User talk:Bender235/2011 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.

Greetings, Bender. In the last week, I have noticed that you have re-formatted the bibliography and footnote citations in the Wikipedia articles for several former Florida Gators football players. Please do not reformat these citations; they are consistently formatted over all but a handful of the 230+ Gators football player articles, 24 Gators football coach articles, the main Gators football article, the Florida Gators football season articles (1906–1999), the Florida Gators sports program article, as well as most of the other Gators sports and coaches articles. The main University of Florida article and its sister article, History of the University of Florida, are works in progress but will ultimately use the same standard citation formats; the 16 university president articles (four of which are Good Articles) already employ this same citation format. As I am sure you are aware, no one is required to use any of the various WP citation templates per WP:MOS, and editors are asked not to unnecessarily change pre-existing citation formats that have been consistently applied. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain, what particular changes you mean? Because, for example, this revert of yours is not correct. MOS:APPENDIX requires this section to be named "Further reading" (for good reason, because this section usually only includes some suggestions for further information, rather than a complete bibliography).

In terms of citation templates/style, you're correct. There is no "official" Wikipedia citation style. I just considered it useful to not only have a consistent citation style in some 200 Florida Gators articles, but all over Wikipedia's 3.5 million articles. However, I will respect your decision not to use citation templates on UF articles. -- bender235 (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bender235

I noted that you re-added the {{recent death}} template to the above-captioned article immediately after I had removed it. You did so without replying to the rationale I had given in the edit summary, which was to point out that the current edit frequency of the article doesn't meet the threshold stated at Template:Recent death/doc. If you think I've missed something and wish to re-add the template again, please state the rationale in your edit summary, on the article's talk page, or here.

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 17:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that you'd just removed the template. I was using Wikipedia:Twinkle, and did not check the page history at all. -- bender235 (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries. ^Bongo_matic 18:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Bender235 - I see you added the orphan tag to Noodle (film). Although WP:O states that the technical definition of an orphan page is one that has links from three or less pages, it also states: "it is recommended to only place the orphan tag if the article has ZERO incoming links from other articles. One or two incoming links may be sufficient as long as they are relevant." Since this article has a link from Mili Avital, do we think we could remove the tag for now? NearTheZoo (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, this tag was semi-automatically added via WP:AWB. Remove it if you don't consider this article an orphan. -- bender235 (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I was able to find three more articles to link, for a total of four -- so now it's "officially" not an orphan. Many thanks, though, for being so easy to work with! NearTheZoo (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

PS-even though this has nothing to do with wikipedia, I see you write that you are a German student. My daughter and her new husband moved to Munich in September, and I was lucky enough to visit them in November, for Thanksgiving. I was lucky enough to be there (1) during some beautiful snow, and (2) during the ChristmasMarket time. What a great vacation I had! Best wishes for the New Year! NearTheZoo (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That's nice. My best wishes to you, too. -- bender235 (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well sure, it doesn't HAVE to be there. Nothing does. But, I suggest, it has the benefits outlined at wp:NAVHEAD. So why not have it there and have those benefits? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the benefits. To someone who's accustomed to "standard" Wikipedia layout this looks like an empty section. If (a majority of) people actually saw the benefits of this, it wouldn't be an essay but a style guideline. But it isn't. -- bender235 (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me start with your last point first. How does a new idea get into a style guide if, as soon as it is proposed, folks reject it because it isn't in a style guide? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. But still, I think you'd have to go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (layout) and propose this as a style guide addition. And by the way, I don't like this new section, which means I would be one of the first to oppose. --bender235 (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Going back to your January 24 post, you say "I don't see the benefits." The essay at wp:NAVHEAD lists three benefits: (1) eliminating confusion, (2) providing an overview, and (3) easing access. Is is your opinion that those benefits don't exist or that there is some drawback to having navbox headings that overrides those benefits? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

They don't exist. There is no confusion, overview is provided by the navboxes themselves, and they easy to access anyway. A "related information" section with no content other than navboxes looks like an empty section to most Wikipedia users. And that is more confusing than it is helpful. --bender235 (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with much of what you say with respect to experienced Wikipedia users. But what about the casual reader? What is such a person to make of wikilinks appearing in the External links section? (Confusion.) And how would such a person know to look at the end of the article for information that rightly should appear in the See also section? (Overview.) And finally, assuming an unsophisticated user, how is that person supposed to get to the end of the article other than by the laborious process of scrolling down? (Access.) Granted, at first a Related information heading would be confusing to experienced users but, once they got used to it, it would not be a hindrance (and might even be a help). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You got a valid point, but still, as an "experienced user", I don't like the additional section. But, of course, this is not up to me to decide. --bender235 (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, it IS up to you - in conjunction with all the other editors of Wikipedia - to decide. So, if I may ask, why are you resistant to having an additional section heading when (and only when) an article has navboxes? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It just looks awkward and confusing. --bender235 (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You're causing a lot of false positives with these. Quotes especially. I'd appreciate you check your edits. Thanks.  �<� FOX  18:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've always checked whether those edits where quotes. But in general, avoiding contractions is recommended. --bender235 (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for applying to use the counter-vandalism tool VandalSniper. I am pleased to inform you that you are now approved to use the tool. To download the program, see here; please also read the features guide if you have not already done so. VandalSniper is a powerful program, so remember that misuse may result in your access being withdrawn and that disruptive editing through the program may see your account blocked by an administrator. If you have any questions, please contact a developer. Regards, AGK [•] 19:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The article Iurie Boreico has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Although he is clearly talented, awards for young investigators do not have consensus for notability on Wikipedia. Mathematicans bloom early, and he is a graduate student or possibly and undergrad. Without a particular discovery this page is unsuitable for an encyclopdia.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 04:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Could you please explain how you feel he meets WP:ATHLETE as this states :-

American football/Canadian football figures are presumed notable if they 1. Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Arena Football League, the Canadian Football League, the National Football League, the All-America Football Conference or the United States Football League, or any other top-level professional league. 2. Note: Players who play in minor or semi-professional leagues (such as af2) are not presumed notable unless they meet another criterion, such as notability arising from their college football days.

