is equivalent to saying it did $900 (2008 USD). It is not equivalent to saying it did $5000 (2008 USD) - even if that is what wealth normalization would indicate.--CycloneAlley (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually using the numbers I just used to explain the semantic difference:

1. The event caused $100 worth of damage in 1950
2. That damage is worth $900 in 2008
3. If the event occured again today it would cause $5000 in damage

To call the $5000 figure more accurate, when talking about the damage caused by the event is incorrect; but the inflated $900 reflects what the damage caused would be worth today. The $5000 is more useful when discussing potential for damage. Therefore, the inflated figures are better for the articles on the storms (as they report what the storm actually did), whilst normalized figures are more useful for broader discussion - such as that in effects of global warming.--CycloneAlley (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The July 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but what particular article or edit do you mean? ––Bender235 (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

On 11 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Farrar (scientist), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. ––Bender235 (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop with the supercilious meddling with Eisentrager which you incorrectly misspell as "Eisenträger." NO case book spells it the German way. This is an American case, with American spelling which is consistent across the board. You don't change the spelling just because you think it looks wrong from your German perspective. Many immigration cases in American law often misspell foreign names. You don't "change" it to the "right" spelling just because you think or know it's the "right" spelling. It's standard practice to let the Anglicization of the name stand so as not to cause further confusion later. The official version is Eisentrager -- NOT Eisenträger, and that's that.

Your overzealous "correction" of German names in American case law is wrongheaded, pernicious, and unhelpful. 220.255.114.249 (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I not sure whether I violated any convention with that. I started a discussion on the SCOTUS project talk page. ––Bender235 (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. 220.255.112.52 (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bennis v. Michigan, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-8729.ZS.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Kleindienst v. Mandel, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/OPE/archive/0606/att-0130/01-kleindienst.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

On 21 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1891 Martinique hurricane, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 00:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.roadblock.org/federal/caseUSbrignoni.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see no reference to primes in WP:MoS: what is the basis of your insistence upon them in the 2008 Tour de France times lists? Kevin McE (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. When the Tour ends, I'm going to make a table with the complete final GC like I did last year, and I'll tell you right now, I'm going to use ' and ", because they look exactly the same as the primes and they're, you know, actually on my keyboard. I notice especially your edit summary of putting them in "AGAIN". You would probably be best served to wait until the end, because you'll excuse me if I'm not willing to build the GC top ten table twice when I can just copy-and-paste it for 2008 Tour de France from the article for the stage recaps (which, I notice, you haven't edited). Nosleep (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My "basis" is common sense. We don't use minus signs when en dashes are appropriate, we don't write X when its actually Χ, and we don't use apostrophes to mark minutes and seconds. ––Bender235 (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You make a valid point in terms of WP:ACCESS in the discussion at WP:MoS. You do not encourage people to agree with such points with rude edit notes and and terse explanations as here. Kevin McE (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep that in mind. ––Bender235 (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, looks great. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for all your useful law-related contributions. Perhaps you would be interested in joining WikiProject Law? --Eastlaw (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm already involved in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. ––Bender235 (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Bender235. You have new messages at Plasticup's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. Why did you revert my original edit? Was it because of the collateral damage or the information seemed dubious? I backed it up with a source, and indeed it lists exactly 46 VEI-8 eruptions. You added the info to the article, but it is still missing from the table. Please re-add it to the table, with the figures, except without the collateral damage. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, please re-add the citation I added, and the info that came with the citation. If the column under VEI-8 is left as 0, it contradicts the info from lower down, in the examples section. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The source you used is a non-peer-reviewed popular science book. It is recommened not to use those type of sources in Wikipedia, instead using peer-reviewed articles from scientific journals. ––Bender235 (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent edits to this article to include a reference section. Due to recent changes in the categorization system, references need to be inline in order for the article to ever be elevated to C, B, let alone GA class. If you could do this, I'd be happy to elevate the article's category. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

So I did. ––Bender235 (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The August 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I made a stub again because it was very short. If you want to expand it and make it a article again, You can make a sandbox. --Elena85 | Talk to Me | Arlene87 is now Elena85 16:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You didn't made it a stub, you made it a redirect. There's no reason for that. Read WP:STUB. ––Bender235 (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the article, I redirected it because of how little information there was, and how much of it was also contained in the season article. However, I read the paper the article references, and there is plenty of info there, so there is definite room for expansion. Sorry for the inconvenience, but in the future could you make it not so stubby when creating articles? Cheers. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is the problem with creating stubs? The whole Wikipedia concept is one person creating a stub, and dozens of people contributing to it in months and years. Even Hurricane Katrina started as a stub in 2005. ––Bender235 (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

