User talk:Bender235/2009 archive

RE: college coach infobox

Will you talk to Topgun530 (talk · contribs) and tell him that using the <small></small> tags, makes the columns off line when viewed with Mozilla Firefox. Try viewing it with Firefox. Although it looks fine in MSFT IE, but not Firefox, why not leave the small tags out so it looks fine in both? - 4.240.78.248 (talk) 23:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: "We link to universities, not football teams." This is NOT correct. They didn't coach the university, they coached the football team. Think about it. If it was the college president infobox, that would be fine, but this is about coaching. And when you coach, you coach teams. Not logical captain. - 4.240.165.27 (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Bucs DC

Kiffins not leaving the Bucs until after the season, so he is still the Bucs current defensive coordinator.--Yankees10 17:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of 1976 Tangerine Bowl

I have nominated 1976 Tangerine Bowl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ✼ American Eagle (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject College football January 2009 Newsletter

The January 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Scientist

Please check out this discussion here: Template_talk:Infobox_Scientist#Religion_field. Bletchley (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Religion and Science Deletion Issue

Check out this deletion discussion here: [1] Bletchley (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

ITN for COROT-Exo-7b

On 4 February, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article COROT-Exo-7b, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject College football February 2009 Newsletter

The February 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for updating Christopher George Wikipedia entry

I appreciate the edit you made to this entry. I am trying to grow the knowledge on this topic, mainly focused on his military service but also adding other pertinent data as I come across it. Thanks again for your efforts as a Wiki-gardner. Googleplex732 sends —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.98.90 (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Curly quotes and ellipsis character

Hello, I undid this edit because of WP:PUNC ("The exclusive use of straight quotes and apostrophes ... is recommended.") and WP:ELLIPSIS ("Three unspaced periods" is recommended). —LOL ^T/_C 04:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That's some ridiculous rule. I mean, it is prohibited to use the … character entity because “it may be hard to search for”? Who would search for an ellipsis anyway? But o.k., it's written in MoS. I guess Ignore all rules doesn't apply here, huh? --bender235 (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Curly quotes again

Am I to conclude from this edit that, having failed to change the MoS, you intend to ignore it? Ilkali (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Kind of. This rule (using wrong characters just because it's easier that way) just doesn't make any sense, so ignore it. It isn't a rule anyway. It's only a recommendation, please use "xy" because stupid people might not be able to find curly ones. --bender235 (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to agree with a rule to be obligated to follow it. Don't make me open an AN/I against you, please. Ilkali (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hoo, scary. Seriously, it is not a rule. It's a recommendation. Nothing more and nothing less. End of discussion. ––bender235 (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I called it a rule because you did, twice, and so it seemed like a convenient term. You only disavoyed that classification in a late edit to your comment. What constitutes a "rule" on Wikipedia is fuzzy, anyway. If the MoS says to do X and you continually and uncompromisingly change X to Y, your behaviour will generally be termed disruptive and you will be treated accordingly. See, for example, this and especially this.

Anyway, it's not supposed to be scary. Some people will say "Please don't do that", and you might do it anyway, and you might receive a short-term block. Maybe not even that. The only reason I'm asking you not to make me file one is that I don't want the hassle. Ilkali (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't own Wikipedia, so it's not your business telling me what rules I have to follow. Curly quotes are still available in that little Edittools box on the bottom of your screen, which clearly tells me that Wikipedia does not have determined not to use them. --bender235 (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on its users collaboratively resolving problematic behaviour. So no, I don't own it, and neither does the other guy you accused earlier today. We just help out. "Curly quotes are still available in that little Edittools box". That's a MediaWiki thing, not a Wikipedia thing. Ilkali (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You got nothing better to do than tracking my edits? Okay... --bender235 (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Aravious Armstrong

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Aravious Armstrong, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Incoming true freshman who has not yet played a single down of college football

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. B (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Aravious Armstrong

I have nominated Aravious Armstrong, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aravious Armstrong. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. B (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Billy Paul Bookout

I noticed you recently reverted a page on Billy Paul Bookout and deleted his date of death. He is most definately deceased and will be greatly missed. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.48.5 (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I readded it. Thanks for the info. --bender235 (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

1780 Atlantic Hurricane Season Track Map

I saw your message and I added the source. The tracks are my own work (based on known information) overlaid onto Google Earth. The Google logo is in the image but I also credited them. Thanks for pointing that out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CycloneSteve2 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

To be more specific, known information would be the references on the page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1780_Atlantic_hurricane_season). I'm new to this and I did not intend on breaking any protocol. I'll be happy to edit the image information again if needed.

