User talk:Bender235/2010 archive

Iupati

Hi! I edited Mike Iupati because the formatting was wrong - each syllable should be all caps or all lower-case, not mixed - sorry if I got it wrong. Which part(s) of "ee-yoo-PAH-tee is incorrect? Lfh (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. The incorrect part was the missing | between "ee" and "yoo". I'll correct it. --bender235 (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

AWB

Hi. I noticed tthjat you are using AWB 4.9.0.2. Please update to 4.9.0.3 by downloading the latest snapshot from http://toolserver.org/%7Eawb/snapshots 4902 has critical bugs. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

PS Category:Year of death unknown is supposed to be in talk pages only. Please read instructions found in category´s page.

Thanks for that information. --bender235 (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Bender235! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 62 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 944 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Rollie Massimino - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Mike Dunleavy, Sr. - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Péter Erdő - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. Carlo Furno - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
5. Zenon Grocholewski - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
6. Nicolás de Jesús López Rodríguez - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
7. Franciszek Macharski - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
8. Friedrich Wetter - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
9. Keith Dambrot - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
10. George McGinnis - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Jake Long GA

This user helped promote Jake Long to good article status.

Thanks for your involvement in the development of Jake Long which has become a WP:GA in recent months.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Jahri Evans

On January 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jahri Evans, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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) 00:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Henry Roberts

I noticed just now that you have recently (well, fairly recently) edited both the page on Macgyver that I watch and the page on Stephen Henry Roberts, which I was just drawn to by a very interesting quote of his concerning atheism. It's been a long time since I've done any editing, but I want to tidy up this Stephen Roberts page soon. It seems a disorganized heap of text to me, far too laden with opinion and praise. Have you any advice as a much more experienced editor? What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that article needs a better structure (or any structure) first of all. I recommend this guideline to you: Wikipedia:Writing better articles. --bender235 (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Pete Carroll

Show me a real source that he was hired. Not "going to be hired" or "agreed in principle on a deal." Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

NFL.com says "done deal". Period. --bender235 (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation against User:UrukHaiLoR

As you have commented on a report on AN/I in which I have been involved, I'd like to inform you that I have filed a sockpuppet investigation against UrukHaiLoR (talk · contribs). This account very likely is a sockpuppet of Top Gun (talk · contribs), who has been blocked indefinitely for "lying about sources, in addition to a whole host of other sins".

Again, thank you very much for your assistance in this case!  Cs32en  03:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

High School Athletes

There are some high school athletes that seem to me to meet the General Notability Guidelins that are either up for deletion or were recently deleted. What do you make of Perry Jones and Kyle Prater for example? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll take care of that. --bender235 (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll see what happens. I'd like to add keeps to both discussions based on the subjects clearly meeting the general notability guidelines, but I will leave it to others so as to avoid interacting with the nom. Hopefully the articles will survive. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Stuckart

I'm sorry, but Stuckart definitely was a Ministery of Interior in the Flensburg government. See the Shoa.de article: "Als 'Innenminister' verfügte er über das zweitgrässte zweitgrößte Ressort (mit 13 Amtsangehörigen und 9 Hilfskräften...)" 80.221.43.22 (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. You should also see de:Wilhelm Stuckart, quote: "Im Mai 1945 wurde Stuckart als Reichsinnenminister der Regierung Dönitz in Flensburg interniert." --bender235 (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Notable Brazilians

Hi. Considering that you edit the articles about the Brazilians in the english wikipedia and I know some of them who are notable, I am interested to collaborate with you to develop their articles. 132.208.68.173 (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to help you, but I'm pretty busy with other stuff. You might contact some of the members of the WikiProject Brazil. And by the way, please consider creating an account before you edit in Wikipedia. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Francis Cubbon

I am puzzled by the tag you placed on this article. It has over a dozen links within it. How, then, can it be called an orphan? --Georgejdorner (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

An orphan is defined as "a page with few or no links from other pages." Right now there are only three links from other pages to Francis Cubbon, therefore it is indeed an orphan. --bender235 (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Updated roster nax boxes

There is a discussion and a vote going on you might be interensted inBigmaninthebox (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Service award update

Hello, Bender235! The requirements for the service awards have been updated, and you may no longer be eligible for the award you currently display. Don't worry! Since you have already earned your award, you are free to keep displaying it. However, you may also wish to update to the current system. Sorry for any inconvenience. — the Man in Question (in question) 10:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

want more info

hello Bender235 you edited following page Cynthia Khan, i am also a big fan of her. i want to know latest news about her like what's she doing these days, where she living, any official page (Facebook, MySpace etc) or any contact information. i am waiting for your kind response from Mb62020 Mudassar Bashir 08:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mb62020 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but I don't know anything about Cynthia Khan. I was just fixing a typo via AutoWikiBrowser. --bender235 (talk) 11:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hans Leyendecker

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hans Leyendecker, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.medbib.com/S%C3%BCddeutsche_Zeitung. 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. See our copyright policy for further details.

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) 20:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hans Leyendecker

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Hans Leyendecker. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bender235. You have new messages at Rettetast's talk page.
Message added 01:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rettetast (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Schukoff

Hello, you recently sent me a message alleging that I had created this article and that it was about me. I'm afraid I think you've got the wrong editor, I can't see that I've edited this article and didn't create it - and it's certainly not about me! Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I frankly can't remember alleging you. I actually sent a message to User:Filmbuster. --bender235 (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphan articles

Hi there, I see that you "corrected a typo" by tagging Ciclón Ramirez as orphan - maybe you should read up on the rules on what actually constitutes an orphan article, 3 or less articles linking to it - Ramirez has at least 15 actual articles linking to it so it's most definitly not an orphan article.  MPJ -DK  06:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was added automatically be AutoWikiBrowser. You might consider leave a note on the Report A Bug Section. --bender235 (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Was John Law a Physiocrat?

You added the Template:Physiocrats to the Law page, but the word Physiocrat doesn't occur on the Law page, nor does Law's name occur on the Physiocracy page. Law's paper money system appears to be some distance in time and doctrine from the likes of Turgot? AllyD (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually added the template because Law's name was one it. He is listed as one of the precursors of the physiocratm by Reynolds. --bender235 (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

How to remove stud status

Hi, I noticed that you removed the stud status for the entry of Lixiong Wang using AWB, would like to learn how to do that...

thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.245.8.4 (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What would you like to learn? Removing a stub tag, or using AutoWikiBrowser? In any case, I'd suggest you should create an account first. --bender235 (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Need your help identifying Lamar football coaches

I am trying to find the complete list of the 12 all-time coaches at Lamar University, and I see that you're the person who has added the succession boxes for the Lamar coaches. However, I've only been able to piece together 7 of the 12. Could you please either provide me the website that has this information, or finish off the list on Template:Lamar Cardinals football coach navbox yourself? I would appreciate the help. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not have the complete list. I found most of the information in Cashion, Pigskin Pulpit, but there isn't a complete list in this book. You might be identify some of the other Lamar coaches via a Google News search in old newspapers. --bender235 (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about your page moves

Just so you know some of your page moves have been commented on in a related thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#Canada/Winnipeg page moves, infobox removals. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced notice

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved, as you did at Alexander Schukoff. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. --bender235 (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The above notice was placed on my talkpage, presumably in error since I haven't edited the page referred to. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not add that to your talk page. User:Eastmain did. I don't know why my signature is in there. --bender235 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. My apologies to you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Never mind ;-) --bender235 (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Bay

Thanks! That'll teach me to type fast! I'm working on a revision in MS Word to avoid such mistakes! The Red Queen (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. --bender235 (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Tx

For your help on the Ausmus article. I have to figure out how to use AWB ... I especially like that it helps w.multiple refs to the same source.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

advice

hello Bender235

i see you edit a lot of pages about people.

and you also edit page 1Sky (Scott Gasparian).

so let me ask you question if i may, how do i do this "correctly"?

i see the notability warning. i really couldnt be bothered to add enough links to make it go away. i dont really care if there is a page on wikipedia about me or not. i agree with the "if you are famous(sic) enough, someone else will make a page about you".

however,

i do care that the 1sky.org, which is a _very_ partisan lobbyist group, has my "name" in wikipedia though.

do you have suggestions how to have the 1Sky.org page still have a "there is an earlier 1sky name" kinda thing?

do you have any idea what i mean?

all the info on the page is accurate and verifyable, i could scan my business license etc and post those to the commons,

blah blah blah, hope you have a second to help a noob here,

thanks,

--gaspo.

gaspo (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As it appears to me, you are personally involved in this topic, and are therefore strongly discouraged to write about it in Wikipedia. --bender235 (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Haloti Ngata

I edited the Haloti Ngata page and he is listed as a nose tackle on the Baltimore Ravens official roster on their website. He's definatly not a defensive end. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleavitt18 Aleavitt18 (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Aleavitt18(talk • contribs) 17:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

We exclusively use NFL.com data here. So if they list him as DE, we do that, too. --bender235 (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe you should watch football —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleavitt18 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Argue facts, not personalities. --bender235 (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Baltimoreravens.com Facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleavitt18 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ravens Depth Chart. Fact, too. --bender235 (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

espn.com 2-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleavitt18 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's continue that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League, please. --bender235 (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:CITE

WP:CITE is pretty clear about not changing reference formats:

• In WP:CITE#HOW: "You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected."
• In WP:CITE#Citation templates and tools: "Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus."

If the {{reflist}} template did not change the citation style, I would not object to it (but it would also be pretty useless as a template). As things are, the {{reflist}} template does change the reference style by changing the font size. As we are in disagreement, according to WP:CITE, the style that is already established should be respected.