The article gives no evidence that he has played at least one game in a pro league unless I am mistaken? Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 22:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:WikiProject College football we have this rule of thumb that high school players who have been named All-Americans (which Kouanddjio has been, by USA Today) are deemed notable, because they have reached the highest possible level in the sport and in their age group. --bender235 (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry but what has this 'rule of thumb' got to do with the fact that he fails WP:ATHLETE? Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 22:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Pick your criteria: Wikipedia:ATHLETE#College athletes or Wikipedia:ATHLETE#High school and pre-high school athletes. Kouandjio, like a couple of other HS All-Americans is notable. Media coverage is clearly there. --bender235 (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Further discussion

It's time for this whole notion of sticking to plain-text refs to go; we're way beyond that, really. We need to talk. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Finally, someone. --bender235 (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Get to know Andy: User:Pigsonthewing, and Ralph: User:RexxS (and WP:CONLIMITED; citation templates are core to the usability initiative; WMF is building the forms to generate them in to the wiki). Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Please take the correction of n't to not out of your AWB template. Without consulting the context, doing this can make a bad piece of prose worse; it can also affect the meaning of the text measurably, in ways not necessarily obvious to the non-native speaker (as with this edit, which changes the implied height of the subject.) Most cases of wasn't, didn't, can't, and so on can and probably ought to be removed by recasting the sentence in which they occur; but they should not be removed mechanically. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Styleguides are pretty clear on this, see MOS:N'T: The use of contractions -- such as don't, can't, won't, they'd, should've, it's -- is informal and should generally be avoided.

Please complain there, or at WP:AWB/T. --bender235 (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I come to you because your disruptive edits have provoked a discussion whether it is necessary to reword that section to get you to stop. Apparently it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive edits? C'mon. And, by the way, it would've been nice if you'd pointed me at this discussion earlier. --bender235 (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to ask that you stop doing this, Bender. When removing a contraction, it isn't as simple as swapping "don't" for "do not." It can lead to stilted writing, especially if the sentence was written specifically with the contraction in mind. Removing two or three a minute for several hours means you're not reviewing each sentence carefully. Also, it's a bit of a myth that there's invariably a problem with contractions. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually I was reviewing every edit. I just did not consider it that much controversial to replace "don't" with "do not". --bender235 (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't be reviewing every edit when doing it so quickly. This edit, for example, created a sentence that a native English speaker would be unlikely to write. It's not wrong, but it's odd looking, and it arguably changes the meaning very slightly. If I wanted to remove the contraction there, I'd rewrite the sentence, and that's often what's needed when removing contractions. The sentence structure is written with the contraction in mind, so when you remove the latter, the structure often has to change, ideally. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so the rule of thumb here is: only remove contractions if the resulting sentence sounds good, right? Or don't remove them at all? --bender235 (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't remove them at all, partly because they're sometimes fine, and partly because each instance of removing them is going to involve a decision about whether to rewrite the sentence, so it would be time-consuming to do it well. A contraction isn't like a spelling mistake. It's not actually wrong; it's just the way someone preferred to structure the sentence. It would be like going around removing the passive voice, which people used to do because they thought it was wrong. But it isn't, and removing it mechanically often leads to poor writing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep that in mind. --bender235 (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Bender. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been noticing these changes as well, and while many were fine a number struck me as turning a natural sentence into what is for an English speaker a highly stilted sentence. It's (or ... "It is") not clear to me that the benefit in making the changes outweighs the problems caused by odd constructs of speech. But I think that Bender and Sept may have touched on a fair point -- perhaps it is the guideline that should be addressed (rather than AWB or Bender), if that is where the problem stems from.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this was a bit misleading. --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, kind of. It was a fixed typo, and then a bunch of AWB general fixes. --bender235 (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Bender. I just wanted to express my appreciation for your effort in addressing the disruption that a certain single-purpose COI editor has generated, especially regarding the article he created about his professor or mentor, and which is now at AfD. Good on you for taking the time and trouble to sort this. Many thanks.  �" OhioStandard (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. And by the way, Kim isn't the only case of autobiography I recognized in the past couple of days, see Chris 'TEK' O'Ryan, Rory Mhor Nicoll, Partho Sen-Gupta, Alana Lentin, Muhammad Ishaq Khan, David Horne, Pablo Gato, Chinnu Senthilkumar, Wendy Day, Mambo, and a couple of others I already forgot. There are too many self-exposers on Wikipedia. --bender235 (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow. BIG THANKS, then. :) I've taken a look at a couple, threw a lot of content at the AfD for Mambo; not sure how much it's worth. May look in on some of these others, if I can find the time. Seriously, thanks for this. Some of these could be false positives, I suppose, but most seem to be ... true positives, at first glance. I can't imagine why any otherwise sane person would want an article about himself here, though. What, put up a worldwide whiteboard that anyone can write on and chronicle every dumb thing you ever do that the press reports about? Too risky by far, imo. Best,  �" OhioStandard (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how to add the "As a player:" text "if pastcoaching or pastexecutive or pastadmin" like you suggested at Template talk:Infobox NFL player to meet the concerns I drew out at WT:NFL#Infobox NFL player (sorry for not addressing this with you sooner, I was relatively inactive for a while)? Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not an expert in template programming either. Maybe you find someone who knows how to do it here. --bender235 (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to play around with it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to edit my basketball article on Chris Roupas.PSUSTATS (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. --bender235 (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'm an art historian from Berlin and just starting to write articles for wikipedia. I created the pages of those three and I'm wondering why the articles should miss the guidelines. All three artists are well-known and made an important impact to the society and are well recognized. Please let me know how to proceed in writing for wikipedia. Best wishes, Leda47 -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.26.223 (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

As of now, the nominated article will be kept anyway. I'm not an expert in art history, so I decide to have the Wikipedia community decide on the notability.