No worries. You didn't sound harsh at all, you are just doing your job. Thanks for the update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CycloneSteve2 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 1780 Atlantic hurricane season

Hello! Your submission of 1780 Atlantic hurricane season 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! Shubinator (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for 1780 Atlantic hurricane season

On March 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1780 Atlantic hurricane season, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:SteveSpagnuolo cropped.jpeg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SteveSpagnuolo cropped.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 13:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC) --— neuro^{(talk)(review)} 13:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of File:SteveSpagnuolo cropped.jpeg

A tag has been placed on File:SteveSpagnuolo cropped.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. →Nagy 12:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I only made a cropped version of File:SteveSpagnuolo.jpeg. Didn't know it was a copyright violation. --bender235 (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote

What I meant by random person is there is hundreds of other NFL/College football specialits what makes this guys quote notable, these quotes should not randomly be placed in articles it looks and is stupid--Yankees10 23:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I think you're wrong. This quote isn't by some so-called "expert", but by an NFL general manger (according to Chris Low, who's is credible in my estimation). And further, that quote is notable because it is a pretty impressive statement. There is a similar one on Ricky Rubio by a former NBA player, which is just as impressive (and therefore notable).

Let me ask this way: in your estimation, who in the world is qualified to make such a statement regarding a college player (if not an NFL general manager)? --bender235 (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Its not so much by who wrote the quote, I just dont think any quotes should be on football players articles just because it is "impressive".--Yankees10 23:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not? That's additional information for someone who doesn't know anything about a particular player. It gives you a perspective on the player, like an expert's comment on a scientific subject (for example D.C. v. Heller). --bender235 (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it is dumb, I dont know any other way to say it. I know that is not a good reason, but I cant explain it any other way, then to say it is dumb and should not be there. And the example you gave isnt even comparable, this is a football player that is, well whatever the hell that is--Yankees10 23:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I won't count that as an argument. Probably we should discuss this here, with a "larger audience". --bender235 (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW: DC v. Heller was a recent Supreme Court case, and a fairly important one as well. ;-)

ITN for Swine influenza

On 25 April, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Swine influenza, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 06:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Lee Robinson (American football)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Lee Robinson (American football), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Robinson (American football). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Grsz¹¹ 17:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

X

Why are you insistant on using the × sign when it clearly says that it is used for multiplication. It says nothing about it being a symbol for times. There are thousands of articles that are using x, why should only a handfull use the ×, you also seem to be the only one who insists that it should change considering they have been like that for over a year and no one else but you has changed it--Yankees10 14:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for your information, "-times" is equivalent to multiplication. You might be right that hundreds or thousands of articles are wrongfully using x, but that doesn't mean we should replace it one after another. We replace double hyphens "--" with correct em dashed "—" as well. --bender235 (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No its not. This is such a dumb argument, you are wrong, it says used only for a multiplication sign and this is not that--Yankees10 16:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Of course it is the same. It's "three-time MVP", not "3-letter x MVP". There has to be × (there is a reason why this symbol has that name, don't you think?), not letter x. --bender235 (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh by the way, if it is decided that × is used, do you think there is a way to send a bot around to fix all of them, so we dont have to go one by one and waste time.--Yankees10 16:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:AWB. --bender235 (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, by the way. Check any Baseball, Football or Basketball Hall of Famer. --bender235 (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Question?

What the does your linking to Calvin Johnson and Lawrence Taylor mean. Are trying to show articles that say NFL Draft instead of Pre draft. Well how about all of these that say Pre draft: Glenn Dorsey, Jake Long, Darren McFadden, Vernon Gholston, Sedrick Ellis etc. There are way more that say Pre draft than NFL Draft, so I dont know what you were trying to prove--Yankees10 15:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Both Calvin Johnson and Lawrence Taylor are rated as Good Articles. Neither of your's is. --bender235 (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So what, that is far from the reason why it is a good article.--Yankees10 21:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not, but a GA gives you an idea of how the ideal football player article should look like. "Pre-Draft" doesn't make any sense at all, since all of these events (Combine, Pro Days, whatever) circle the NFL Draft. We wouldn't make a "Pre-2009 NFL season" section to write about training camps and stuff like that. --bender235 (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Updating SCOTUS cases

I think this may be premature. I'm not saying don't do it. But he may stay on into 2010 because a protracted confirmation battle would leave the court with only 8 justices. And then we'd have to change them all again...--chaser - t 03:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think there's only a very slim chance that this would happen. And even if, I'll use AWB to change it once again. ;-) --bender235 (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Darwinius masillae

On 20 May, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Darwinius masillae, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The date you list for your first edit on the German Wikipedia

On your userpage, you state that you started editing on the German Wikipedia on 4 January 2003. I was a bit suspicious about this date, because the clocks on the Wikipedia servers used to reset to January 2003 when they crashed. Sure enough, the wrong dates are stored in the Wikipedia database; take a look at these diffs, both of which I found through the "diff" link on your user contributions, and note that the date on the right is two years before the date on the left. The edits, which you probably made in March 2005, are stored in the database correctly, but the dates are wrong. See my page history observations page and bug 2219 for many more examples of this problem. Your first edit to the German Wikipedia as a registered user was actually in July 2004. Graham87 12:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Didn't know the exact date anyway. --bender235 (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Mike Johnson