But Katrina had more info then compared to your article. --Elena85 | Talk to Me | Arlene87 is now Elena85 14:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that there's generally nothing wrong with writing stubs on notable storms. Indeed, if a stub was created on a fishspinner, then I would support a merge. But in the case where the article is likely to survive an AfD based on notability, a stub is a good place to start for eventual improvements. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the point? I don't get it. Just takes up more space. What's <BR> for, if not to save space?--BillFlis (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't make the W3C recommendations. See XHTML for explanation. ––Bender235 (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I came here to discuss the same thing. I'm not opposed to using <br />. However, in the past, I added forward slashes only to have another editor revert the changes. I wanted to cite a Wikipedia guideline or policy to support my changes, but was unable to find one. Can you point me in the right direction Bender235? Thanks! →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look at the source code of a random Wikipedia article, you'll see that the document type declaration says XHTML not HTML. In XHTML, empty elements (such as <br> or <hr>) need to be closed, which means <br> has to be <br></br> (which wouldn't make much sense) or <br />. This is just implementing correct XHTML source code. ––Bender235 (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't a bot handle that? Seems like a waste of human brainpower that could be used more constructively elsewhere.--BillFlis (talk) 12:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. You may request a bot or use AutoWikiBrowser. ––Bender235 (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes sense. If there isn't a Wikipedia guideline that calls for this, there should be. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You might propose one. Damn, I just realized I made a mistake. Quote Wikipedia:Line break handling: The <br> tag used here is not really HTML markup but "HTML wikimarkup" that gets interpreted by MediaWiki. Which means if you write <br> in an article, the MediaWiki software automatically converts it to <br /> ––Bender235 (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least, that will save you time in the future. Bummer for the changes you already made. I appreciate your help. Keep up the great work! →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Your dedication to fixing typos and other small errors is awe-inspiring and much appreciated. Best, RayAYang (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You said that this template survived TDF. I wasn't aware we had Templates Dor Feletion. :-) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bender,

You recently altered Pisanosaurus measurements, changing 5 lbs to 4.4 lbs. However, this isn't what the source used says: it gives the weight at 5 lbs (or 2.27-9.1 kg). Because the specimen is incompletely known, it didn't make sense for me to give an exact number for the weight range (down to decimal points), and so I rounded that number. When you converted that number and switched the main measurement to kilograms from pounds, the number changed from 5 lbs to 4.4 lbs. But the source gives the lower weight range as 5 lbs. Will you fix this? I don't care if metric measurements are used before English ones, but they must match the source cited. (we can't use 4.4 kg as a measurement if the source we're citing uses 5 kg). Firsfron of Ronchester 13:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

{{Convert}} has a function to round conversions. I just implemented it. ––Bender235 (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've adjusted it. The reason I don't use that template is because one can't say "approximately" when using the template because it converts so precisely (down to decimal points). Really, I feel the conversion template is unnecessary here: to get it to convert to the correct amount, 5 lbs, one has to stick in 2.27 kg, which isn't an approximation at all, and seems inappropriate for a fossil genus known from only one incomplete skeleton. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can round negatively, which means {{convert|3|kg|lb|-1}} = 3 kilograms (10 lb) instead of {{convert|3|kg|lb|1}} = 3 kilograms (6.6 lb). ––Bender235 (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Reflist can't be used with the group=notes feature. Please look at the before and after of your edit. --mav (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened to him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taller18 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Am I supposed to know that? ––Bender235 (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on one point, that he has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (I should have read the current article more carefully!). As to WP:ATHLETE, in my understanding, collegiate-level players are not notable until they play in the highest level of their sport, i.e. NCAA championships. In this he may not qualify, but that is a moot point now. Might I ask, how did you notice the deletion so soon after it occurred? You are not listed as an admin. ... Anyways, thanks for catching this. Cheers and happy editing

I had that page on my watchlist. Thanks for restoring it. ––Bender235 (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Read about scientists predicting the extinction of the PB by 2040 in the newspapers. However, since then, acceleration of the melting of the Arctic icecap makes it all too likely they will be gone even before then. Next time I read something about it, I shall carefully note the source and include it when I enter the latest prediction. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Polar bears will not necessarily extinct if the Artic icecaps melt. I never read that in a scientific journal. ––Bender235 (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Grady v. Corbin, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://supreme.justia.com/us/495/508/case.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comment in (correctly) removing the tag is not quite correct. The "Pretty Woman" decision, Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., included the complete lyrics of both songs, and that inclusion does not allow others to freely copy those lyrics. However, it might be wise to leave Coren a message. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ron powlus si-cover1996.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The September 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 00:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll consider that. ––Bender235 (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason is simple - it sometimes creates conversion data that doesn't match up with the National Hurricane Center advisories. The numbers are supposed to match up directly with them, as that is the only official source. CrazyC83 (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The only way these data doesn't match is the accuracy, nothing else. A kilometer is just as long for NHC as it is for Wikipedia, but 1 km may be 0.6 mi, or 0.621 mi, or 0.621371192 mi, depending on the accuracy. {{convert}} is definitely working correct; all you have to do is adjusting it in case the data is too accurate or not accurate enough. ––Bender235 (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, this is a very common mistake not directly related to the template. The NHC measures everything in knots and nautical miles, but the information that we want is in statute miles, statute miles per hour, km, and km/h. So when the NHC records 160 knot winds, we want to say 185 mph (295 km/h), even though converting 185 mph to km/h yields 300 km/h. So the {{Convert}} template doesn't really work. Plasticup ^T/C 13:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bender235, I noticed that you have been adding a lot of articles on U.S. Supreme Court cases.