Personally, I don't mind {{citation}}, but if anyone else objects, then the default is to change back to the established style that does not use it. But I am only going to change reflist back in the article at hand. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphan tagging

Hi, you added an orphan tag to murder of Stephen Lawrence using AWB. The article was recently moved, and many pages link to the previous title of the article, so it is not an orphan. According to this talk page section, the bug has been fixed for the next release of AWB. In the meantime, if you don't want to update to the latest SVN version of the program, check your edits carefully for any misplaced orphan tags. I've bypassed a few redirects to murder of Stephen Lawrence, so the problem shouldn't happen again on that page. Graham87 06:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info. Didn't know that. I'll look to update my AWB. --bender235 (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

External Link, City of Milton, Florida

The external link added to the City of Milton, Florida page is legitimate and not intended as spam. It is understood that all links within Wikipedia are no-follow and the site was genuinely offered as a helpful inclusion since no larger site (including the official City of Milton web site) exists that is dedicated to providing educational information about the City of Milton. Jasonmichaelweaver (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, it clearly qualifies as WP:SPAM. But let's continue this discussion here. --bender235 (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Marxian economics

Hello,

I saw your edits on Marxian economics. One of your edits has to do with "Criticism" by a Kezhou Li, it contains a reference to a source. The edit is made by a anonymous editor on Dec. 6. See the history. On Google I can't find any reference to this Kezhou Li, nor to the title of the book. The ISBN gives a couple of different writings by different authors in Chinese, which I cannot check. So I really think this is all completely unverifiable. This same editor has done more or less the same on Das Kapital. I don't know if you're into this, but perhaps you can have a look at these things. I think all these edits should be reverted. Greetings, Dick Bos (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing when I was fixing the citation style. I just thought the title might be translated. But in the end you're right: if this book is only in Chinese, we can't check it, and it wouldn't be useful for the English Wikipedia anyway. --bender235 (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A million thanks...

...for this edit. postdlf (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Just doing WP:GNOME stuff. ;-) --bender235 (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hockey stick controversy‎

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Hockey stick controversy‎, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 15:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Alan Lipman

I had a conversation just now on my talk page with the ip you have been in a dispute with at this article. I suggest that the two of you discuss these matters on the article talk page and pursue dispute resolution to resolve these matters. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been suggested that we chat and try and understand what is going on here.

I begin with an introductory cheeseburger:

64.134.69.162 (talk) has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!

Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I think it's kinda strange that you didn't find Dr. Allan Lipman's page at Georgetown. I found it simply by going to www.georgetown.edu and entering his last name:

The GCSV site comes up immediately on the Georgetown website. It is the first result. Along with classes, etc. Try it yourself:

[http://search.uis.georgetown.edu/search?q=%2Blipman&btnG=Search&client=default_frontend&site=default_collection&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=default_frontend ]

This is a very rudimentary search--one word. It is the first outcome. Yet you say that it is "strange that you could not find it". Why would you say something so demonstrably untrue?

All of this--the Wikipedia cite, Linked In, etc., as I've posted and sent you, is exactly the same. I found each one through simple search, just like Georgetown. Kinda strange indeed.

I'm happy to provide whatever is necessary to validate my post. All of this seems very weird--the contacts, misinfo, claims--a bit like being stalked. No matter--I offer you a drink at the Kellerbar Tontopf (or perhaps coffee at the Kaffeehaus Graf) once this is resolved.

Exhaustedly,

Maria! :P

Are you User:Incisive32? Because he/she was the one who created that article on Alan Lipman, and because he/she contributed to no other article, WP:AUTO comes to mind.

Anyway, it's interesting that you've been to Jena and even know the Kellerbar Tontopf. I guess it's a small world, isn't it? --bender235 (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bender, Yes! I have indeed been to the Kellerbar Tontopf, down the Wagnergasse, to the Goethe Galerie, etc. You think a girl does not know how to drink and shop? It is Sunday, and I am working, and will be traveling late to my beloved Wizards game, so today--coffee for both of us:

64.134.69.162 (talk) has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Coffee somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Bender, you are a interesting and fascinating man. You make statements, (such as "cannot find at Georgetown", Wikipedia cite, etc.); when shown that these are easily proven as demonstrably untrue, and asked about it, you respond by simply asking a different question! Oh, well. Perhaps the next time I am in Jena I will ask about this interesting scientific method? :> I enjoy your tenacity and strange, unusual charm.

Now, that being the case: I have written over 100 citations, abstracts, and biographies as a part of this work. I wrote this! My boss asked me to try Wikipedia at the time we were searching and categorizing Lipman. He is well known in the U.S. for work on violence and is regularly on CNN, NBC, BBC, MSNBC, Washington Post etc. regarding violent and terrorist acts here, for at least the past 10 years, as a search of Lexis-Nexis would reveal, I'm sure. Shortly after this, we became aware of the Zoeller suit, German TRO, and as a result we shifted to other approaches. I use many different usernames on sites, typically based upon whatever I see on my screen at the time that can I associate with the subject--Incisive32 is one. I keep a running list. It is my job and my interest to monitor, review and keep up all of my work--and I do. I have noticed your new additions, and they look good. I'm happy to help in any other way.

Now...enough! I hand you the universal champagne of all celebrations

. We wave the flag of peace! Common is blasting in my ears "The present is a gift and I just want to be." The next time we talk about this I want it to be as we are entering for a drink and a laugh through the red gates of the Kellerbar Tontopf.

Maria :P 64.134.69.162 (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This is getting kinda bizarre. Anyway, I'm glad we solved this problem. Cheers. --bender235 (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

When you disagree with another editor, particularly when that editor has already started a talkpage thread about a particular edit, it is not good practice to revert to your preferred version even while participating in the discussion. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and quality articles are built through the input of many editors. If the two editors currently participating in that discussion cannot find common ground, please request additional input via Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force, or some other branch of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Additionally, your edit summary here is decidedly uncollegial, bordering on a personal attack. Please act with more consideration in future. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 18:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't know who Connolley is, do you? He is the last person on Wikipedia to decide whether anything on Global Warming is balanced. [1] --bender235 (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Bender. That looks like a perfectly valid article from a very reliable source. But please be careful not to get pulled into the personality conflicts. I am well aware of William's conflict of interest, his history of distorting article content, and the pattern of personal attacks and incivilities he has shown, but it's best to stay focused on the content and the sources in so far as possible, especially since there is a big problem with biased enforcement measures targeting those trying to undo the damage done to our climate article content by advocacy groups. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep that in mind. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Justia

See my post at this talk page (includes diffs); a number of users several days ago all made the same edit to different SCOTUS articles, replacing wikilinks with the full URL of the Wikipedia article. It appeared rather strange behavior at the time, but it looks like it was practice for the Justia spamming. postdlf (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Could very well be. --bender235 (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 20:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Egyptian Navy

Hi Bender, Thank you for the fixing you did at the Egyptian Navy page, I would appreciate if you manage to add the navy's Jack from the Arabic page (the color is blue), I failed to copy it from the Arabic page. Thank you. Orthopraxia (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you refering to this flag? It hasn't been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, thus you can't add it to an article on the English Wikipedia. --bender235 (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Goals-Kyle Wilson

Maybe I am incorrect but isn't the point of Wikipedia to be the best available encyclopedia, with the most well rounded sources of information. I don't understand how when there is a reference to Kyle Wilson being a prospect for the NFL draft how linking to a site, where it discussion his future as a draft prospect, when he will likely be selecting, and a breakdown of his games, is less valuable than a link to a article that was written a year ago and does not delve into Kyle Wilson deeply at all. How does that give the reader a better insight into Kyle Wilson's prospects? Please explain that to me, over the link that I gave which is a whole page soley dedicated to the player. I really would like to know why, and really what is Wikipedia trying to do? Are they trying to give the researcher the best information, or are there ulterior motives that flaw the relaying of information.

Nolan Vasan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.15.172 (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policies, external links have to meet certain criteria to be considered a reliable source. Your website does not meet these standards. --bender235 (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright I see, but I really can't post it just because it is my own website? It would make sense to me that people should be reviewing the links to see whether they are good or not. Not just blindly wiping away any link that doesn't fit a certain criteria. Obviously I would like the promotion of one of my links being on Wikipedia, but it also does add a great deal to the actual page, and insight into Kyle Wilson. It just seems wikipedia is sticking so closely to it's standards to a fault. Each case should be looked at individually —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.15.172 (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not whether your website might be useful to the reader, it's whether it is a notable source. According to Alexa, your website is not among the most visited NFL Draft pages, compared to WalterFootball.com or CBSSports.com. --bender235 (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Understood, thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.15.172 (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Christian Whiton‎

Pls stop undoing significant revision work. Please use the talk page. This entry was corrected to drop autobiographical text and appears to meet notability criteria. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canyon1980 (talk • contribs)

That article is a recreation of a deleted article. It will be deleted very soon. --bender235 (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah

Sorry, I didn't see the message. I'm not sure how to fix it. There must be some way to compress the size a bit. Perhaps if the images of the flags are removed from the templates it will work (though its a shame not to have them). - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's the flags. It is the sheer size of these templates. We should split them up, one for each country's MEPs. --bender235 (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstarred!