Mike Johnson (offensive guard) already has an article at Mike Johnson (offensive lineman).--Yankees10 19:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops, didn't know that. Now which one to delete? --bender235 (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say just copy all of the info at Mike Johnson (offensive guard) and paste it at Mike Johnson (offensive lineman)--Yankees10 19:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. But don't forgot the change all the Wikilinks. --bender235 (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Edits Summary

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Sonia Sotomayor. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. --bender235 (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, why not. --bender235 (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Re Template:Highest ACE Atlantic hurricane seasons

Heh, people were complaining that the template was talking way too much space and disrupting article flow when placed inline, so I was asked to change it... let me see what I can do. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Horst Piepenburg

A tag has been placed on Horst Piepenburg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like that one is solved. --bender235 (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Le Train de Nulle Part

Your recent edit to Le Train de Nulle Part claimed to be fixing a typo in the French from "adresse" to "addresse". I checked a French dictionary, however, and the single d seems to be the correct spelling. Therefore I reverted the edit. If I am correct, please be careful when "correcting" such a spelling; but if I am wrong, I apologize and would like to know where my error lies. Thank you! -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I think you're right. Thanks for the heads up. --bender235 (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Google Books

"we usually don't link to Google Books"[3] — is there a guideline that covers this? I see a lot of this and generally let it go, or provide an ISBN and put the link in the url= part of the citation template. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, usually the ISBN link (Special:BookSources) does the trick. But I think it's debatable whether to use Google Books links for older books (w/out ISBN). I actually just fould a Template:Google books for those kind of links. --bender235 (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

JRT

Hello Bender235, your grammar fixes to John Riley Tanner were good catches, but your change in the citation format were in error, so I've returned that part of your edit to its original form. Harvard Citation format within the article and together with the Citation format for references allow for desirable interactions among citations, references, and citation location in the article.

f you're not familiar with Harvard Citation and the Citation format for references, you can still see the effect by comparing the present article vs. your edit. When a citation is clicked in the article, both your way and Harvard Citations go to the citation section. If Harvard Citations have been used, then clicking on the link in the citation section takes one to the full reference within the same article, without leaving the article. Doing it your way causes a page reload and goes to the top of the article, which is undesirable. Again, good work in catching the grammar errors. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. You might write a comment on this at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature requests. --bender235 (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I went through the page, and it's all about requests, so I'm not sure how the comment would be relevant. The information is in wikipedia somewhere (I chose this method after reading about it), but might be included as a comment for those who consider revisions to article in-line citation standards. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about a new "General fixes" entry for AWB, so that it does not "correct" Harvard citation references like it does all the others. --bender235 (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, see here. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering the responses, I now regret having anything to do with that talk page. Perhaps your explanation to them would be more productive. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you.  Cargoking  talk  11:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Using Template:Citation rather than Template: Cite book

Recently, you made several citation updates to Analogue filter. You used {{cite book}} and friends to clean up the formatting. Have you looked {{citation}}? For the most part, {{citation}} does everything all of the "cite *" templates do; however, it automatically figures out what type of reference you're using (based on the keys it's fed). More importantly, it allows for Harvard-style referencing (see {{harv}}). Just FYI. —TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 12:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sound's great. I'll consider using it from now on. --bender235 (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Cite templates

I notice that you have converted several articles (including analogue filter, roll-off and constant-k filter) to use cite templates quoting WP:MOS as if it mandates the use of these. This is not so, the Manual of Style does little more than refer out to Wikipedia:Citing sources which states (original emphasis),

Citation templates are used to format citations in a consistent way. The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus. Where no agreement can be reached, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

If anything, this is mandating that you should not make this change since you are clearly not deferring to the original author's chosen style. SpinningSpark 19:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't see why citation style should not be consistent. --bender235 (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Any given article should be consistent, but that does not mean you should impose your ideas of citation formatting across the whole of Wikipedia. Personally, I do not care much for templates because of the clutter they cause and their inflexibility. Whether or not you agree with that does not change the fact that you are actually in direct opposition to the guideline you are quoting. The same principle of following the first major contributor is used in several other situations - see WP:RETAIN and WP:DATE for instance. SpinningSpark 00:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't you realize that citations have to have a consistent style in all of Wikipedia in order to be useful. Otherwise it's hard for the reader to find more literature if there are a handful of citation styles used. I'm not advocating a certain way how they have to look like, but only that the have to be consistent, which means I'm implementing Citation templates. If we had implemented templates everywhere and decided to change the "recommended citation style", we could change all pages at once. That's helpful to me. --bender235 (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No I don't realise that. There is a place for consistency, but the claim that consistency equals usefulness is ridiculous. Furthermore, the writers of the guidelines don't think that is the case either, a point which you have failed to address. It is fine for you to implement citation templates in articles you write, it would even be kind of acceptable to me if you had added content to these articles and changed the style to match your addition (although even there, the guidelines would be against you, they say you should comply with the exisiting style). But what you are doing is imposing style rules for others to follow in articles you have otherwise made no contribution to. If I were to now expand one of those articles, I would either be forced against my will to comply with your style imposition or put up with mixed styles - or else first revert all your edits. The argument that the style can be changed across thousands of articles without reviewing the individual results is, in my opinion, a further argument against the use of templates. That sort of thing so often unexpectedly makes an utter mess in a minority of cases which can take years to find and correct, if it ever happens at all. SpinningSpark 10:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course consistency equals usefulness. You'd expect consistent citation styles from all kinds of encyclopedias and other literature. You don't cite as an end in itself, but to help readers find further literature on a specific topic.