I was wondering if you would be willing to help us over here at WP:SCOTUS by putting the cases on this list onto their respective Lists of United States Supreme Court cases. This is a big job, and a number of people (myself included) have been working on it for nearly six weeks. Any amount of help we can get is would be much appreciated. --Eastlaw (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated Wally Bullington, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wally Bullington. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

hello. I work for the hottinger family and I saw tha you are studying german. I was wondering if we could pay you to translate all the hottinger articals into german on wikipiedia.if so how much would you charge. my email is richotting@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richotting (talk • contribs) 12:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm not studying German, I am German. Also, I'm sorry, but I lack the time to translate all these articles. ––Bender235 (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The October 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-300.ZO.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Back a while ago, you changed my citation for La Garita Caldera and updated it to a VEI 9.2, based on the total explosivity rather than just the magma ejection volume. Now, a user has changed the info in the article Volcanic Explosivity Index, arguing that it was not a VEI 9, but rather an 8.5. However, the original source for 9.2 is citationed, so it should be changed back to VEI 9, but I feel this should be discussed before potentially reverting, as it might be unclear whether the article should use direct calculations based on ejected volume or referenced numbers based on total explosivity, and I have started one at the user's talkpage, maybe the VEI 9 for LGC should have a citation as well, to avoid this? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for all the many fixes you have recently been doing. However, could I ask you to take care when in comes to "a" or "an" before a word begining with "h", for example here. "...an historically..." is perfectly good, at least in British English, and while I understand there are differences of opnion as regards to what is correct in similar instances, it is probably not a good idea to try and change these with AWB. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Maybe you should raise that subject at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. ––Bender235 (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not realise that it was in Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos. I have now deleted it. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. What made you think that "complaints" was a typo for "compliants"? 165.189.91.148 (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Typo fixing ––Bender235 (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a typo! Also, stop changing "cataloged" to "catalogued". This also isn't a typo. 165.189.91.148 (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right on "complaints/compliants". I'm sorry. But "catalogued" is perfect English. ––Bender235 (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"Cataloged" is also perfect English, so don't change it without good reason. 165.189.91.148 (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for updating all those references and adding the infobox to Alaksandar Milinkievič! Looks good!--Patrick «» 16:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I am Allen's son Keith. I can help provide lots of content and references for this entry, but i am not an experienced wiki contributor. Is there a way I can help? Fogmonster (talk) 08:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Only adding critics of the Heller decision is a POV push. SMP0328. (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not add "my own personal analysis". I added scholarly comments by renowned Federal jugdes. Both sentences where cited from a source. ––Bender235 (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thought you might like to know there is a deletion review to attempt to restore the article on Wally Bullington at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 30.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Si-cover lebron james 2002.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 13:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

On 17 November, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item involving the article(s) HR 8799, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently updated or created article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--Spencer^T♦C 02:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

On 21 November, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Waitaha penguin, which you helped update. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--Spencer^T♦C 11:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I removed some flags from infoboxes you added to articles. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons), in general, flags should not be used in infoboxes. Garion96 (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No, MoS does not say that. Flagicons are appropriate for signaling nationality or citizenship. ––bender235 (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No they are not, and the MOS does not say that. But feel free to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons). Garion96 (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The December 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

On 13 December, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Schengen Agreement#Switzerland and Liechtenstein, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 02:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A few of the college football articles you created are being considered for deletion. See the various entries here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 14. BlueAg09 (Talk) 08:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing my article! I had great fun doing a lot of work on it, and I'm honoured that you submitted it for "did you know" on the front page :) Where did you find the name Giant Huntsman spider? I'm sure it's correct, but the only name I saw was the one I used. --DarkAvenger (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub template is currently listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries, and the category has been taken for potential deletion to WP:SFD - please feel free to make any comments in those places as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 00:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I didn't know that. I'll remember next time. ––bender235 (talk) 06:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

On 19 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Giant huntsman spider, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cirt (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC) 11:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Your DYK for the Giant huntsman spider drew 29,300 page views while on DYK. That's the 5th most in the recorded history of DYK. Congratulations! Your hook as recorded on Wikipedia:DYKBEST is set forth below. Cbl62 (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Article (DYK date)	Image	DYK views	DYK hook	Nominator
Giant huntsman spider (Dec. 19, 2008)		29,300	... that with a leg-span of 30 centimetres (12 inches), the giant huntsman (pictured) is one of the world's largest spiders?	Bender235

Wow. Not bad, I guess. ;-) --bender235 (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)