Und wenn du aus Berlin bist können wir auch Deutsch reden. --bender235 (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, vielen Dank! Ich habe mich bei anderen Biografien umgesehen, aber wenn der Input zu viel für Wikipedia ist, müsste ich kürzen. BG -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Leda47 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Nein, in der Wikipedia gibt es keinen Platzmangel. Allenfalls wird ein Artikel geteilt, wenn er über 100kB groß wird. --bender235 (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Nachdem die deutschen Artikel nun angenommen wurden, wollte ich nochmal nachfragen, wie es mit der Sichtung der englischen weitergeht. Wie lange dauert normalerweise solch ein Prozess, zumal es für die Künstler, deren WErke und CVs ich bei wikipedia eingestellt habe, eher als Anti-Haltung mißverstanden werden kann, wenn dort vermerkt ist, dass die Artikel wieder gelöscht werden. Wer ist hier mein Ansprechpartner? Besten DAnk schonmal! Leda47 -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Leda47 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Keine Ahnung. Versuchs mal bei denen, die den Artikel (ich nehme an es geht um Susanne Kessler) in den Article Incubator geschoben haben, also in dem Fall Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs). --bender235 (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, danke! -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Leda47 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, wollte nur mal nachfragen, warum der Artikel von Elmar Hess als Autobiografie verstanden wurde!? Könntest du einen link senden, wie eine Biografie deiner Meinung nach aussehen sollte? Ich halte mich da an die Standards in der Kunstszene...--Leda47 (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Autobiography meint in der englischen Wikipedia, dass der Autor womöglich in einem Interessenkonflikt steht (insofern, als dass er selbst einen Artikel über sich verfasst). --bender235 (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The article Lache Seastrunk has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

True freshman who, according to http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/playerDetail.jsp?yr=2010&org=529&player=15 , has yet to play a game for Oregon.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. B (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I think he was a notable high school athlete (consensus All-American), so he meets Wikipedia:ATHLETE#High school and pre-high school athletes. --bender235 (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by a number of your edits (while, I should mention, I appreciate very much a number of others), but waiting for you to finish. Except -- let me ask about one. Why would you change the mention of the fact that he is a left tackle? You can respond here.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If you take a look around other offensive tackle's articles (e.g., Michael Oher, Ryan Clady, Joe Thomas, Jake Long), you'll notice that we don't specify the alignment on the line that accurate, even tho they play on the left side. After all, Carimi's article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League. --bender235 (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not? And who is "we"? Have you ever changed any other articles from the more precise format to the less precise, creating the "we don't"? (You would be surprised how often that happens at the Project).

Also -- what is the "why" behind the "we don't"? Space saving? It would not appear to be. Precision? Again no. Hueing to what the RSs say? Certainly not. Covering for a player who has split between left and right tackle in his college career? Not the case.

I'm seeing good reasons for being precise and reflecting the RSs, but am happy to hear more.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Listen, there are certain rules, or guidelines (or whatever you'd like to call them) regarding football players. And one of them is that we may specify positions to "tackle", "guard", "defensive end" or "outside linebacker", but not "left tackle", "right guard", "left defensive end" or "weakside defensive linebacker". We just don't do it. But if you really attach great importance on this, you might think about addressing this issue here. --bender235 (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Point me to the rule/guideline. "We just don't do it" is not a rule/guideline. Especially when the vast majority of the RSs call him (in college) a left tackle. Plus--as you know, it gives the reader less information, using more space -- what possible rationale would support that?--Epeefleche (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's just how we did it everywhere. Anyway, let's continue this here, with a broader audience. --bender235 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, you didn't like my edits on this article: "Both zu Guttenberg and Peter Häberle have been accused of fraud and have to face legal consequences. The PhD degree of zu Guttenberg has been revoked by his university. " The point is, the PhD was revoked and both were accused of fraud (I'm not saying they are fraudsters, but the accusation exits). Do you have a better way of expressing the same message? 77.231.17.82 (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(a) Name your source.

(b) Häberle was not accused of fraud, and he is not facing "legal consequences" (for what?) either. It is not even clear Guttenberg will face any. --bender235 (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I've begun a discussion of the autobiography template you mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace. I will withdraw my Keep opinion on the article in question if you can show evidence that a family member wrote the article. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

How? And why? Pretext78 (talk · contribs) being a single-purpose account is a strong evidence for my part. --bender235 (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You need not withdraw your nomination, but this fellow is quite notable in India, has coverage in multiple reliable sources, and the Nandi Awards are THE prominent award ceremony, presented annually in Andhra Pradesh, India for Telugu cinema and television by the state government of Andhra Pradesh. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I see you added Essam Sharaf's birthday. Do you have a source for this? I had held off adding the information to the article because nothing reliable was forthcoming (see Talk:Essam Sharaf). Thanks! Eniagrom (talk) 12:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually had it from that same source. DOB is no libelous information, so I'd say let's keep it for now, even tho it is a shaky source. --bender235 (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Another user has gone ahead and reverted your changes in any case. While I agree that DOB isn't potentially libelous, I personally think we should hold off on adding information like this, because it seems quite likely that it's incorrect. So I won't put it back in, but if you want to, go ahead. Thanks, Eniagrom (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Chinnu Senthilkumar wiki page has been deleted citing that there is no reference to "Young Scientist/National Technology" award received by him. There have been several references to it, including the following link

"http://www.indiaprwire.com/pressrelease/information-technology/2010041548183.htm"

I think this wiki page should not be deleted. Thanks

- Nalina -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalinasenthil (talk • contribs) 14:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi bender235. I responded to your feedback on my talk page. Not sure if you'll see it as I added it as a new section. Please review at your convenience and advise changes. Thanks a lot. Jdp2010s (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)jdp2010s