		The Original Barnstar
		For diligent copyediting Herostratus (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This is for this edit:

[2]

Bet you didn't think you'd get a barnstar for that one, did you? However, even the smallest improvement to the most obscure subject improves the encyclopedia, and can be noticed and appreciated. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --bender235 (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Antartica/Antarctica

One to watch out for, the piece of music by Vaughan Williams Sinfonia antartica is actually spelled that way, and doesn't have the first "c". David Underdown (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. You should place a {{Typo}} on that page. --bender235 (talk) 11:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I first spotted this on Vernon Handley, so to take that approach I'd have to find every page with Sinfonia antartica on it and tag it - can't you instead add a regex or whatever to AWB so that Antarctica on its own is fixed, but if it oocurs as part of "Sinfonia antartica" it's left alone? David Underdown (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll do that. --bender235 (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Livingston High School (Livingston, New Jersey)

Can you please explain to me why you moved Livingston High School (New Jersey) to Livingston High School (Livingston, New Jersey)? Unless you are aware of another Livingston High School in the state of New Jersey, the move you made was unnecessarily super-specifying the school's location. Standard United States high school naming conventions are that if there is a high school whose name is unique in a state but shares its name with at least one other high school elsewhere, then the only specification needed is the state's name. But if there are two high schools with the same name in the same state, the (City, State) convention is needed at that point. So, unless I'm mistaken, isn't there only one Livingston High School in New Jersey? Jrcla2 (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This is simply the standard scheme for school disambigs. School (city, state). Even if there's only one School in that particular state. --bender235 (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hugo Black

Sorry to bother you, but I am having a problem with a reference. Could you take a look and clean up my mess. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Stan

Just checked it, but couldn't find a ref error in the article. Could you please describe what's the problem? --bender235 (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's the quote:

In a 1968 public interview, reflecting on his most important contributions, Black put his dissent from Adamson v. California “at the top of the list, but then spoke with great eloquence from one of his earliest opinions in Chambers v. Florida (1940).”Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; refs with no content must have a name.

Thanks Stan

Found and fixed. You got to make sure that you use correct quotation marks. --bender235 (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Had to go back and touch up footnote yet again. But your wise counsel gave me insight into the problem. Thank you and happy editing!. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Stan

No problem. --bender235 (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Bolan's Rock Shrine

Another user dug up some good sources. Might wanna take a look. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Let's just see how this AfD pans out. --bender235 (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Denisova hominin

On 25 March 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Denisova hominin, 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.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Riemann hypothesis

{{frac}} takes care of all the markup for you. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 02:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Didn't know that. Thank's for the info! --bender235 (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Fresh Concepts Deletion

Hi! You nominated our page for Deletion. I understand that the newspaper and the website are the only two things referencing our organisation. But we've been existing for over 14 years, and we'd really like to keep this page. How can we fix this? After all, WMCN (our college radio station) and The Mac Weekly are just student organisations, just like us, and there doesn't seem to be a difference between us and them, at least as far as the Wikipedia rules are concerned. We think that Fresh Concepts deserves a Wikipedia page just as much as WMCN and The Mac Weekly do. Thank you in advance! Oxenbrigg (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether this article will be deleted is not up to me. It will be decided per consensus by the Wikipedia community here. You should post a comment there. —bender235 (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

BIT plane

I've declined the above article's speedy deletion. Administrators have to back up the speedy deletions we make, and "this is irrelevant nonsense" isn't really a valid deletion under the speedy deletion criteria, it's not helpful to the author, and it serves only to bite the newcomer who created the article. Best to AFD it and pick better reasons in future ;-) . Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in a hurry and that article really seemed to be irrelevant. --bender235 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Reggie Pinkney

The article Reggie Pinkney 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) 01:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --bender235 (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

ITN for 2010 Baja California earthquake

On 5 April 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 Baja California earthquake, 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.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

College Football Project request

Hello! You are listed as an active member of the College Football Project! We have a large number of unreferenced biographies of living persons, but it works out to be just two or three articles per active participant. I've divided up the articles that need help and put them in a table on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Unreferenced BLPs. Please assist the project by researching and sourcing the articles that have been "assigned" (so to speak) to you.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I'll see what I can do. --bender235 (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

A new barnstar for you!

		The BLP Barnstar
		For your efforts in sourcing College Football BLPs (specifically Al Conover and Jeff Spek), I award you the with the BLP Barnstar. Paul McDonald (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate. --bender235 (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Marsh rice rat

See Talk:Marsh rice rat#Explanation of changes. Ucucha 23:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Responded. --bender235 (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphan Status of Greg Tseng Article

Thanks for fixing the typo! Is being linked from 3 other Wikipedia articles enough to get out of orphan status? Luitgard (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe you should ask those guys. —bender235 (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. It looks like three will do the trick[[3]], but I'll look to add some others. The problem is that no one really wants to claim the guy these days!  ;-p Luitgard (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted Luitgard's action because he appears to be trying to game the system (un-orphaning an article because the person appears on a couple lists). I don't know what his agenda is but it doesn't look very balanced. UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Clausen

That thing was an accident about Buffalo, I know that, it was an accident, I was watching the Draft on the internet and I was in a rush, so I apologize and it was an accident, but once he's pick it will be changed. --Talladega87 (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to be in a rush. Just wait until he's is picked. This isn't a race. --bender235 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to make a name for my self, like a featured article and try not to be hold against. --User:Talladega87 (User talk:Talladega87) 01:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you've understood what Wikipedia is about? --bender235 (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes but it doesn't matter anyways, I logged out after the 20th pick and watch it on TV and he wasn't picked. --User:Talladega87 (User talk:Talladega87) Talladega87 (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sebastian-haffner book-cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sebastian-haffner book-cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the problem.

Have a nice day, bot. ;-) --bender235 (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Obamafan70

You know how he keeps adding College Football Performance Awards to the article of Dennis Pitta? Well he is also doing it to Dez Bryant. Just thought I would tell you since you also believe it shouldnt be in the intro.--Yankees10 22:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#College Football Performance Awards, Part II for further discussion. --bender235 (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Your messages

I'm busy right now, so I apologize if I get back to you late. I'll send you another message when I respond on my talk page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. --bender235 (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kyle Calloway

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Kyle Calloway. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Calloway. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Per Enflo

Hello Bender 235! I don't understand why you removed the music box on Per Enflo. He has 3-4 records with others (as noted on the Wikipedia project on musicians), and his piano playinig is discussed at the end of the article. Is there a rule against having two boxes? Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is any rule (probably not), but two infoboxes in one article looks just awful. Even though Enflo might be a great musician, the scientist infobox should be enough. Compare with Angela Merkel, who is politician, of course, and a renowned physicist. Yet the article does not have two infoboxes. --bender235 (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In retrospect, I agree with your aesthetic judgment. I knew that she was a quantum chemist/physicist, but becuase of your tip I now know that she has a number of publications. Thanks! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, good to hear. Cheers. --bender235 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

{{reflist|colwidth}}

Can you explain to me the details of the "colwidth" parameter in {{reflist}}? I noticed you changed TFA today to include it, but I ended up reverting that change because on my browser it was causing half the content to literally disappear (as if there was a white box on top of it). If you tell me what it's supposed to do maybe I could look at the template code and correct it. Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

What browser do you use?

colwidth sets the maximum width of a column in the reference section. That means that your browser decides how many columns should be displayed, depending on the size of your screen (if you're browsing Wikipedia on a sub-notebook, there'll be only one column. If you're browser on a desktop PC with a 23" screen--like I do--, you'll see four columns).

The parameter is also explained on Template:Reflist. --bender235 (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I just realized you were refering to this edit. It's essentially the same, but 60em results in one column on most screens, and two columns on screens larger than 21 inches (1360×768). --bender235 (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm using Google Chrome 4.1.249.1064 on a 15.5" widescreen laptop. Naturally I expect it to only be one column, as you stated, however for some reason half of the names are being cut off on the left side, as if there were a white box on top of them. I'm not sure what's causing it or if it's a problem outside of Chrome/Webkit. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure either. But there have been some problems with WebKit-based browsers, see Template:Reflist#Browser support for columns. I reported your problem on Template talk:Refbegin, but I guess you should add a description of it, too. --bender235 (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, do you think you could set just the number of columns, instead of specifying a width? 30em is pretty small, it sort of disrupts readability when I'm constantly shifting my eyes to the next row, and then over. This is why I set {{Reflist|2}} on pages like HTML5 video.
--Gyrobo (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually the fixed colwidth was meant to limit the variability of column size. I don't know what screen solution you're working with, 1680x1050 it is hard to read a footnote that spans half the screen. "colwidth=30em" produces 4 columns on my screen, which IMO is perfectly readable. --bender235 (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps a width of 50 or 60em? 30em really condenses the refs to the point where one sentence can easily span four rows.
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not? 30em is just a recommendation that is, by the way, currently discussed. I guess you should leave a comment there as well. --bender235 (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems like the ideal place to talk about that.
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Terrence Cody

The article Terrence Cody you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Terrence Cody for things which need to be addressed. –Grondemar 04:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Were you still working on this? It's been several days. Let me know. –Grondemar 15:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I was waiting for your response regarding this question. --bender235 (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your reply here and didn't realize that you had already addressed most of what I was looking for. I made a couple more copyedits and passed GA. Good work! –Grondemar 04:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Gustavo Marín

Hello Bender235 !