And yes, my "only" contribution to those articles was manipulating the references, but I don't see what's the problem. Some people add facts, some people correct typos, some people implement certain templates (which I did) -- that's how Wikipedia works. --bender235 (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Very noticeable that you are still failing to justify your wilful diregard of the guidelines, despite being challenged. There is no question that in the event of a dispute, according to the guideline, these edits should be reverted. It would be nice if you would acknowledge this and self-revert. You again say you do not see the problem, but that can only be because you are wilfully not acknowledging the guideline, Where no agreement can be reached, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. Here is the problem, you are not doing that.

As a point of logic, consistency does not equal usefulness. Consistently repeating the same mistake is not useful. Consistently responding to a crisis with a declaration of war, most people would not consider useful. You are right that citing is not an end in itself, but its primary function is not to help find further literature, that's what "further reading" and "external links" are for. The primary function is verifiability. I cannot accept that any of the templates you have inserted would help one iota in aiding someone trying to verify those references (or in finding them for that matter).

Wikipedia is not all about division of labour, as you seem to be suggesting. Wikipedia is about collaboration of a large number of people. Refusing to give way when a content provider tells you that you are placing obstacles in his way, even though the guidelines say you should is not collaboration by any stretch of the imagination. The right approach to policies and guidelines you do not agree with is to start a debate at WP:VPP, not to try and ride roughshod over them by persistence. SpinningSpark 16:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if that's what you wanna to hear: I misinterpreted WP:MOS. For some reason I took it for granted that the English Wikipedia follows the same guidelines as the German Wikipedia, where there is a clear recommendation of how citations are supposed to look like.

BTW: Citation styles are no science. You can't go either right or wrong, instead there are a number of different styles that can all be considered "correct". However, using multiple styles irrates readers and editors alike. --bender235 (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If I may make a comment here? I also noticed the revert by Spinningspark and was going to make a comment about it on the page (Constant-k filter). I am very much on bender235's side here. The citation template allows a MUCH more flexible citation style, as the fields are clearly marked and are therefore more amenable to automatic searching, linking and indexing (for example, the patents are automatically linked to Google's patent database, and more such features will continue to be introduced). Even if they look identical to the reader, the markup contains more information. If every page had the same citation style (and why do you think there is a citation template in the first place?), then the whole of Wikipedia would be accessible by automatic tools (some exist, and will search on the ISBN, etc. for you, and more will certainly be along in future.

If you ever submit an article to a journal, they will demand, unconditionally, a very specific and precise format for their references - for exactly the reason bender235 states, a more consistent style is more useful to the end reader. This is doubly true when electronic resources are concerned, and triply true when there is a possibility of automatic indexing.

I would also disagree that bender235 is "placing obstacles in your way". He is making good faith edits to try to improve the usefulness of Wikipedia. It's not as if he's spending time carefully marking up citations to damage Wikipedia, now, is it? I personally don't see how having the templated style is worse in any way than the previous style. Just because you may prefer one style to another doesn't necessarily mean it is better. I know the MOS is technically on your side, but you also should remember that Wikipedia articles are no-one's property, not even the person who has put in the most work (which you undoubtedly have) and that you should be receptive to others' contributions.

--Inductiveload (talk) 09:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I appreciate. --bender235 (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

David Wyss

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: David Wyss. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. --bender235 (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Jupiter

On 21 July, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Jupiter, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

help requested

Hi -- you recently implemented the citation template for Stellaland and seem to be good at it, so thank you for that. I've also been messing around on Transkei, using the old-school format. I think the ref's could need your attention to use the template there as well.... Seb az86556 (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. --bender235 (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Done it. --bender235 (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Danke Seb az86556 (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Gern geschehen. :-) --bender235 (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Atlantis