Replied. --bender235 (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the citations for Abraham Quintanilla Jr. I was wondering if you can do the same thing for User:AJona1992/Sandbox14? Its currently under Peer Review for inclusion on a FA article. I would really appreciate it, thank you! AJona1992 (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure. --bender235 (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! AJona1992 (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to note that I was indeed following WP:ENGVAR in my edit that you reverted. Specifically, the article is already in American English, thus according to the consistency guideline all material should be in American English. (Other than material covered by an exception, which this isn't.) We actually had a lengthy discussion on the talk page because of an editor who kept changing the "sp=us" tags on convert templates to "sp=uk"; this resulted in a noticeboard message stating that the article should be edited in American English. This notice has since been removed, but it still holds true of course. Simply because the "caesium" article is spelled that way has no bearing on how we spell the same word in a different article... –flodded ☃ (gripe) 20:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Didn't know of that "lengthy discussion". Strange discussion to use American English on this article. --bender235 (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the discussion was more about getting an admin notice up to direct people to WP:ENGVAR due to repeated changes to UK spelling despite warnings; there was already consensus that the article should be in American English, because it already was. I have no objection to one over the other, my edits along those lines are just to keep things consistent. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 20:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I don't mind. --bender235 (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have undone your edit at The Guardian. See if you can spot why  :-) Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I got it. And there's a template for this. --bender235 (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done worse ... Never seen that template before either. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I posted this on the talk page as well, but thought I would ask you as I have seen your name appear several times in the edit history. I find the title "4.2 kiloyear event" rather odd. It seems that in the literature it is more commonly called the "Holocene Climate Change". I find 1900+ hits for HCC and not a single one for "4.2 kiloyear event". I would not mind seeing it changed. The other point is that "Holocene Climate Change" more accurately describes what this is about. Any thoughts? Regards --AnnekeBart (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I responded. --bender235 (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I see I was wrong. I appreciate the explanations you gave. --AnnekeBart (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. --bender235 (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please be very careful adding G3 tags. G3 is a bold accusation of bad faith behavior. Time suck case may not meet wp:NEO, but it is no hoax. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm, okay. --bender235 (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain reasons for a) this, b) your ignoring opinions expressed on Talk:Andrew VanWyngarden? -- Evermore2 (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed it because it was an unsourced BLP. I did not check the talk page. --bender235 (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the previous version is well-sourced (as you now can see), and he's too-Grammy-nomitated a person to fall under BLP category. Very much hope this time you'll agree :) -- Evermore2 (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What is different in his accomplishments and those of HS coach Bob Huerly o f New York?

Yet you recommended his article for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchamz (talk • contribs) 11:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

After giving it a second thought, I actually agree with you. --bender235 (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Bender235

I was the one who changed the religion to Atheist. I agree that the religion shouldn't be indicated. I tried to take out the religion identifier, but messed up the whole thing. I've never done Wiki before and I don't know how to write HTML. I could only type over the word Islam to avoid wrecking the box. Ali is my brother-in-law. He is not religious and does not believe in a Greater Power. - MargSF3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MargSF3 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. And welcome to Wikipedia. --bender235 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you have now twice made changes adding capitals to the the word "earth". I undid this the first time around, but rather than doing it again and risking getting into a ping-pong rally, perhaps it is better to discuss it here.

I think that "earth" should be capitalized only when it is used specifically as a name (e.g. Earth has only one moon, or Earth, Venus and Mercury are the three innermost planets). When used after "the" the word becomes a common noun analogous with "the world" or "the globe" and should not be capitalized. That's my understanding, anyway. 99.117.218.217 (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Valid argument. You should probably address that at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos. --bender235 (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bender235! Nice that you improved the economics sidebar! Maybe you could provide feedback or comment on the discussion about "mathematical methods" vs. "technical methods" vs. "econometrics". Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Did I complain at the time (2009) when you, completely against policy, decided to convert this article to a citation template of your choosing? The stupid templated references are still there and still making it harder to improve the article. I don't think any vandalism is as bad as this. Presumably you have stopped such edits now, but I just want you to know that the bad effects of your work still cause problems. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess this is not supposed to be an April Fools' Day joke. Please explain to me how these templates "make it harder to improve the article". I would like to help. --bender235 (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

They complicate editing in various ways, for no additional benefit at all. Surely you are aware of this by now? Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all. I think there are a lot of benefits. Otherwise we wouldn't have them at Wikipedia. I don't see how they complicate editing. What is the problem? How can I help? --bender235 (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You can remove them, and restore the references to the way they were, and the way that policy says you should have left them. They don't allow flexibility in citing, make it much harder to follow what going on in edit mode, take up more space, discourage new editors and many existing editors from contributing, make re-arranging text much harder, make linking authors difficult, and so on. What benefits do you think they have? They don't have any. Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

They produce machine-readible meta data, which is useful to anyone who wants to import certain citations to reference management systems. They produce a consistent citation style, which is not only useful to the reader, but also to editors (because they don't have to remember how this style looks in all details, they just need to implement the template [or let somebody else do it]). See, you added two new sources, using two different citation styles. With templates, that wouldn't have happened.

Now what they don't do: they don't make linking authors difficult (don't know authorlink?). They don't make it harder to re-arrange text (not any harder than it is w/out them). They don't discourage anyone from editing, because no one is demanded to implement perfect Wikicode with every edit. If some newbies first edit is to add a new source (how often does that happen anyway?), he/she could easily do that w/out citation templates. --bender235 (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid there has been some confusion over exactly what has been proposed with regard to a possible merger of the 2010–2011 Ivorian crisis article with Second Ivorian Civil War, on which you commented recently. To clarify this, I've relisted the merge request at Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis#Clarified requested move / merger proposal. Grateful if you could state what your preference is. Prioryman (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I replied. --bender235 (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to your request on my talk page werldwayd (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Despite several requests from me and others you have continued with unfounded speculation in AfD nominations about the identity of creators of articles (the latest of many such cases). You have said that you like to call a spade a spade so I will do so here. This behaviour violates several Wikipedia policies about subjects such as civility, personal attacks, biting new editors and outing. If you continue with this behaviour I will request that you be topic banned from nominating articles for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Actually I took your advice. In all case from then on, this just being the latest, I chose my words as carefully as possible. Read it, for god's sake! It says "created by single-purpose account", which is correct, and "possible conflict of interest", which is as neutral is it gets. Because, in the end, you have to mention these things. --bender235 (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you don't have to mention these things, and shouldn't unless you have strong evidence of a conflict of interest. Articles should be judged on their merits, regardless of who creates them. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That's absurd. Please tell me when a SPA is a SPA. Or aren't there any, in your opinion? --bender235 (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether an article creation is an editor's first edit is irrelevant to whether that article should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Not whether the article should be deleted, but whether the editor is in a COI. I'm not saying all SPA have COI, but it's at least in indication. --bender235 (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's irrelevant to whether an article should be deleted then it shouldn't be mentioned in a deletion discussion. AfD discussion are about articles and their subjects, not editors. And an "indication" is not strong enough evidence to justify violating all of the policies that I mentioned above plus WP:AGF, which I missed. Please stop trying to justify your actions and actually take notice that they are unacceptable. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, taken. If that's what you want. Obviously you're considering yourself both prosecutor and judge here, leaving no room for me to "justify my actions". What a charade. --bender235 (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bender235. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susanne Kessler, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 12#Susanne Kessler. Would you help new user Leda47 (talk · contribs) source Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Susanne Kessler so it may be returned to the mainspace? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 05:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll see whether I find time for it. --bender235 (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bender, I've posted an RfC at Talk:Roger Scruton—see here—to ask whether the neutrality tag should remain on the article. There are a number of issues in dispute; if you could comment even on just one of them, or your overall impression of the article's balance, that would be very helpful. I'm leaving this note because you've edited the article or talk page, but if you have no interest in commenting, please feel free to ignore the request. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