I have just seen the "orphan" label you added to the Gustavo Marín article, and I am afraid I am a bit stumped. I did add two more references from other articles, where he is mentioned, but that may not be enough. I had previously done a lot of reference work on this article, so I'm afraid I need your help to point me in the right direction. When I clicked on "suggestions are available" (in the tag), I got a page displaying "O results". Can you give me an example of what I need to do to improve this article and remove the "orphan" tag? I would be very grateful. Thank you in advance.Vedah Eulalia (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Like {{Orphan}} says, an orphan tag means that "few or no other articles link to" the respective article. As you can see here, there are only two links from the article namespace to Gustavo Marín. You can un-orphan the article by introducing links to Gustavo Marín from related articles. --bender235 (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Work in progress you may be interested in

Based on your work on other articles,
I thought I would suggest you might help finish this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Explodicle/Planetary_human_habitability
09:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.178.147 (talk)

Removed Reference

Hi there. I see you removed references from the article on My Cassette Player, calling them "promo links" or "spam", when indeed they were references for the release dates of the songs Love Me and Bee. For the time being, said release dates are unsourced. I invite you to provide another source for them or restore the old ones. Thanks for your attention. Janfrie1988 (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean. But on the other hand it's somewhat problematic to link to online stores, whether be Amazon or some else. I'll try find some other sources for that fact. If I can't find one, I'll restore the old links. --bender235 (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive input. Janfrie1988 (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't mention. And I think we both hätten Deutsch schreiben können. ;-) --bender235 (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Top500

Hello, would you liek to update the TOP500 with new list? Fine job with the last list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.62.120 (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone else was quicker. I only did some minor fixes afterwards. --bender235 (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2009 College Football All-America Team/archive1

Since you were involved in the page, I thought I should let you know that I overhauled it and nominated it at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2009 College Football All-America Team/archive1.-TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --bender235 (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting this one started

This user helped promote 2009 College Football All-America Team to featured list status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

CRFS

There was nothing rv vandalism by wilee , I wished they were still coding but the are not, if you are unhappy with the tone of the inclusion that is one thing, but these are the facts and I do not work on ceph. I have been in the open software movement since 1992.

The code looks dead at this point 5/20/2010, If one is looking for a network Btrfs file system look at ceph a network file system from UC Santa Cruse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilee (talk • contribs) 15:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all the tone was encyclopedic at all. And further, if you add something to Wikipedia you need to name your sources. No self-drawn conclusions, please. --bender235 (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Volley

I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 21:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm actually not familiar with volleyball, let alone some of the players. I probably only made some ref or typo fixing. --bender235 (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

All right, thanks. --bender235 (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Dashes

Hi Bender. In regards to this edit: endashes with spaces can be used in exactly the same way as unspaced emdashes, as noted at WP:EMDASH. It's a stylistic variation. It's just something worth remembering in future as the changes linked above neither benefit nor impair articles. Therefore, articles should be left with their original style (if used consistently) and your time will be better spent doing other types of copyediting. Cheers! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 10:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. --bender235 (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Maths rating

When you place the "maths rating" template on an article talk page, please fill in all three of the "class", "priority", and "field" parameters. The only purpose of this template is to carry these parameters; it should not be used just to mark an article as mathematical without any assessment data. We already have a List of mathematics articles that uses article categories and does not require talk page tagging. Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but the problem is I'm not a mathematician. In some cases, I didn't know to which field a certain article belongs. --bender235 (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hassan Yera

As a fellow AWB editor, I appreciate it when people warn me about AWB's false positives, such as Chief Hassan Yera (not Year). So please see this, this, and this. Art LaPella (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Jim Bianco Edit

Hi Bender235. I'm curious as to why you classify the Jim Bianco article as an autobiography. Jim Bianco did not write the article. I wrote the article, it is from a neutral point of view and statements in the article are well sourced as per Wikipedia guidelines. I am NOT Jim Bianco and this article was written independent of Mr. Bianco. It is an attempt to present an informative enclyclopedic article about an American musician. There are multiple edits because it is my first wikipedia article and I've made improvements as I have been learning and I want it to look perfect. Please advise me as to how you feel this article can be better. Thank you. Respectfully, Dominique aka Dzzyd (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Dzzyd

It is always alarming when a [[WP:BLP}} article is written by a single person entirely. But reconsidering this, I just removed the warning sign. --bender235 (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Bender235. I appreciate it. Thank you also for your work protecting the integrity of the wikipedia community.Dzzyd (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Dzzyd

reflist

According, to WP:FOOT, "The choice between {{Reflist}} and <references /> is a matter of style; Wikipedia does not have a general rule.". According to WP:CITEHOW, "You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected." So articles that already use <references> should not be converted to use reflist instead. I noticed you made this sort of change with AWB on several articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a dumb rule I deliberately chose to ignore. The "first editor" owns "his" article as much as any subsequent editor: not at all, that is. Given the steadily progressive nature of Wikipedia and its rules, it would be stupid to keep "existing styles" in articles that were created five or more years ago. --bender235 (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm somewhat amazed that you changed the articles back after I undid your edits. Anyone else, using exactly your argument, could also ignore the stability rule and change hundreds of articles in the other direction. I'm sure you see how that would lead to chaos. The point is that there is no good reason to prefer one or the other, so we use the original style as an arbitrary way to decide.

Moreover, it's a violation of the AWB "rules of use" to do controversial things with it.

I hope you will reconsider and return the articles to the state that they were originally in. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No I won't. WP:CITEHOW says: "You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected." However, there is no disagreement, unless one of those "first editors" opposes the edit. I randomly asked three of them, to see if there is any disagreement at all. Should they oppose, I will revert my edits. If not, the edits will stay intact. --bender235 (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The phrase you quoted does not say the disagreement is from one of the original authors. I have disagreed with your edits, so there is disagreement. I will open a thread on ANI about this shortly. — Carl (CBM · talk)

And what makes you the owner of these articles? --bender235 (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not their owner (or, maybe, everyone is equally their owner). I have started an ANI thread at WP:ANI#User:Bender235_and_AWB. Your editing here is out of line with community norms and with our written guidelines. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FOOT

In light of the recent ANI unpleasantness, I suggest, and would support, a proposal to change the WP:FOOT guideline to use <reference /> on new or sparsely sourced articles, but to prefer {{reflist}} on articles that have ample sources.

As a corollary, I would support a note, or strong suggestion that edits not be made solely to make this change, but rather allowing the change if it's a part of other legitimate edits.

I'm curious your thoughts. Shadowjams (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather have a guideline change that says "use {{Reflist}} everywhere". --bender235 (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, meaningless, hardly visible changes to markup are certainly not a problem to change, unless people are going back and forth with each other changing them. But the two differences between them is that reflist uses smaller text for endnotes (a format followed in pretty much every discipline and book) but will also display an error template in big ugly red letters when there are no references. That, to me, is the only continuing purpose of <references />. Shadowjams (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Reflist

After the ANI thread, I am sure you're aware that it's inappropriate to change the references tag to the reflist template. Per that thread, I will leave the other AWB changes, and only revert the parts that change from one style to another based on your own preferences. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not inappropriate to change to {{Reflist}}. That ANI was only about do it with AWB. Leave those articles untouched, please. --bender235 (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you like me to copy quotes from the policies, the ANI thread, or both? I'm certain you're aware of the rule, because you previously explicitly stated you had ignored it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Any Wikipedia article can be changed by anyone at any time. The rule your are refering to only recommends to keep the established style if there's a dispute among the initial editors. You aren't one of the initial editors. And there is no Wikipedia rule saying one person can request a veto right for himself just to hold up the encyclopedia's progression. --bender235 (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The rule makes no reference to the initial editors. I will revert your inappropriate changes per WP:BRD. Your changes are not a "progression", because they make the articles worse. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

A few quotes from the ANI thread:

---

I too prefer Reflist over /references, and I always use it when adding a reference section. But it's a matter of style, and not "a good clean-up edit." It's an inappropriate change, even if done to a single article. The reason that it is inappropriate is that it leads to un-necessary debates over trivial article characteristics, which serve no purpose and reach no conclusion. There are more than enough things about which everyone agrees that they need fixing. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 2010-7-1 (UTC)

---

Agree with DGG on all counts (I like reflist too, but don't go changing it on established articles); also I believe I was the one who used the term "good clean-up edit" DGG, and you're misquoting it slightly; I was talking about other positive changes which were introduced in the same edit as the rather less positive reflist change. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:52, 2010-7-1 (UTC)

---

The good faith was gone when he ignored WP:BRD. Misleading edit summaries and ignoring a consensus achieved dispute resolution process isn't minor.--Crossmr (talk) 04:39, 2010-7-2 (UTC)

---

If you insist that I have no special rights to an article, then your argument also implies you have no special rights. In cases like that, we rely on the established version to break the tie. WP:CITE is very clear that reference styles should not be changed based on personal preference. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If you consider the additon of {{Reflist}} to make the article "worse", go ahead and nominate it for deletion. Would be fun to witness that. --bender235 (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The point is that personal preference is irrelevant: the citation style established in each article takes precedence over what individual editors prefer. This rule is main way we avoid all sorts of edit wars over referencing style. Editors are expected to follow the system established in each article, rather than making large-scale changes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If that was how Wikipedia works, we would've never implemented {{Citation}}. But, of course, Wikipedia does not work the way you suggest. --bender235 (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Try going to some featured articles that don't already use citation templates, and changing all the references to templates :). The issue is that some articles get more eyes than others. Your edits are particularly inappropriate because you are editing a large number of articles in a short time. If you happened to change the citation style in the course of completely rewriting an article, I doubt anyone would complain (or even notice). Of course, if they do complain, the way we break the tie is by going back to the previously established system. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Try going to some featured articles that don't already use citation templates, and changing all the references to templates :)