The article Atlantis is undergoing a review as part of the good article sweeps project. You are listed as "actively involved with this article". The article does not seem to meet current requirements for a good article. It has been put on hold for a week; if these issues are addressed satisfactorily within that period the article will be kept as a GA, otherwise it will be delisted. Lampman (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

neighborhood effect

Hello--I just noticed this redirect notice, which looks strange to me. The Market failure article doesn't say anything about a neighborhood effect. Is it OK to get rid of that notice and use the redirect to Neighbourhood effect instead? CRETOG8(t/c) 13:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess it would. Just do it. --bender235 (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

revert on Helen Huang

I see you're doing a lot of good work correcting misspellings. However, I reverted your edit here. "Brillant" is indeed the correct spelling in the composition's title. It is not "brilliant." See, e.g., http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61BQZMQ0N2L._SS500_.jpg. TJRC (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Nevermind. --bender235 (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Italian ;) Seb az86556 (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I see. --bender235 (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Nee

Your nee → née is not required; nee is an alternate dictionary spelling. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You should probably post that here. --bender235 (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Trent Richardson

OK, freed up now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Terrance Knighton

On August 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Terrance Knighton, 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) 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.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 08:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you

I love what you did with the citations in Song Dynasty, by converting them to Harvard style. I hope you don't mind the request, but could you do something like this for all of my featured articles? Visit my user page and have a look; if something like that seems too exhaustive you can reject this request outright. However, they could all use the same Harvard citation style that Song Dynasty now has. Thanks once again! Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Good to know that you like it. I already had people reverting those kind of edits because they considered it not useful. It usually takes a lot of time, but I see what I can do with the rest of your articles. --bender235 (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've found just one problem with your citations, though, and that is with citation #107, which looks like this: "Ebrey & 1999 151." instead of this "Ebrey (1999), p. 151." I don't know how to fix this; could you give it a try? Thanks.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll fix that. --bender235 (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the argument against the template form of Harvard citation style seems to be that it is too hard for novices to use, but this shouldn't even factor into consideration for an article that is already featured. Arguably, novices shouldn't be adding a bunch of material to an already well-developed featured article. Thanks for considering doing this for the rest of my featured articles! Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

And if you want to take a look at it, this article of mine should become featured anytime soon (as it already has three supports for its nomination): Ancient Egyptian literature.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Great work so far! You're doing an excellent job fixing the citations in Ancient Egyptian literature.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm looking to finish it today, but not in the next 1-2 hours. --bender235 (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You finished it! Awesome! For that, I have to award you (and hope that you'll fix citations in my other featured articles when you have time over the next month or so).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

		The Citation Barnstar
		I, Pericles of Athens, award User:Bender235 with this honorary Citation Barnstar, for his excellent contributions in converting all the citations in Song Dynasty and Ancient Egyptian literature to the Harvard citation style format. Well done! You most clearly deserve this award. Cheers.Pericles of AthensTalk 21:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate. Thank you. I'll see what I can do over the next weeks and months. --bender235 (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

<Deutsch> Mein Gott! Ihre Arbeit ist fantastisch! Danke schön. </Deutsch> Tang Dynasty looks brilliant now that you've converted everything to Harvard style. Well done, sir! Well done indeed.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It took quite some time. Those are really comprehensive articles. Nice work, by the way. --bender235 (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It usually takes about a solid month to do a decent amount of research for each article, sometimes longer. It literally took half a year to get all the research done for the six Han Dynasty articles that I wrote. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bender. Just dropping by to leave a friendly reminder that I've got plenty of other featured articles that could use citation reformation; I can't wait to see which one you'll do next! Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Humans vs Extremophile, ...Habitability

Because of your edits at "Space and survival" I thought you might be interested in making a resonable distinction between what planet environments bacteria can survive and what planet environments people can inhabit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Explodicle/Planetary_human_habitability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Explodicle/Planetary_human_habitability

Having difficulty finding the time to wrap up the article. If you are interested, your help would be appreciated.
There are plenty of references at the talk page, it's just a matter of digging for quotes.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

I love what you did with expanding some of my college football player articles like Mike Iupati, Zane Beadles, Jon Asamoah, Selvish Capers, Charles Brown (offensive lineman), i dont have enough time to do it, (school, sports, homework, etc...), just thanks and when i create a new one, you could help me a lot.--Zta ♠talk♠ August 23, 2009 ♠Nastia '♣

No problem. Let me know when you created another one. You can also post articles that need help here. --bender235 (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ridge A

On September 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ridge A, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 05:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Riley Dodge

The article Riley Dodge has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:Athlete (has not played professionally).