nice work Decora (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Li Hai 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Li Hai until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Commented. --bender235 (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

... for upping the Carimi rating to B. I agree w/that, but am too close to rate it.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually thought about a GA nomination, but with the NFL draft on the horizon the article might lack the required "stability" during the next couple of weeks. But I'll keep it in mind. --bender235 (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Good thought! Enjoy the draft ... I have a feeling you will.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you will, too. --bender235 (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Tx. There was a funny quote in a recent Carimi article, btw, but I didn't think it sufficiently wp-worthy. Asked what the worst thing was any opposing lineman ever said to him during a game that he could repeat, he responded: "Usually I do well enough where they don’t talk at all (laughs). There is nothing really that I can repeat. You can kind of imagine what’d they say. A lot of swear words. I think one guy just said I’m fat. And I was like, really, that’s all you can come up with?"--Epeefleche (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

On 22 April 2011, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Battle of Misrata, 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 candidates page.

-- tariqabjotu 14:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

How did you get reflinks to ad full citation templates here? [1]

I tried to run it at the Timeline of the 2011 Syrian protests, but preview showed that it wouldn't ad the full templates.

Answer here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You have to use the Interactive version. --bender235 (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats what I used, it wouldn't ad the full citations.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you checked "Use {{cite web}}"? --bender235 (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

What about it? I want this tool to do it automatically. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't do it automatically. You have to use the interactive version. --bender235 (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So you added the citation templates manually? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, semi-automatically, with the interactive version of reflinks. --bender235 (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Krotite at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, for your recent edit improving the article Santorum (neologism). Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. --bender235 (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bender,

Could you did this article a favor again and proofread it for grammar and spelling? Cliff Boro.... Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.32.151 (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

On 18 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Krotite, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the newly discovered mineral krotite likely was one of the earliest minerals formed in the Solar System? If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 17:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir: I send you above a copy of my email to your information services about your (and my) concern about the english and spanish version of the french article about my work. I don't really know the correct procedure, and apologize if I do wrong. But I've been contacted by the author of those translation so far I anderstand. Here is the text: Hi: I've been contacted this last week by Uriel Vargas, former student of mine if I correctly anderstood. Whom translate to spanish, and also I think to english the french article asbout my work:fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Bertrand_Barbe wroted by, if I remember well, Mr. Alain Martinez (whom so far I knew loose his rights on this article when he put it on your site). Mr. Vargas asked me I think to give my permission to Wikipedia to reproduce or valorate, I'm really not sure, this translations, in matter to help their publication or insertion on your site. I still gave my permission for the french article, and I give it again for those translations. About the spanish version, which it seems object of a conflict, I revised the material (which I send in attached document), helped by Prof. Ana Paula Miranda, former Director of the French Department of the National University UNAN-Managua, and Prof. Pablo Centeno Gómez, translator himself of latinamerican poets to french (in the 80's decade, translation published by the Cerf Editions of Paris, and also translator from french to spanish of Aragon and Prévert for the French Ambassy of Managua), both of them very good friends of mine. The three of us consider this particular translation from french to spanish of the article of the french Wikipedia a very correct version. I don't know if this is what Mr. Vargas or your services would want of me, but like a professional translator myself I consider this spanish version a very good one, and also give my persmission to put it on your site. Sincerelly yours. Dr. Norbert-Bertrand Barbe PD: I don't anderstand why it is impossible to write or communicate myself whit the "librarians" of the spanish site of Wikipedia, which is one of the reasons I write directly to you. Apparently various cibercomputers (computers of cibercafes) of my town (I live in Masaya, Nicaragua) was impossibilited apparently because of Mr. Vargas have been limited for is personal use of your site (I don't know why nether), but really it's affect all of us. Thank you for your answer. --Norbert-Bertrand Barbe (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please address these issues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norbert-Bertrand Barbe, not my talk page. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The article Alex Eskin has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

At Talk:2010-2011 Ivorian Crisis, a new merge discussion going on about merging Second Ivorian Civil War into 2010-2011 Ivorian Crisis. If you want to participate, please do. B-Machine (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

This is in regards to deletion of the article that i have created on Abhishek Verma, as i was occupied from quite some time now so was not able to respond on the notification i earlier got for deletion of the article. I agree the article needs improvement, but i was in process of improving it, unfortunately i got deleted midway. I would request if you can temporarily activate the content or the source code of the article so that i can work on it again and make it upto the wiki standards and policies.