You mean like this? The main author replied "A million thanks...". Or like this? Got me a barnstar by the article's main author. Thankfully, there aren't just idiots on Wikipedia. --bender235 (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The gratuitous personal insults won't really help your case here. If you're not aware of the strong hostility of some editors towards citation templates, you really shouldn't be changing reference styles. You gave me two links to articles that already used citation templates. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Song Dynasty did not use citation templates. Can be seen easily add the end of the comparison page. Neither did, for example, Brown v. Board of Education. And both improvements are still intact. Because those citations are useful. --bender235 (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Or because nobody complained. Once someone objects to a change, our policy is to favor the established version. "You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected." In our case, there is disagreement, so the established style takes precedence. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but for no reason, because you aren't one of the first editors. The rule you are refering to is meaningless when there's a consensus to change it. Nice to see that e.g. the main editors of Bessel function do not oppose this improvement. --bender235 (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(←) The guideline makes no reference at all to whether the objections come from the first editor or from a later editor. It only says that when there is a disagreement (between any two editors whatsoever), the style to use is the one first established in the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Consensus breaks all of these nonsense rules. When there's a majority for the change, than it's okay. Otherwise, one idiot in a million Wikipedia users would be enough to hold up the improvement of the whole project. This is--by no means--how Wikipedia was intended to be. --bender235 (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No. You could make the same argument about ENGVAR, and you would be equally wrong. In certain areas of pure stylistic preferences – which don't actually relate to the content of an article, only its presentation – our policies and community norms say to just leave things as they are, rather than trying to "improve" articles by bringing them into line with personal preferences.

So I will continue to undo inappropriate stylistic changes such as these when I encounter them. I'm sorry that you have taken an "I didn't hear that" position regarding our community norms on preserving established styles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia rule that says "Leave every article the way it is, just so that you avoid any scuffle". That's ridiculous. --bender235 (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly what the relevant sections of WP:ENGVAR, WP:MOS, and WP:CITE say. Links: [4] [5] [6]— Carl (CBM · talk) 20:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, they say "Be bold! Ignore all rules! And don't feed the troll!". --bender235 (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently this conversation has run its course. I left links to the policies I mentioned above. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Taylor

Do you think he & his wife truly talked only in Greek? How could we know this?John Wheater (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no clue what you're talking about. --bender235 (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Man(o)euvre

Per wikt:manoeuvre, this is a British spelling for the noun and not a typo. Mjroots (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. But please leave a note at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos as well. --bender235 (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation templates

Please respect WP:CITE & don't go round adding these to articles that don't use them, as you did to Medieval art; it causes all sort of troubles in adding further to them. Johnbod (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. And by the way, no part of any article is set in stone for all time, including the references. --bender235 (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Just follow the policy, please. WP:CITE is extremely clear. Any new changes you make to articles I edit will certainly not be set in stone. Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please realize that Wikipedia progresses. Just because an article did not use {{citation}} or {{harv}} when it was created five years ago doesn't mean it should never use these templates. So when a new, useful template is created, why not having it implemented on as many articles as possible? ––bender235 (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

EpiCentre K

You have added orphan tag to the EpiCentre K article. Can, please, explain the reason behind it? How is it orphaned if it has at least one mutual link with another article? What is the number of article needed to the abolish that "orphanage"? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The wikipedia orphanage is defined by a count of three, however it also states that "one or two incoming links may be sufficient as long as they're relevant". I compose the article for readers to understand the reason and purpose of the sponsorship the company provides. The article was not created with intention to commercialize either, but rather as I said, for familiarization purposes. There is not much information available in English language. 03:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk)

George Lusztig

Prof. Lusztig has asked in OTRS ticket 2010071110030601 that we not publish his full birth date. Since he is essentially a private individual and not a public figure, this is a reasonable request and one we would typically honour if made in good faith by article subjects. P{lease do not restore the full date, it is essentially trivia and is not necessary to any understanding of the subject. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not trivia. Wikipedia does not censor itself at somebody's request. We already had this discussion at Tron (where his parents wanted to have his real name removed), or at Atze Schröder (where Schröder wanted to have his real name removed as well). By the way, both sued Wikipedia and lost.

Lusztig's birthdate has been published already, and is available worldwide. No reason for Wikipedia to remove this information. ––bender235 (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Odysseus and Old Italic

Ah, I see my error. I wonder whether you'd be competent (I am not) to make a gif image of the Old Italic and insert it in the proper place, as you've noted few people have Old Italic in their computers. Otherwise, what with the illegible letters and the big boxed notice, it looks as if Wikipedians are showing off our linguistic proficiency, and somewhat pretentious.--Wetman (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, this is not being pretentious, just being precise. I think that infobox is a good idea. Readers who only see Mojibake receive info on how to fix it. —bender235 (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Christophe Lemaitre

Hi, why did you convert Christophe Lemaitre to Christophe Lemaître? His last name is spelled WITHOUT the circumflex accent: http://www.republicain-lorrain.fr/fr/permalien/article.html?iurweb=1601397 "Lemaitre sans accent circonflexe". --Gspinoza (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That's how it was spelled at 2010 European Athletics Championships – Men's 100 metres. Please reverse my edit if it was wrong. --bender235 (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

But it is a (big) mistake. And you are wrong. As the other WP sites (and even IAAF) could confirm the correct spelling ! Please change it back (ask to Admin, now, if you are not).--Enzino (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User:YDoron COI?

Hi. I noticed that you flagged Annette Tillemann-Dick and Charity Sunshine Tillemann-Dick, suggesting that YDoron (talk · contribs) was likely in a conflict of interest with respect to these pages. If I may ask, what evidence have you found? I'm not saying it's not so — there may very possibly be a COI — I'm just saying it isn't obvious to me. If you have non-public information as to the identity of the user, I'm not asking you to "out" him/her or break any other rules. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 17:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't have any inside information. This is just common sense: when you see a single-purpose account, they're almost always in a WP:COI. —bender235 (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, since the page on Annette hasn't been touched by either YDoron or Chiberty (talk · contribs) — another SPA — in a very long time, and many other edits have been made to the page since that time, I'm inclined to discount any current concerns over COI on this page at the present time. Other concerns, including possible notability questions, may remain.

The page on Charity Sunshine Tillemann-Dick is much more likely to be influenced by a current COI — and my apologies, in my haste I failed to notice that you had identified potential COI by a different SPA, Yoni7 (talk · contribs), in connection with that page. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 17:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Tool not working as expected?

Halo. Edits removing online links as here appear to be destroying references. I've noticed other problems as well. I suggest reviewing your recent edit history and results. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see any destruction. AWB correctly removed redudant information. —bender235 (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, I was seeing the named ref but not the one occurrence you need of the original, that must have been outside the diff. I thought I had also come across Google Book links which left the base link but removed the arguments which located the reference in question, but I'll need to go back to try to find that. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

colwidth

Thanks for that - I wasn't aware of that one. Do you by any chance know why Chrome doesn't recognize columns in reflist at all, and if there's a fix for that? (I assume this has been reported by others.) thanks Tvoz/talk 02:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do know why this is. As noted on Template:Reflist#Browser support for columns, "WebKit based browsers have a bug that breaks links in multiple columns." —bender235 (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ack. I thought something was wrong here until I happened to log on via Firefox again and all was normal.. Is there any fix possible? Looks weird not having columns. Meanwhile I'm on the fence about Chrome. Thanks Tvoz/talk 22:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the newer versions of Safari and Chrome don't have this bug anymore, but I guess the columns feature will be disabled for WebKit until those new versions gained sufficient usage share. At least that's how I read "WebKit support will be returned once the usage reports indication a preponderance of adoption." —bender235 (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I just dl'd Chrome a week or so ago, so I assume I have the latest version - and there are no columns, so I don't know. Thanks for the pointer to that Template page - I'll take a look there. Tvoz/talk 06:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are no columns in Chrome, because the feature has been turned off for WebKit-based browsers (because of the aforementioned bug). The new Chrome (and Safari) does not have that bug, but columns for WebKit are still disabled. --bender235 (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Tvoz/talk 06:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This edit makes no sense.

Can you tell me what's up with this? (I am watching this page, so please reply here.) — Timneu22 · talk 22:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I shortened "40-yard" to "40-yd", because "10-yd split" and "20-yd split" split is written alike. Made sense IMHO. —bender235 (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Geesh. Somehow I missed that. Oh well. Cheers. — Timneu22 · talk 00:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kishore Marathe

The article Kishore Marathe has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NPF and/or WP:BLP1E

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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. Rockoprem (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kishore Marathe

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kishore Marathe, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kishore Marathe (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rockoprem (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Attack page

Hello, please note that you marked this as "patent nonsense". It wasn't; it was a blatant attack on the person. Please use G10 for these types of articles and blank the page. — Timneu22 · talk 23:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. --bender235 (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

References

Hi, I noticed that you have been changing References sections in articles like Joy Division, using MOS:APPENDIX as a rational. Do note that citation templates are not mandatory, and in fact should not be used if the article already has an established citation style. The template are meant mainly to help people format references if they are unsure how to; they aren't needed if the references are already formatted. In short, changing a references into "cite book" format is a waste of time if the article doesn't use "Cite book" predominantly already. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I wasn't using MOS:APPENDIX as rational, but the cleanup efforts of WP:WCC. Implementing citation templates is useful IMHO, to establish a consistent citation style throughout Wikipedia. ––bender235 (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Except citation styles don't need to be consistent throughout Wikipedia. This is because several reputable styles of citing sources are utilized. Furthermore, many editors don't like using the cite templates, finding them cluttered and full of unnecessary code. See Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Citation templates. What matters is that articles are internally consistent in their citation styles. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