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. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding. --bender235 (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The proposed decision has been declined by User:Strikehold, on the grounds that Riley Dodge may meet WP:BIO. User:Strikehold has suggested that I may take this to WP:AFD if I still feel inclined that this person is not notable. However, User:Strikehold's comments are strong enough to accept that this article is indeed notable. My sincere apologies for any inconvenience. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Everyone makes a mistake once in a while. No problem. ;-) --bender235 (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD corrections in the article Darko Žlebnik

Hi, I'd like to point out some mistakes that you've inadvertently made in the article Darko Žlebnik.[4] Maribor - impresije should stay as it is, in the original Slovene form; coloumnist should be changed to 'columnist' instead of 'colourmnist'. Thanks and be well. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Section Y

Hi. In reference to the article, Board of Governors, FRS v. Investment Company Institute, what is the amendment to Section Y that was upheld. I ask this because unless we are attorneys for the financial services industry in the U.S., no one would actually know what that is or what you are talking about in setting up the page. Please let me know... Thanks - Steve. Stevenmitchell (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

True. Someone needs to expand that article, but I'm not a lawyer either. --bender235 (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In case you didn't see it...

I left a message at Talk:Economy of the Han Dynasty expressing my thanks for changing the citations yet again to the Harvard style. Keep at it! You're doing a wonderful job with all my articles. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And please take a look at footnote 55, because "Ch'ü (1972)" is not mentioned in the bibliography section. --bender235 (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Tining" in Rey Valera

Hello! Just a heads up: I reverted one of your corrections to Rey Valera (that is, "Tinig" --> "Tining"). That's because the word "Tinig" is in the Tagalog language, and it was a part of the title of an award in the Philippines :) Thanks :) --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --bender235 (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation styles

WP:CITE specifically prohibits changing established citation styles without discussion, as you did on Italian War of 1542–1546. Please don't do this again. Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikicookie

LAAFan has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! --LAAFan^sign _review 20:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Michael Hüther

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Michael Hüther. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Marcus Houston

Bender, I think you have done yourself a disservice with this article. After plowing through the history and the available sources, I find that there seems to be no such article in the Denver Post as you said in your reference--and I looked at all 114 articles of that day, using ProQuest. I'm not saying you couldn't have found it on the internet with that incorrect title some other way; I am saying that a decent search would have revealed that this was the incorrect title and author--unless, of course, you subscribe to the Denver Post in Thuringia. Second, the phrase "running backs coach Eric Bieniemy who caused a national stir in 2001 when he called Houston 'Markeesha'," which you attributed to that article, is found almost literally in the Scout.com report which in a later edit you cite, but much earlier in the article. Of course that phrase could also have occurred in that article you cited in the first version, the one I cannot locate, but it puzzles me.

Finally, I wish you had looked more carefully at the available material on this subject in the Denver Post--there is plenty, and much of it explains the matter more fully. The article, as you had it, left a very negative impression of the subject; as it turns out, the guy calling him by a girl's name was something of a jerk (I added the references) and was roundly criticized (I haven't added that and really see no need to do so). In all, both your description of the subject's performance at CU and your reporting on this incident (which really wasn't that national a stir) left a really wrong impression, and given that this is a BLP, that was a serious matter. I am not surprised that an SPA, who might well be the subject in question, got offended and started vandalizing the article. Now, in an edit summary I may have used some strong wording, and I apologize for that, but I have to say that I take this matter seriously and took offense at what I consider to be not very careful writing of a BLP. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• See here--again, my apologies for stating this much too strongly. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for 51 Ophiuchi

On October 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 51 Ophiuchi, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.

≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see your Commons talk page

I have left you a message there asking for some more information, if you have it, on a file you uploaded ages ago. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Greening Sahel 1982-1999.jpg

File:Greening Sahel 1982-1999.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Greening Sahel 1982-1999.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Greening Sahel 1982-1999.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Bobby Jack Wright

I have nominated Bobby Jack Wright, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Jack Wright. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Blueboy96 23:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Please be aware of WP:3RR, especially on Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. You've now restored, for the 4th time in less than 24h, often with incivil edit comments, the assertion of a peak in 2020 William M. Connolley (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

How can you accuse me of 3RR? Actually you were the one who reverted my addition 3 times. There are two sources for that possible 2020 peak, and you still haven't named any source that rebukes that predicition (let alone the "natural origin" of the AMO; Gray et al. (2004) reconstructed the AMO for five centuries. How can that be if this is not a natural phenomenom?). --bender235 (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read the notice. This is not an accusation; it is making sure you know about the 3RR rule. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 10:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR is nothing to do with the quality of edits, it is all to do with reverting. I've reverted 3 times. You have reverted 4 times, in 24h. Do you understand that this is forbidden? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I know. But I wouldn't have had to revert four times if it wasn't for your WP:OR claims. --bender235 (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't added any OR. Now, are you going to self-revert please or do you wish to remain in violation of the 3RR? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Self-revert? User:Stephan Schulz already reverted my additions. --bender235 (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks

Hi. Just a reminder that edit summaries such as this can be seen as a personal attack and are strongly discouraged. Stephen! ^Coming... 10:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'll keep that in mind. --bender235 (talk) 10:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

is is → it is?