PS: As i am new to Wiki contribution also kindly help me in improving the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karansharmag (talk • contribs) 09:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not an administrator and therefore not able to restore your article. Please ask User:Cirt instead. --bender235 (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Nueva Cádiz at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 16:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC) ==

Expanded. Enough? --bender235 (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bender, this still needs a few more sentences at minimum to be DYK-ready. Can your sources give us anything more? Cheers, Khazar (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey buddy, I was wondering if you can help fix the citations on User:AJona1992/Sandbox48 like what you did on Abraham Quintanilla Jr? Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a lot of work. I'll see what I can do. --bender235 (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

But thank you though for looking into it, although I moved the article to its mainspace Death of Selena. Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kentaro Nagao 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kentaro Nagao until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Nsk92 (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

for the citation cleanup at Nociception. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. --bender235 (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As one of the editors who has made improvements to the United States Bill of Rights article recently this notice has been left to inform you that it has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for June 2011. The goal this month is to get this article to Good Article standards or better by July 4th, 2011. You can also vote for next months article of the Month or submit a candidate for article of the month here. --Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

On 12 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nueva Cádiz, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Venezuelan port Nueva Cádiz was the first Spanish town to be established in South America? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. On 2010-08-15T22:11:55 (yep, a while back) you did a 'citation cleanup' on article Moreton wave. In the article before the revision the end of References #4 (truncated here) read:

Astrophysical Journal, 1961.] - Full paper. For more Moreton articles see link: [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?return_req=no_params&author=Moreton,%20Gail&db_key=AST]</ref>

The note "- Full paper. For more Moreton articles ..." after the end of the citation is what you removed.
Am I to understand that, as WP:WCC says, "improving the quality and consistency of citations and footnotes in Wikipedia" means that I shouldn't attach notes like that inside references? I've regularly done that now and then, to get helpful info to readers. I don't see the point if my efforts will be discarded.
I've appended that note instead to the end of the references section today. If that's also not kosher, please convey to me location of Chapter and Verse on how I -should- convey such (in use for centuries) footnote remarks to the prospective reader. Thanks. Twang (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The links you've added are basically redudant, because there already is a Bibcode link at the end of the citations (and a DOI as well). That was the reason I removed them. --bender235 (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Bender235 --

I guess you wrote the entry on Salomon Smolianoff. It has this sentence: "He then emigrated to Uruguay, where he counterfeited Russian." Was he counterfeiting Russian currency or something else? (Thanks for the article, by the way). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.86.34 (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I didn't write that. --bender235 (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This page was initially delete due to lack of sources references ect which we gathered and made more comprehensive with the links,sources and references.

Can you kindly assist us in restoring the DJ Abrantee wikipedia profile. We believe the users profile now meets all the criterias of the wikipedia site

many thanks

Giverandnotataker (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Giverandnotaker

Hi, thanks for reverting back some material on the Anton Abele article. I have tried to reason with the user ENCRYPTMATRON but to no good.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

A minute ago, you were happy with the improvements I had made..? ENCRYPTMATRON (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Because I have realised that there is no point in trying to discussing it with you. I rather just give up and focus on more important subjects than a meta-debate with a "day old" user.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Mate, you're the one who COI-tagged the article in the first place so I'm assuming good faith here, but why would you revert the substantial improvements I've made? I've cleaned up the article in more ways than one: 1) I've replaced dead links with functioning ones 2) I've added new important information that wasn't in the article previously, supported by reliable sources (Abele's party membership, for example), 3) I've removed weasel words and weaselly descriptions (the MTV award was previously "a prestigious peace award", of course nobody has actually ever referred to that award as a peace award outside of this article), 4) I've improved grammar and sentence structure. 5) I've provided sources for previously unsourced statements. All in all, I've removed ONE piece of actual information, pertaining to Abele's non-profit, which was completely irrelevant and almost entirely unsourced. You reverted my improvements wholesale without even providing an explanation.. ENCRYPTMATRON (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually you might be correct. I'm sorry. --bender235 (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

No actually you Bender235 are correct, so dont apologize. Some of the users edits are plain deletion of sourced material and should in my opinion be restored.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't know how to deal with this article. It looked fishy at first, which is why I placed the {{COI}}, but it seems well sourced now. --bender235 (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes and that is not what Im questioning. Im questioning the fact that in the process the user also removed parts that were sourced just simply because he/she doesnt agree with it personally I guess. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

And instead of just accepting it and letting it be reverted the user in question reacts with accusations and other claims even though the user has been on Wikipedia for less than 5 days. Something is definitly smelling with this user... --BabbaQ (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe you should request a third opinion. Right now, I don't have time for this, I'm sorry. --bender235 (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, honestly I dont have the time either. The article is OK even though it has been in my opinon butchered by a beginner. I have also much more important things to look into than the edits of a inexperienced "day old" user. It will probably come back and bite the user in the end. So I leave it at that! Thanks!--BabbaQ (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bender235,

My name is Hannah and I am an MSc student at Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford. I am currently working on my thesis titled ‘The Relationship between Quality of Collaborative Knowledge and Authorship: A Comparative Case Study of Google Knol vs. Wikipedia’. I’m aiming to compare quality of articles from Google Knol and Wikipedia and I need your help in identifying what authors do to make sure they write the best quality article.

If you agree to participate, you will be interviewed via email, Skype or any other means of your choice.

With your help, I hope to learn about the impact that the unique structural design of the two services have on article quality and thus hopefully for the Internet industry, increase awareness of the implications of design choices for the quality of user-generated content.

All data you provide will be anonymised and stored confidentially. You may withdraw at any time without prejudice and without providing a reason. In the event of withdrawal, data you already provided will immediately be removed.

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at hannah.kim@oii.ox.ac.uk. I hope to hear from you soon. Thank you.