However, I did that per WP:BRD. Some editors may like citation templates, others don't. Those who claim ownership over their articles are free to revert my edits. —bender235 (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm citing the guidelines that I wasn't sure you were aware off; I have no idea why you felt the need to reply "Those who claim ownership over their articles are free to revert my edits", which is not a comment that assumes good faith. The simple fact is that there's no need to convert citations to certain cite templates if an article already consistently uses another style of referencing. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It just bothers me that some people think the citation style they originally established in one Wikipedia article is set in stone, because it is not. Some people may prefer the "old" style over the "new" one, but you just don't reject the "new" style because it is new. If people don't like citation templates, they can revert my edit—I won't start an edit war. But the thing is there are editors who like citation templates, and appreciate me changing the citation style. So I'll continue to do this. —bender235 (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fine if you like cite template. I'm just saying if I come across an article, I use whatever's already established, even if it is cite templates. I just wanted to help ensure you didn't run into any problems with others over the issue down the line. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. But please keep in mind there is no such thing as an "established" citation style. Wikipedia is an evolving project. —bender235 (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CITEHOW says otherwise. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

...and is wrong, which is why I chose to ignore. —bender235 (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

40 y dash

Hi Bender235. You deleted Donnie Avery's time (edited by 75.22.64.140). Don't know whether this time is right or wrong but in the wiki-article of Avery this time is listed. Is it correct, wrong or irrelevant because of missing reference? Thanks for answer. Montell 74 (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, Donnie Avery's time is not from the NFL combine. --bender235 (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fabrice Béthuel

The article Fabrice Béthuel 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. Supertouch (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Did some fixes. --bender235 (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Marvin Bracy DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Marvin Bracy 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! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

metre → meter

Yes, I realized that AWB was not supposed to correct that, I have since made an exclusion for this and you can revery the changes I have made (if needed). Thanks for bringing this to my attention, if you find that I have made any other errors, please bring this to my attention, so that I can fix them (if needed) and prevent them from happening again.

--Cit helper (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. —bender235 (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

ITN for 2010 FIBA World Championship Final

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jeshua Anderson

Hello! Your submission of Jeshua Anderson 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! Allen3 ^talk 00:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Nfl predraft

You are more than welcome to particpate as on memeber of this discussion, but you may not come make a chage you like that goes against the concensus. You are not the leader, nor king. Wikipedia is concensus building. And that takes time. There was a wroking concensus before you rudly came in and made changes. Forcing things that are not aprooved of on the NFL protject. One of the Pillars is WP:IAR and if you keep this rude, inunviting, consensus-beraking behavior I will report you to WP:ANI

You have one vote and no more. Your vote is recorded as for the change. One vote NOTHING MORE>Bigmaninthebox (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid you don't know what WP:IAR actually means. Anyway, it certainly does not allow "ignoring" WP:MOS and establishing your "own project MOS". —bender235 (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Bender

Hi! Do you hail by chance from the Germans that once lived in Bender
Die neuen Besatzer haben das Fort zu einer Festung ausgebaut, die sie Bender (nach dem türkischen Begriff für das Tor) nannten. Möglicherweise wurde der Begriff auch vom persischen Bandar [bæn'dær] für Hafen abgeleitet. Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, no. I chose the nickname "bender" because of that guy. —bender235 (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gerhard Pohl

The article Gerhard Pohl 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. MJ₉₄ 23:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, added a source. But main source still is the German article. —bender235 (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

sorry, I'm going to bed

I was excited on the news and got on some mess with you while editing the Gliese 581 g. Keep the good work, cheers! --Panchurret (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I think the article is all right. —bender235 (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Helena Christensen

The explanatory edit comment on column width is appreciated, and not just for me - it helps newcomers as well. It's a moderately well-seen page: 260,000+ hits in 2010 so far. --Lexein (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. —bender235 (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

History of Germans in Russia and the Soviet Union

As you can see in this entry (see the title), there are several German groups in Russia and not all of them are the Volga Germans. Your corrections in the entry on Andre Geim are factually incorrect: it is unknown whether his parents are Volga Germans or belong to some other ethnic German group. For one, my relatives are Bessarabian Germans and certainly not Volga Germans, yet they are still ethnically German from Russia.--24.47.242.84 (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Then we should at least link to History of Germans in Russia and the Soviet Union. —bender235 (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Susan Athey‎‎

Hello Bender235,

some time ago, you added the birthday to the mentioned article. Can you tell me, where you've found that date. I can't find it on the web. Kindest regards from Germany, --Drahreg01 (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, in the meantime I've found this. All the best, --Drahreg01 (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Und das nächste mal spreche ich dich auf deutsch an... ;-) --Drahreg01 (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Alles klar. --bender235 (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop reverting....I assume good faith on your part WP:AGF, but it would be much more helpful if you would actually discuss your objections so consensus can be reached on the appropriate pages. Thanks and happy editing, Obamafan70 (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed already, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 7#College Football Performance Awards, Part II. Consensus was to keep these "awards" out of the lead section. —bender235 (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Willis

Thanks for your help on Patrick Willis. I shouldn't add links? Please explain. Canstusdis (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

External links in plain text look ugly and should be avoided. If you really think it is neccessary to link to this school's website, do it via <ref>...</ref>. –bender235 (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Thanks. (/slaps forehead)Canstusdis (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Colwidth

Hello. I have seen you alter columns in articles with a colwidth template, but I cannot remember exactly what the template looked like. Can you assist me, please? Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}? —bender235 (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Does that work with columns other than references? If so, then yes! Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no. I guess you mean {{Div col}}. —bender235 (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

It seems that whenever you get into a dispute with an NFL editor, they end up being a sockpuppeteer. Are you some kind of sockpuppet magnet? First Bigmaninthebox (who has stopped editing with all his accounts) and now Obamafan70. Who's next? ;) Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't realize bigmaninthebox used sockpuppets, too. Two such cases in this short period of time is really weird, isn't it? But I've seen a lot of strange things on Wikipedia in the past 6 years, the craziest probably being the Justia.com spammer. Anyway, I'm glad we finally uncovered this. —bender235 (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what a huge sockfarm. Anyway, here's the link to the Bigmaninthe box thread that I guess you don't remember: Template talk:Nfl predraft#Can.27t follow this page: Bigmaninthebox = RussFranciesTE81 = Ramsfansince1969. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, must've forgotten. Thanks. —bender235 (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Football player honors format

Bender, I hate to revert something with a brusque edit summary, without further explanation. The standard formatting for college and NFL honors is shown in the example provided in Template:Infobox NFLactive:

• The standard for writing an achievement is to display the achievement, followed by the year earned in parentheses. Achievements go in reverse chronological order, from most recent to earliest. Examples of how certain achievements would be written:

• 3x Super Bowl champion (XXXVI, XXXVIII, XXXIX)
• 1x First-Team All-Pro selection (2007)
• 1x Second-Team All-Pro selection (2006)
• 2x Pro Bowl selection (2006, 2007)
• Heisman Trophy (2002)
• First-team AP All-American (2001, 2002)
• First-team All-ACC (2000, 2001, 2002)

Please accept my apologies if my edit summary for the Joe Haden article sounded a little curt. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, makes sense. Let's keep it that way. —bender235 (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Dankeschon, freund. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Keine Ursache. ;-) —bender235 (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Robert Lazarsfeld for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Robert Lazarsfeld, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Lazarsfeld until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Bot job to remove three-column footnote lists

I see you are running the equivalent of a bot job to change all 3-column reference lists. In general, large-scale patterns of edits require bot approval, even if you wish to use AWB to do them.

In particular, I undid you edit to Group (mathematics). It uses short footnotes that are fine in three columns, and it even passed FA review with that formatting, in this revision [7]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess you don't realize how unreadable three columns look on a smartphone screen, or how ugly they look on a 22-inch wide screen. —bender235 (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If there is a problem with smartphones we could implement a fix in the code for the mobile site, which would not require editing any articles whatsoever.

In general, if we wanted to not have any 3 column reflists, we could simply edit the reflist template so that it only accepts the parameter "2". This is another reason why we want to discuss bot jobs ahead of time: because if we really wanted to achieve the removal of 3-column reflists we could do it in one edit rather than hundreds.

In any case, the issue is that it is inappropriate to use AWB to change large numbers of articles to your personally-preferred style. Large-scale changes require clear evidence of consensus that they should be carried out, particularly large-scale stylistic changes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not my personal preference, but what Template:Reflist recommends. And by the way, even at Group (mathematics) people disagree with you. For good reason.

Oh, and you can't be serious if you think one has to look for consensus to change {{Reflist|3}} to {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}. I'm using the good old WP:BRD. —bender235 (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There are many times when template documentation is either wrong or excessively strongly worded. Like I said, it would be easy to remove the 3 column functionality in one edit, if that was actually the desired behavior.