Hi
Just coming here to point out that "is is" is not only a frequent for "it is", but also for "is". You might want to review the AWB rule to prevent edits like this.
Cheers, Amalthea 20:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Me again, and again an AWB issue: with this edit, you've introduced a second {{reflist}}, which made the article look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johanna_Wokalek&oldid=320587491
Can you please check all other edits you've made recently, and make sure that this doesn't happen again?
Amalthea 14:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, sorry. I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen very often. But I'll check my recent changes. --bender235 (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks. Do you know how it happened in the first place, and how to prevent it from happening again? If it's an AWB bug, you should talk to its maintainers. Amalthea 14:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. There've been so much edits in recent days, it could very well be that I added {{Reflist}} erroneously. --bender235 (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah? I figured it would be due to the new usage of the reflist template with the references passed into it as a parameter that confused AWB. Can you try make another change to it? Amalthea 22:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and speaking of the Johanna Wokalek, you don't happen to know someone in Berlin, do you? We're still missing a picture of Wokalek for her article, and her new movie is going to premiere there tomorrow. :)
Just asking since I saw the Neues Museum ITN section below. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 22:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, no I don't know someone from Berlin. --bender235 (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Worth a try. :) Cheers, Amalthea 22:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You should probably ask one of these guys. ;-) --bender235 (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jarrett Lee

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jarrett Lee, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jarrett Lee. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. TM 22:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Neues Museum

On 18 October 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Neues Museum, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Gordon Scott (basketball player)

Hello Bender235, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Gordon Scott (basketball player) - a page you tagged - because: Playing for a notable team indicates importance/significance. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. SoWhy 13:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see him playing for a notable team, but anyway, okay. --bender235 (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Oliver E. Williamson undo

Hi Bender235,

Thanks for keeping Oliver Williamson's page up to date. I work for the Online Marketing Team at the Haas School of Business, so we will be maintaining his page from now on. I'm going to redo the changes you made to my revision.

Thank you,

Nick fradkin (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Your edit looked an awful lot like you copied & pasted it from somewhere. Make sure you don't add original research to his article, which means always refer to reliable sources. --bender235 (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Memorial (society)

On 22 October 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Memorial (society), 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Werner Maihofer

Hello! Your submission of Werner Maihofer 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! SoWhy 11:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Nephila komaci

On October 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nephila komaci, 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) 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.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 15:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Werner Maihofer

On October 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Werner Maihofer, 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) 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.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 04:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

an Eulerian

Hi, You changed "an Eulerian" to "a Eulerian" in several articles. That is incorrect, please see the note about pronunciation at Leonhard Euler. I also checked abstracts of mathematical papers at MathSciNet and found "an Eulerian" about 25 times more common than "a Eulerian". Can you please change it back? I did a few. Thanks. Zero^talk 22:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. --bender235 (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

revert on Helen Huang

Re-reverted. It's still not a missspelling. TJRC (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Damn. I shoulda know it. I'm sorry. --bender235 (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I've added a comment to the article as a reminder. You may not be the only do-gooder who will try to "fix" this. (I personally patrol for "Julliard", "eigth" wnd "tweleve" every few weeks.) TJRC (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Please consider adding {{sic}} to this article in order to prevent AWB from "correcting" it. --bender235 (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be inappropriate. It's not a misspelling. "sic" is appropriate when indicating that an error is being faithfully quoted. In this case, the correct spelling is "brillant"; there is no error in the original. TJRC (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Then how about adding a {{lang}}, since it's in Italian word. --bender235 (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. I don't use that template much, but I'm sure if I did it wrong someone will correct it. TJRC (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's correct. I use that template frequently. --bender235 (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of wealthiest historical figures

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of wealthiest historical figures. 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/List of wealthiest historical figures (2nd nomination). 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) 01:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

en-4?

In etlichen deiner Artikel (etwa hier) finden sich sehr merkwürdige Denglisch-Konstruktionen, von daher solltest du deine "en-4" Einstufung vielleicht nochmal überdenken. --bender235 (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Keine Reaktion? Das war nur als freundlicher Hinweis gedacht. Es wäre im übrigen ganz sinnvoll, wenn du deine Artikel mal auf Fehler wie in dem oben erwähnten Fall abklopfst. --bender235 (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ist ok, danke für den Hinweis, bin den englischen zwar mächtig, aber habe es nich täglich im gebrauch daher ist es eingerostet, allerdings arbeite ich dran, bin auch eher amerikanisiert sprich habe das amerikanische englisch schreiben und sprechen gelernt bekommen! habe auch mit der grammatik so meine probleme im englischen, da ich es halt nicht im alltagsgebrauch habe! --zombie433 (talk)