Best, Hannah KimTrinityhk (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The article Samuel Rascoff has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Seems to fail GNG and PROF, I do not think the subject is notable. Question raised on talk page long ago, no answer provided.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Samuel Rascoff 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Rascoff until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. --bender235 (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I wasn't sure if you noticed, but there have been some responses to the FLC you started. I think it could certainly be a featured list. I do disagree with the current title, and I was hoping you would reconsider your stance. I, for one, think the "seasons" aspect is redundant and unneeded. There weren't actual seasons before the formation of the National Weather Service. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You posted a message on User:Reedy's talk page about TypoScan. I may be re-scanning the database soon. Just FYI. --mboverload@ 07:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice. Go ahead! --bender235 (talk) 08:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Bender235! You need to have deep knowledge about Nirenberg! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.173.204.34 (talk • contribs)

Sort of. At least I can read the Chern Medal laudation. --bender235 (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop using the rollback feature to edit-war on this article. It is obviously not vandalism. Cheers, —GFOLEY FOUR!— 19:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It is vandalism. I repeatedly asked Bodrenko (User:85.173.204.34) to explain his edits on Talk:Minkowski problem, but he didn't. At this point, this is just vandalism. --bender235 (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This is covered in WP:VAND#NOT. Please read it. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 20:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You're actually right. I didn't know that Wikipedia distinguishes vandalism from disruptive editing. What Bodrenko does is probably the latter. So what do you suggest should be done? --bender235 (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, he's already blocked for a week (by someone else). I'd suggest reporting to WP:AIV, WP:AN3, or WP:ANI if he resumes. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 21:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep that in mind. --bender235 (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bender, I've reverted your edits on Usain Bolt relating to Lorenzo Daniel. Daniel's time was never officially ratified, thus Roy Martin was the actual record holder for that period (as stated in all sources). Cheers! SFB 18:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

IAAF lists it. What more "ratification" is necessary? Also, a large number of contemporary sources refer to Daniel as "world junior record-holder" (see [2], [3], [4], [5]). All wrong? What is your source (I'm asking because the article Usain Bolt doesn't list one)? --bender235 (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The article does list one (ref 11). The disparity of the facts in the sources occurs because the IAAF official world junior records only began in late 1986. Thus, no official world junior record status existed at the time of those reports you link to, so there was no distinction made. The IAAF never retrospectively received the paperwork for Daniel's run at the SEC Championships, but they did receive the paperwork for Roy Martin's run a week prior to that.

The threshold for record status is not the same required for making the statistical lists. A record can only be claimed when a number of supporting documents are submitted. For example, Samuel Wanjiru had a record run of 58:33 minutes ignored and a slower, later run of 58:53 minutes recognised as a world record because he had not undergone a doping test at the earlier race (see here and the lists here). Obviously, it is not practical to require this level of officiation, documentation and testing for every single performance by every athlete in every country at all times.

In short, it's a statistician's nightmare! SFB 21:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds pretty weird. But thanks for the explanation. --bender235 (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Bender235, I see you've been adding flag icons in the infoboxes of academics. Flags are discouraged in infoboxes per MOS:FLAG, because of their emphasis on nationality. They are generally only acceptable on international athletes or military personnel who serve under a flag. Cheers, GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay. --bender235 (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The article has been rewritten and cleaned up. You might want to revisit the AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I did. Nice work. --bender235 (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NFS@Home 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NFS@Home until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Joe Chill (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Bender235, just a gentle nudge to let you know there are still a few outstanding issues at this list's FLC. Would you be kind enough to go back there to respond to the concerns please? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Took care of it. --bender235 (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of CECB units 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of CECB units until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. --Gh87 (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The article Sergio Kindle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable: hasn't yet played a professional game.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HVB648 (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, are you still keeping track of this FLC? There are unresolved comments from nearly a month ago. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Where? I don't see any unresolved comments. --bender235 (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

12george1's comment? "there is no source for the 1529 hurricane in Puerto Rico. Another thing is that reference #57 is missing the author (Al Sandrik and Chris Landsea), the date (May 2003), and the publisher (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Actually, one more thing, reference #35 is missing the publisher (Puerto Rico Hurricane Center)." Dabomb87 (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, didn't recognize that. Thanks. But anyhow, I don't have time to fix all what the article is lacking, so consider this nomination withdrawn or whatever. --bender235 (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete my contribution in Tobias Unger? Dozens of people criticised his laughable accusations! He is just crying around and doesn't show good talent or performance. I think that point should be cleary pointed out in the article! greetings and we blackz is faster.--87.174.177.14 (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:WEASEL and WP:UNDUE. --bender235 (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I won't read anything. I know the truth. I don't like Unger and I love to see him rolled by jamaica. Shame on you supporting that jealous little loser! Bolt and Powell are king. --87.174.177.14 (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Now get lost. --bender235 (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I converted your transcription to IPA. However, I'm not sure you intended it to display the way it does, so I tagged it: as it's pronounced in English, is there stress on both the I and the LAN, or only on the I? Pls answer on my talk page, as it's not a page I'm watching. — kwami (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bender, you reverted my edits on R136a1 without reason. I reverted it back again and expanded on my previous reason. Please discuss if you want to change it again Bhny (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is "be bold, revert, discuss", not "be bold, discuss". --bender235 (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with BRD, it's this- WP:Edit_summary#Always_provide_an_edit_summary Bhny (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

When you revert it says to give a little reason in the edit summary unless it is obviously vandalism. That's all I meant Bhny (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to say that Bhny has also been complaining on my talk page when I have reverted edits. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC).

Yes there are a lot of unnecessary reversions going on Bhny (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. As a German-speaking WikiGnome, I'd like to solicit your help in testing a new tool. For a few years now, the Red Link Recovery Project has been using the Red Link Recovery Live tool to track down and fix unnecessarily red links in articles. Recently, the tool has been expanded to work on non-English Wikipedias. A small set of suggested fixes for red-links on the German-language Wikipedia have been prepared and I'm hoping to interest some German-language speakers (such as yourself) to work through them.