The issue here is the unapproved bot job you are still running. Resuming the task after I raised the issue here is utterly inappropriate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No it is not, since you're the only one complaining. Revert where you don't like it, the rest is WP:CYCLE. —bender235 (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Because you are continuing to violate the AWB rules of use, I have removed your name from the AWB CheckPage. Please see my comment here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied. —bender235 (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Charles Sanders Peirce

Just to note that I'll be reviewing this article that you nominated for GA over the next few weeks. The review page can be found at Talk:Charles Sanders Peirce/GA1.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. --bender235 (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. -- Cirt (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Michael Atiyah

The article Michael Atiyah you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Michael Atiyah for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Reflist

The reflist template itself now sets column widths in em units. So there is no reason to make edits like this [8], they have no effect. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware. However, {{Reflist|2}} that doesn't produce two columns is irritating to most editors, therefore I'm changing it. —bender235 (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What? There is literally no difference in {{reflist|2}} and {{reflist|colwidth=30em}}, the template code automatically replaces the former with the latter (at the exact width of 30em). So the edit has no effect whatsoever. However, if the goal was to ensure there was always 2 columns, no em-based width would achieve that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a case of WYSIWYG. You see {{Reflist|2}}, but you don't get two columns anymore. So I change to {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}, because that's what you're getting. –bender235 (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not a reason to change the page. If the consensus at the template changes that 2 should mean "25em" or "35em", the ones you have hard coded won't be updated.

Really, it's inappropriate for you to be changing these reference styles at all. But now that "2" is an em-based width based on consensus at the template, you're going against that consensus when you change the invocations. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Marion Carpenter

Hello,

I added links to the article Marion Carpenter. This would resolve the orphan issue, in my belief. So I am going to remove the maintenance tag. I do appreciate the help on the items you worked on and maintenance tag. If this is not adequate, please leave a message on the article talk page.

Thank you for your help. Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, those links should be enough. —bender235 (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Continuing changes

As noted in my closure of the ANI discussion, the VPR proposal, which looks likely to succeed, will make edits like this redundant. So please don't continue to make them - it's not a big difference and it can wait for the proposal to complete. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 19:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, you should be aware of the consensus at Template_talk:Reflist#Visual_comparison preferring fixed column counts to fixed column widths. Rd232 ^talk 19:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Haha, yeah that was thanks to CBM, making a fixed number input ({{Reflist|2}}) looking like {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}. That was crap right from the beginnig.

Anyway, the font size of <references /> is irrelevant for replacing it with {{Reflist}}, because this is about replacing a bare MediaWiki feature with a globally modifiable template. —bender235 (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No to both those points. On the latter, see ANI. On the former, the consensus clearly extends beyond that point. Rd232 ^talk 20:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, are you aware of Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser Rule 2? Rd232 ^talk 20:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't until now. Are you suggesting I should create a bot account for that typo fixing? —bender235 (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If you do enough of it, yes. And it looks like enough from your recent contributions; if you do that much regularly, it would be better to do that from a separate account. (Bearing in mind the points at WP:SOCK#LEGIT on linking accounts.) Rd232 ^talk 20:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think about it. —bender235 (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Userpage comment

This is inappropriate (WP:AOHA) - please remove it. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 01:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence [...]" - actually there is pretty clear evidence. It's like that Babel box that says "this page has been vandalized 3 times" - everyone can check it in the history. But I don't want to step on anybody's toes, so I'll soon remove it. —bender235 (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. In general, issues like this should either be actively pursued through WP:DR, or quietly forgiven and forgotten. Festering accusations are just no use to anyone. PS The Babel box isn't comparable at all. Rd232 ^talk 11:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Change of referencing system with misleading edit summary

I have reverted this edit of yours. Please adjust your AWB settings so that you will no longer introduce named refs to articles not using them. And please, please start using edit summaries indicating what you are actually doing. --Hegvald (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I was typofixing, and that's what the summary said (AWB fixed a typo "suddently → suddenly", but your stupid revert restored it). Further, it seems like you don't understand how those Ref tags work. —bender235 (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Typo fixing is fine, and I restored the fix. But the main change you made was not fixing the typo, as the edit summary misleadingly indicated.

I know perfectly fine how the ref tags work. I have been using them for a while. But if you believe that named refs are needed or a universally acceptable standard in referencing that is always to be introduced no matter what, then you have neither any idea of how referencing works in real-life academic contexts outside Wikipedia, nor have you actually read the policies and guidelines concerning this on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes).

I use shortened footnotes, with a list of references at the end of the article. When called for I "bundle" references, using several in one footnote (although not separated on different lines, as in the example there), and add explanatory content, as you will see in footnotes 20 and 21 in the Carl Fredrik Adelcrantz article, or in footnote 5 of Olof Åhlström article (permanent links to article versions to make the numbers valid in case of future changes). --Hegvald (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to compare "real-life academic" citation style on paper to Wikipedia's citation style? You gotta be kidding. Naming identical refs is a well accepted general fix on WP:AWB. If you don't like it, start a proposal to have it removed. —bender235 (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

As for your first question: Yes, I am. Real-life academics usually have a good idea what they are doing. As for naming refs, please see Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Named references. Apparently this "general fix" has already been fixed and should no longer be automatically applied if you use a current version. Besides, even if that wasn't the case, Wikipedia's referencing guidelines are not overruled by whatever "fixes" AWB happens to include.

In either case, I am starting a discussion on WP:ANI about this issue. Not about you or your edits specifically, but about AWB use and edit summaries in general. --Hegvald (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bender235 - just a note that I reverted the request you posted about this issue on Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes. The General fixes page is a user manual, not a talk page. I suggest you and Hegvald read Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#Named references implemented when none present. If this doesn't resolve the issue, please post on the relevant AWB talk page. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I've mistaken the "talk page general fixes" for a talk page. ;-) --bender235 (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly an error by AWB

At 0440 on 8 December you added {{Persondata}}, {{DEFAULTSORT}}, Category:1722 births and Category:1792 deaths to Anders Rudolf du Rietz. Unfortunately, the {{BD}} had already added the last three and the sort value you put in {{Persondata}} and {{DEFAULTSORT}} did not match the value that was in {{BD}} or the value that was indicated by the pronunciation guide at the top of the article. A DEFAULTSORT conflict was generated and I found it because I try to keep Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts as clean as it can be.

Both {{BD}} and {{lifetime}} are useful, multi-purpose tools, populating two categories and setting the sort value in one template, and have survived many attacks. The point is that if either is there the year-of-birth, year-of death and DF do not have to be. (I made all the necessary corrections.) JimCubb (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Definite error by AWB

The "typo" fix here is invalid. The beach is called "Bicep Beach". (I just watched the short to confirm.) Perhaps your AWB should be configured to not make mistakes like this... --Mepolypse (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, good find. You should drop a note at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos. —bender235 (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, note dropped. --Mepolypse (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This "typo" fix is also wrong. Is it AWB causing this again? Will you please change it back? --Mepolypse (talk)

I reported this to the typo list as well. Please double check changes made by AWB before saving in the future. --Mepolypse (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Continuing to change references

I am sure you are aware that, based on discussion at Template talk:reflist, there is no consensus that changing to column-width formatting is an improvement. There were enough complaints about the change in appearance that the template was changed back to honor the column-count formatting.

So you should not be continuing to make edits such as [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. I could link to more; these are just examples. The final one is also an example of a misleading edit summary, "no academic titles in the WP:LEAD".

Moreover, the summary at the ANI thread explicitly asked you not to continue these widespread changes. You complained when I treated your inappropriate edits per WP:BRD edits simply undid them, so rather than doing so I will post here and leave a note for the admin who closed the ANI thread. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No one asked me to not implement "colwidth". I was asked to hold my replacing of "references" with "reflist", for as long as your bogus WP:VPR was running. And I still see this as an improvement to Wikipedia. Editors' of each of these articles may decide whether to keep "colwidth" or revert it.

And of course people complained about your sabotage proposal, manipulating Template:Reflist so that entering a fixed column preference results in a flexible set. That was obviously crap right from the start.

There will never be a consensus whether to use "colwith" in general, because it does not have to. Every article is different. Some may look better w/ no columns, some with two, and some with more than that. Your black-white thinking ("colwidth" everywhere or nowhere) is misleading. —bender235 (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If there is no consensus that colwidth is superior (as you now seem to agree with), then you shouldn't be changing to use it. That's the point: if there is no consensus that one way is better, then the rule that applies is to leave the established style. This rule is clearly laid out in the MOS and in WP:CITE. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you still don't understand. Neither "colwidth" nor "reflist|2" is superior. It depends on the article. In my opinion, "colwidth=30em" looks better on articles with more than 20 refs. Therefore I fix it per WP:BRD, and if someone reverts it, I'm fine. And that is not a violation of any Wiki policy.

And now for the last time: the rule that says "keep the establised style" applies if, and only if, there is a disagreement. Which means, and I'm trying to make this real simple for you, if there are two or more people favouring different citation styles, or different column numbers, it's better to simply keep the original style rather than to start a meaningless debate. But if NO ONE disagrees with the column number change, than WP:CITE does not apply. —bender235 (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am disagreeing with the change. Before you claim that I'm only one person, I'll point out that I was happy to see if I was the only one who opposed it. So I brought it up for discussion on the template talk page. It's clear from the discussion there that other editors also object to changing from fixed-count to flexible-count formatting. After that discussion, you cannot claim there is any broad consensus that the changes you are making are improvements. It's just your personal opinion that it looks better, and personal opinion is no basis to be going through large numbers of articles changing styles.

I did notice your claim "I fix it per WP:BRD, and if someone reverts it, I'm fine." Presumably I count as someone. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you do count. Question is: why don't you like "colwidth"? Just on some of the articles I fixed, or in general? Or is it just on principle, because no one should be allowed to change anything regarding the reference section?

And again: there will never ever be consensus about whether we should use fixed or flexible column count (or no columns at all). Just like there is no consensus about the Wikipedia citation style. Because both styles are useful, and it depends on the article (for example, "colwidth" is useful here, but not here). So I introduce flexible columns where I think they're useful, and remove them where they aren't. If someone of the original editors disagrees, may it be reverted! If no one disagrees, the change will stick. Simple as that. —bender235 (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

OK.