Alles klar. Die Fehler, die du (mehrfach) in deiner Artikeln machst sind nur einfach sehr merkwürdig, etwa die falsche (typisch deutsche) Stellung der Zeitangabe im Satz, oder "maked" statt "made", oder "than" statt "then", usw. Ich hab nicht das Gefühl, dass deine Einstufung von "en-4" (near-native speaker) der Realität entspricht. Diese Angaben in der Babelbox dienen ja nicht bloß der persönlichen Eitelkeit, sondern sollen Hinweis an anderssprachige Benutzer sein. Aber letztlich ist es deine Entscheidung, ob du dein Level runtersetzt. --bender235 (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Typesetting of math

Regarding [5], see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics)#Very simple formulae. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that information. --bender235 (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Ron Artest mugshot 2007.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ron Artest mugshot 2007.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 23:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind. --bender235 (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Careful with the typo-fixing

Yo Bender, just a note that sometimes using auto-spellcheckers can be tricky, when quotations or names are involved. In this edit, you seem to have introduced an incorrect name for the painting "Smelling out a rat; or the atheistical-revolutionist disturbed in his midnight "calculations"" when seeking to correct the apparent typo "atheistical". Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  15:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. You should note that at WP:AWB/T. --bender235 (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how to do that exactly, but have left a comment at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos#False_Positives_in_Sixteenth-Century_Titles. In any case, keep up the good work, and happy editing! Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  15:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Prezel Hardy

Hello! Your submission of Prezel Hardy 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! Calmer Waters 17:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jason Ferguson

Hello! Your submission of Jason Ferguson 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! MuZemike 20:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Eric Wood

Hello! Your submission of Eric Wood 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! Materialscientist (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Relation names

Thanks for recent typo fixes. I have just started working on Biographies and could not find the convention for relation names. Is there a good definitive guideline? e.g. "grandmother" "stepbrother" seem to be one word. How about "greatgrandfather"? or "greatgranduncle" ? Starting to look German. And is there such a thing as a "half cousin" (sharing one grandparent)? W Nowicki (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It's just one of the typos AutoWikiBrowser corrects. --bender235 (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Fields in Infobox

Hey Bender235, I see you around editing tirelessly on most NFL pages I have watched. I noticed that you keep removing the fields |deathdate, |deathplace, |finalyear and |finalteam. I don't really see why it is necessary to remove those fields, since eventually the player will stop playing, and eventually die. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

True. But I don't see why we can't re-add this fields in the future, when player XY dies. --bender235 (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I guess so. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

ITN for GJ 1214 b

On 20 December 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article GJ 1214 b, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 06:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Updated ACE graph

Did you plan to update this graph? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:North_Atlantic_tropical_cyclone#Storm_activity_graph If not, I might have a go, assuming the season is over for 2009? Tsh (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

What graph are you talking about? --bender235 (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Smit

Thank you for Editing Jörgen Smit You seem to be a very experienced Wikipedian One question: can you explain me why the defaultsort should be Jorgen instead of Jörgen? best, --Rembertbiemond (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It's because of the alphabetical order of the article in those categories. A computer does not sort "ö" behind "o", but as a special charactere behind "z". --bender235 (talk) 12:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

ok I didnt know that should it not be joergen in that case? --Rembertbiemond (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be okay, too. --bender235 (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Maurice Evans

Hey, Evans can't be on IR because he's on the Practice Squad so Bucs.com is incorrect since his actual listing is Practice Squad/Injured. Cheers,--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

edited Allan Sherman

I (inexpertly) added some info to the Allan Sherman page because I thought the reason for his dismissal from "I've Got A Secret" would be interesting to fans. I'm new to Wikipedia and trying to get acquainted with the format. Jennbeez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennbeez (talk • contribs) 02:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. You're welcomed and your contributions are appreciated. --bender235 (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Reflist question

Hey can you explain to me how the {{reflist|colwidth=30em}} works, specifically the "30em" part? Thanks. --Mike Allen 23:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course. That colwidth parameter sets the maximum width of a column, and 30em is that width. That unit em is flexible, because it is determined by the point size of the current font (which means it is better than say 300px, which would also be possible). --bender235 (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

So the 30em should always be used? Is this common procedure that lot of editors just don't follow it, or is it new? --Mike Allen 06:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the width depends on the article, but usually 30em is recommended. The feature is new, I think. I noticed it reading the {{Reflist}} description a couple of weeks ago. --bender235 (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ownership in article Brazil

Hello. The article Brazil has several issues, the main one is the fact that it's simply huge and overly detailed. In accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries and taking as model other Featured class articles such as Canada, India and Peru as I explained in here. As I made the changes, I explained carefully why and where I made them such as in here.

However, editor Rahlgd reverted all with no explanation at all as it can be seen in here. He is the only one who can edit the article without being reverted. Just see the history log in it. Also, this is not the first time he reverts an edit.

His behavior is clearly ownership. Please, help us. --Lecen (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I not quite sure how I could help you, since I'm not an administrator (neither is Rahlgd, by the way). Should probably address this problem here. --bender235 (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)