If you are interested, please visit http://toolserver.org/~tb/RLRL/quick.php?lang=de. Each time you refresh the page you'll be presented with three new suggested fixes. I'll be happy to answer any questions on the tools talk page. - TB (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That tool looks really nice. But somehow "AUTOFIX" doesn't work, even after I added that JS to my WP skin. Does this work with Google Chrome? --bender235 (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup, it works in Chrome, or rather it works for me in Chrome. To test I:

1. Downloaded Chrome on a spare Windows box
2. Copied User:Bender235/vector.js to User:Topbanana/vector.js
3. Refreshed my browsers copy of vector.js, as it recommends at the top of its page
4. Set my preferred skin to 'Vector' (I'm normally a 'Classic' myself)

I notice you've got User:Bender235/monobook.js populated - did you add the autofix line to the right custom js page? - TB (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It still does not work. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong. --bender235 (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm .. tricky. Things to try:

1. Try a different browser - not permanently, just for a few minutes to see if the same things work/don't. The RLRL javascript is tested in IE6-9,Firefox3-6,Safari,Opera and Chrome, but there may be something different in your setup.
2. If this makes no difference, try a different wiki-skin (ie monobook). Again the RLRL javascript is tested in all skins and quite a few different versions of the Mediawiki software, but you never know.
3. If neither of these makes a difference, perhaps there is some bit of security software on your computer blocking the script?

-TB (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, finally works. Really nice tool! But I'll rather be using it on the English Wikipedia. --bender235 (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear it's working. If you know what the problem was (and it's something that others might encounter), I'll update the installation guide. - TB (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess I just had to add that .js to my German Wikipedia skin. --bender235 (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

D'oh - I myself was looking at your en.wikipedia .js files. I'll tidy up the advice on installing the RLRL javascript to emphasise this point. Cherrs. - TB (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Late+Canadian+scientist+Ralph+Steinman+shares+Nobel+prize+medicine/5493302/story.html

Revert please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.126.174 (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, false positive. My bad. --bender235 (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

wonder not why Wikipedia editors are held in such low regard. 2 seconds of your time on Google would have prevented all this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.126.174 (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

C'mon. About a thousand times a day some vandal "declares" someone dead. You just happend to be the one non-vandal. This wouldn't have happened if you had added a source in the first place. --bender235 (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, he died Friday, hours before the decision about the Nobel Prize was taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.92.146 (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It is sometimes sad to be right. I'm genuinely sorry that Steinman is dead, but he is and it can not be called vandalism to type it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.92.146 (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I already told you, in your case it wasn't vandalism. --bender235 (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't me. 196.2.126.174 (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Got ya. --bender235 (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Please remove the article if you want to or do not consider it important or suitable, not soapboxing talk at all. Yes, Alonso is not already worldwide known, but hes got to start somewhere you know? He may not be in the selected work of Tom Coyne's yet like Robyn, Chris Brown or Taio Cruz, but he is the first Chilean to ever work with him in history. So, go ahead and delete it please, the article will most likely to be written again by someone else.

Best regards, Loreto Bisbal Thisisalonso (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Loreto Bisbal, user Thisisalonso

It is not up to me whether this article will be deleted. But feel free to leave a comment here. --bender235 (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Three years ago, you expanded this article and added a reference that's currently in the "further reading" section. The word "poisonous" is misspelled in the reference; could you please check the original, and then either fix it or add [sic]? I tried to check it with the ISSN link, but that didn't give me anything on the titles of articles within the issue. Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It was a misspelling. I fixed it. --bender235 (talk) 07:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

hi Scandreamer (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm, very kind. But why? --bender235 (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Bender235/2011 archive! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Bender235 -

Please stop changing my edits for Morton Deutsch, Ph.D. Morton Deutsch is a very accomplished scholar who I work with at the International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution. I am adding important material that paints a more complete picture of his life and legacy. Professor Deutsch would be happy to explain to you why the more complete version I am trying to upload is more accutate and complete.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.82.29 (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There version you're trying to "upload" is full of puffery and violates WP:NPOV. Also, you're violating WP:BRD and probably WP:COI. Please stop reverting my cleanup, instead address this on the articles talk page. --bender235 (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

ThaNKS for fixing that, I thought I had cleaned up all my messy refs!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. --bender235 (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Any reason for reverting a link fix? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

IAAF records refer to the event's location as Bressanone, not Brixen. That's why. --bender235 (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes :-) But we agree that Brixen and Bressanone are basically the same town, do we? The IAAF decided to use Bressanone, the English Wikipedia (for good reasons, it's the traditional English name) to use Brixen. Alongside the links IAAF World Youth Championships in Athletics and Brixen there should be no misunderstanding. However, if you do insist to use Bressanone, feel free to pipe it. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay. --bender235 (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Good call on this edit. Needless to say, a man who achieves something via a highly flawed methodology doesn't prove his point by achieving it a second time through said same methodology! SFB 23:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Right. --bender235 (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"Well-known" is hyphenated in English. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. This has been discussed. In case you still disagree, you might want to address this here. --bender235 (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

See Merriam-Webster's Colliage Dictionary, tenth edition or The New Oxford American Dictionary, second edition. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, it depends on the structure of the sentence. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said, this has been discussed and conclusively decided. If you want to reopen this discussion, please don't do it here, do it at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos. --bender235 (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't [6] William M. Connolley (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I know. --bender235 (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

So, you were being deliberately incivil? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I said what I said. --bender235 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You know that this edit is in no way, shape or form one that rollback should be used for. I don't appreciate being rollbacked considering no edits I ever make are vandalism, let alone irrefutable vandalism. Jrcla2 (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I know. I clicked the wrong button. Sorry. --bender235 (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The article Jonathan Pila has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Oddbodz (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I added several sources, FYI. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a little confusing when you make a change like this which changes a bunch of citation tags in the process of fixing a typo, without stating that you are doing so in the summary. I appreciate that it may be a feature of the software that you're using, but it's makes it harder to review your edit. GreenReaper (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, AutoWikiBrowser does this as part of its General fixes, so this can't be turned off that easily. Maybe you should mention this problem at the AWB talk page. --bender235 (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Re your edit [7] see now-voluminous discussion on the Talk page, and especially my "reasonable people" section. Yakushima (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

St. David School (Richmond, California) an article that you have participated in editing has been nominated for deletion a second time, the first time in in 2006 resulted in no consensus and it can be reviewed here. The current discussion on the removal of the article is located here should you wish leave your comment.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Ferns 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Ferns (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

USA Today All-USA high school football team (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Aledo High School, Potomac High School, Pleasant Grove High School and Grant Union High School

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)