User talk:Bender235

Archives

2005–07 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013 · 2014 · 2015 · 2016 · 2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020 · 2021

You removed a substantive edit on an article on a key figure in European central bank politics with solid data and a good argument because it was a pseudonymous publication. Thanks for promoting critical scrutinty, buddy. Clown show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.72.234 (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Them's the rules. Feel free to acquaint yourself on WP:BLP. --bender235 (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Your comment was reverted by mistake. I did not realize that I had inadvertently clicked the wrong area of the screen after I reviewed the comment that you've left on the Vernon Jarrett talk page. Sending my apologies for that error. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 00:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it must've been by mistake. --bender235 (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Malcolm Jones (American football), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Jones (American football) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Marcus Houston has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability is lacking, played 7 games of college football in 2004 for the Colorado State Rams. Never played in the NFL. Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I need a person to write an article about a public servant. What is the process? How do I get in touch with you! Iamthedarknigh (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an article is fairly simple. Have a look at WP:1ST for instructions and details. --bender235 (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page Draft:Excel High School (Alabama) (2) has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done for the following reason:

G6: Page with a minor page history that was holding up a page move

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jay (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Siphelo Ngquboza has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your sarcastic edit summary does not make you right. Invoking WP:OWN is always the last refuge of those that do not have a case. Nor does it make me wrong. The "comical inconsistency" was not introduced by me. Rather it was your edit that introduced it, or at least made it worse, by templating only two of the existing 17 references. SpinningSpark 07:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The citation style of the article is inconsistent and incomplete as of your latest revert. Some article titles are in quotation marks, others aren't. For some references publication year is written after author name, for others after journal volume. For some references the year is in parentheses, for others it isn't. I could go on. But I'm not blaming you for that, since it's most likely the consequence of different authors adding "their" citations over the years. What upset me was the implied duty on my part to first having any fixes to the citation style "discussed" somewhere, as if Wikipedia needed more bureaucracy for petty issues like this. --bender235 (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The need for a discussion is explained at WP:CITEVAR. That's mot new bureaucracy, it's established long-standing bureaucracy. I'm not against making the style consistent, but the one thing that editors contributing to this page have been entirely 100% consistent in is not using templates. I see no good reason for not respecting that. SpinningSpark 15:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Not using templates" is not a citation style, let alone a consistent one. That's like considering "not using a typewriter" a literary genre. --bender235 (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ with that. And you are now contradicting yourself. If templates are not part of citation style, then inserting them certainly cannot be justified with the rationale of making styles consistent. Besides, preserving styles is a globally recognised principle per WP:STYLEVAR, not just limited to citations. There is no specific guidance on using typewriters, and I couldn't care less whether you do or not, but there is guidance on citation templates in WP:CITECONSENSUS The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged: an article should not be switched between templated and non-templated citations without good reason and consensus (my emphasis). CITEVAR also explicitly covers this point; showing that the guidelines recognise templates as part of the style even if you don't. SpinningSpark 16:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know this policy, and it has been dumb from the moment it was created. It was meant to reduce unnecessary bickering over nuances in citation styles, but it led to stubborn, backward-minded users monkeywrenching the process of converging to a uniform citation style throughout Wikipedia. I mean, think about what is supposed to happen now if we followed WP policy by the letter: I'm supposed to open a thread on the article talk page to ask whether there's consensus to adopt citation templates, and you would object. And it would be only you, because the article had like 4 different contributors over the last half-decade total, most of whom aren't going to bother to respond for months. Bottom line: everything stays as is.

Now to the other point: what I wrote was "no templates" is not a consistent citation style. You can certainly have a consistent citation style without using templates (the article decidedly does not), if you consistently follow some citation manual. But just the fact of "no templates were being used" does not make a citation style consistent.

The reason we have those templates on Wikipedia is to simplify the process of having truly consistent citation styles, both within an article and across different articles. Once you have templates adopted widely, you can change the citation style (if needed) with little effort if needed. And finally, and in my opinion most importantly: these templates create a hidden Dublin Core object (search for "Z3988" in the HTML code any article that uses citation templates) that makes the citations machine readable.