1. in regards to the ANI summary, that was indeed directed primarily at switching between reflist/references. The VPR thread was archived without action; I've posted at WP:AN.
2. As to fixed vs flexible column count, this is a matter of personal preference, in conjunction with each article's content. And from a certain point of view, flexible column width is a stronger declaration of personal preference, because the typical columns=2 merely splits the references in two, which on large screens or small is the same degree of difference. Given the range of screens now in use, we probably don't want more than 2 columns unless the refs are all really short. But with a fixed column width, it essentially forces large screens to have columns widths suitable for small ones (which is at least more tenable than the reverse). Practical example: on my big screen, this gives me 4 titchy columns with refs typically breaking across 2-4 lines, while the previous version with 2 columns was much more readable. Playing around with screen sizes, at a standard 1024 px screen it's 2 columns anyway, even at 1280 it's still 2 columns. Just beyond that it's 3, with the column widths almost OK up to my 1680 screen width, when it screws up again by going to 4 columns.
3. Be that as it may, it's not appropriate for one user to go around imposing their personal stylistic preference on articles they're not even involved in editing. As they say in the movies, "we can do this the easy way or the hard way". Just stop imposing your personal preference, which is essentially equivalent to reflist|2 + screwing with big screens - or hear more about it at the drama boards.

Rd232 ^talk 01:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually using a large screen, and four columns certainly don't screw up anything. 30em is actually a perfect width for columns. It's "reflist|2" that is screwing up on big screens, because two columns on an awfully wide screen is just a waste of screen estate.

Anyway, me roaming around Wikipedia and implementing "colwidth" here and there does not mean I'm "improsing my personal preference", because I have no problem if some else reverts it (for a good reason that is, not because he/she misunderstood WP rules). It's more like a style suggestion, which may stick or may not, depending on the preference of the next editor of the article. I certainly won't start an edit war over this on any article, therefore I'm acting per WP:BRD. —bender235 (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

de gustibus non est disputandum. Fine, so it's your personal preference to have references hard to read, but not "wasting screen space" (WP:NOTPAPER??). OK, so on articles you create or heavily edit, you can do that, and see if anyone objects. What you can not do is roam around adding it where you feel like it and claim it's OK per BRD. Either start hearing that, or hear a lot more about it. Rd232 ^talk 12:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, "colwidth" on articles with more than 20 refs is a suggestion. Because a lot of people don't even know that reflist offers that feature. Some people may decide to keep it on "their" article, others don't. I don't mind.

And by the way: I heared you, but I still disagree. —bender235 (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if that means you'll stop, fine. One day these things will be formatted however each individual user wants... Rd232 ^talk 16:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not: [15] [16]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. There is no rule preventing me from making these kinds of improvements. There is no rule declaring you the owner of these articles. Period. And by the way, stop hounding me. This is getting annoying. —bender235 (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(←) The "hounding" page you linked to says, "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." That is what I'm doing here: pointing out a violation of our policies, and the edits do span many articles. Several people have pointed out there is a rule against what you are doing. Here are some quotes:

• @Bender, Let me say also, that you should not be replacing <references /> with {{Reflist}} willy-nilly. Several editors have said so here. Bender's replies here seem to me to amount to just asserting that "Reflist is better". It has been explained here why you should not go around making this change. CBM is being entirely reasonable and polite. Bender, you should please participate in central discussion about whether such a change should be made wikipedia-wide, but just stop it now! --doncram (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• I would think it unlikely that we would change our policy to permit this sort of instability in article formatting--the rule to observe the original style is one of the most sensible rules in the entire MOS. Following it will eliminate this sort of conflict over trivia. If we ever do have an agreement on preferred reference style, this would beanother matter, but I doubt very much that the agreement would be for any of the existing formats. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• In general, even if you're doing something you see as reasonable, if a bunch of editors say you should chill out, that really ought to give you pause. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There are also the comments from Rd232 higher in this thread. In light of these comments, the claim that nobody objects to the changes isn't sustainable.

The idea that the column-width method is better for large screens also conflicts with the actual discussions on the template talk page. The complaints about the change to the {{reflist}} default formatting came from users with wide screens who said they prefer the fixed-count method. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I got enough of this. Stop spaming my talk page with your idiotic crap. That pieces of discussion you cut out above are about a totally different topic. There is NO rule that declares the implementation of "colwidth=30em" illegal. None. Nada. Zilch. And now MYFB and quit stalking me. —bender235 (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As an administrator, this sort of thing is MFB. When I notice people who (almost always unintentionally) break an established rule, I point it out. The three quotes are from the recent ANI thread about your style changes; they are not about some other topic. I think that Rd232's diagnosis of IDIDNTHEARTHAT is starting to look more appropriate. I am going to start a discussion at WP:CITE, which you're welcome to join. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh. I guess I made a mistake unwatching your talk page on the basis that you'd got the message, since clearly you didn't [17] [18]. Last chance: make this type of edit again to an article you're not actively involved in improving in a substantive way (real content writing, not minor fixing or tweaking), I'll block you for disruption - unless or until there is explicit consensus to support your action (eg Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#References_template_vs._reflist_tag is that sort of discussion, though it's early days). Rd232 ^talk 08:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

What kind of admin are you? First of all I don't have to be "actively involved" in an article to edit it, because NO ONE owns an article, and therefore everyone can edit every article w/out asking anyone (including you) for permission. And second: there is no consensus to use "colwidth=30em", and there is no consensus not to. There will never be and should never be, because every article is different. —bender235 (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I brought this to WP:ANI, by the way. —bender235 (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

By your logic, BRD would permit any good faith changes, on any number of pages. Do you really need an example to understand that that's not OK? OK then, suppose I'm one of those people who thinks white-on-black text saves energy and also looks cool if it's a stub, and went around changing random stubs I come across to white-on-black text citing BRD ("someone can revert if they don't like it"). Get it yet? Rd232 ^talk 14:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't. I'm pretty sure white-on-black texts are discouraged by WP:COLORS or WP:MOS in general. The use of colums in references is not. Nowhere. —bender235 (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way: I could make a similar absurd counterexample: let's say I'm one of the typo-fixing guys, and I fix them on a large number of articles? Should I be allowed to do that? Do people really have to revert them all? —bender235 (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you really don't get it. I suppose you'll have no objection to someone hunting down every use of colwidth and replacing it with reflist|2 either? Rd232 ^talk 14:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I do have objections to that. Because "colwidth=30em" looks ugly when there's only a handfull of references. And it looks ugly when there are only long references. So "reflist" is useful, and "reflist|2" as well. But in some case, "colwidth=30em" simply looks better. Everywhere I think it looks better I act boldly and introduce it. If someone else disagrees, he's free to revert it. I'm fine with that. And none of us violated any Wikipedia rule. —bender235 (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not actually answering the question, when you consider the context. Getting rid of every colwidth may be someone else's personal preference; they may hate it everywhere. That doesn't make it OK to singlehandedly eliminate it from Wikipedia, on the basis that per BRD anyone can revert locally. The root problem here is that if the logic of BRD is permitted to apply for a campaign of mass changes then it applies equally to reverting that entire campaign. Permitting that is simply too disruptive, particularly when it's a matter of personal preference and you know some people don't like the change being made. In that case, you might as well skip the editing and say "for argument's sake, I've made all those changes, and someone else has changed them back, now what?". Rd232 ^talk 15:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If someone hates "colwidth=30em" in general, and wants to get rid of it everywhere, he's free to start an attempt by removing it here and there. He's definitely allowed to do that. What's he's not allowed to is re-removing after someone restored the old version. —bender235 (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Justin Blackmon

Please see this edit and its summary. You reverted me without explaining why; it is my opinion that a DUI arrest for an athlete does not constitute encyclopedic information--it is simply a bit of news that does not rise to the level of notability. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are a lot of these "incidents" on football players' and other athletes' bios, so I considered it relevant. But I won't start an edit war over this. —bender235 (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to war over this either. But I believe that this sort of news needs to be included judiciously, and in this case it seems to have been a single incident, which would make up about a quarter of the total article. Newspapers in the US are more than happy (really, too happy) to report these kinds of incidents. If it concerned Michael Vick or someone like that it might be a different matter, perhaps. Thanks for your response, Drmies (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Colwidth

Seems to me you were told to stop screwing around with the colwidth parameter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider it "screwing around". I was asked not to modify the reference lists w/out identifying the local consensus on the matter. I did. And I changed to columns where ever no one objected. —bender235 (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If the other editors don't care, then I don't care either. Woof! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I meant no harm by it, but I was just sick of another person wikihounding me. Sorry, don't take it personal.

Anyway, I'd still prefer if people could show their objections to my refences list fix by simply reverting it, instead of having to react to my request. That would be easier for me, and for them. But unfortunately a lot of admins don't understand this. —bender235 (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

When I reverted some earlier, you complained about me wikihounding you. Now you're OK with them being reverted, so I will work on reverting all your inappropriate changes as I get around to them. And, no, the ANI thread did no authorize you to make the same changes if you spam the talk page first. Now I will leave your talk page, to avoid your concerns that I might "hound" you more in the future. If you want to contact me please use my talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Revert my changes where ever you consider it necessary. But I hope you realize that in some cases you are the one ignoring local consensus. —bender235 (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, given that the edits go across so many talk pages, I have decided to bring this to ANI instead [19]. You are duly notified. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Nyttend (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Tony Jefferson

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Tony Jefferson, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://thefootballfactory.org.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

False positive. The website doesn't even exist. —bender235 (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)