To me, these benefits outweigh the "costs" of templates (are there any, really?). But you, for any reason or no reason at all, will disagree. --bender235 (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped reading after you said the policy "has been dumb from the moment it was created". If this discussion is not going to be based on policy, then I'm withdrawing from it. Editing articles should be in accordance with policy. If you don't like the policy, take it to a policy discussion page, not fight it out in articles. SpinningSpark 14:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to reserve the right to be offended on behalf of a policy. I'm sorry your feelings were hurt. --bender235 (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 October 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Lucious Jackson, which you created as a stub way back in 2005. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bender235. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Molly Potter, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Bender235,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gawdat al-Malt is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gawdat al-Malt until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Curbon7 (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bender235. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Molly Potter".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have couple of issues with your two recent 2023-02-15 edits to the page on Laplace's Approximation. I'll explain:

1) since wikipedia has encyclopedic nature, it is important that it clearly defines its subject. The previous version's first sentence was:

Laplace's approximation fits an un-normalised Gaussian approximation to a (twice differentiable) un-normalised target density.

which is a concise description of what it actually is. But your edit deletes this.

2) Laplace's Approximation is used in many numerate fields, such as, but not limited to (Bayesian) Statistics, Physics, etc. The previous page made this clear, and presented its use in Bayesian analysis as an example domain. After your edit, you simply silently assume that the domain is Bayesian Statistics.

3) your current edit days "Laplace's approximation provides an analytic expression for the posterior probability distribution...". I have several issues with this: a) "analytic expression" is not very precise, it neglects to mention that it is an approximation and that it is Gaussian, therefore "Gaussian approximation" is much more accurate. b) Laplace's approximation gives both an approximation to the posterior and to the marginal likelihood, this was carefully pointed out in the previous version, but is lost after your edit.

4) the definition given in terms of MAP and Fisher info only makes sense in the particular use of Laplace's approximation to Bayesian Statistics, unlike the previous version.

5) you say "Laplace is justified by Bernstein von Mises". I think this is not necessarily so, I would say at most "may be justified by". Whether or not an asymptotic property is a justification may greatly depend on the application. Clearly, Laplace himself didn't justify his method by Berstein von Mises. This sentence also uses vocabulary which hasn't yet been defined, for example "posterior" and "large sample". It isn't very understandable to a reader consulting the wikipedia page to figure out what Laplace's Approximation really is.

For these reasons, I think the version prior to your edit was superior. If you want to add links to Fisher Information and Bernstein von Mises, I think this would be great, but it should be added much further down in the page, after the necessary concepts have been properly introduced. I look forward to hear your views.

Inference (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that the whole reason why Laplace's approximation was split from Laplace's method was so that the former can focus on the particular application in statistics, whereas the latter discusses the concept in more general terms. Since you were the one who originally created Laplace's approximation, let me know what was your original motivation for the split, and how did you plan to distinguish between the two articles in terms of content? --bender235 (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks bender235. The reason that I wrote "Laplace's approximation" distinct from "Laplace's method" is specified in the first line of the page

Not to be confused with Laplace's method, which is based on an essentially identical construction. Whereas Laplace's method focusses on a limiting behaviour of the integral, Laplace's approximation isn't used in the limit, and considers both integral and integrand. This naming distinction may not be universal..

Although the fundamental construction is the same in the two pages, I found it difficult to recognise the use that I describe, which is a pity, as it is fairly simple and elegant. I don't really have a strong view whether this should really be one common page or two separate pages, as long as everything is a clear as possible. A separate page seemed easiest for me. Inference (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We may disagree on this one, but I prefer the split between Laplace's method in general in one article, and its application in Bayesian statistics in the other. We could ask WT:WPSTATS for additional opinions if you want. --bender235 (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the distinction right now is really "more general" vs "specific to various fields". The current Laplace's method is almost exclusively about the value of the integral in the limit, whereas Laplace's approximation is both about the value of the integral AND the integrand, and not in the limit. I also think that specialising to "its application in Bayesian statistics" may really represent a lost opportunity for unification; the (artificial) boundaries between traditional fields epitomises some of the problems science faces. If we only write pages on a mathematical method specifically and separately for physics, for statistics, for machine learning, for engineering, for signal processing etc, then that blocks cross-fertilisation and hinders understanding and progress. Mind you, I'm not saying there couldn't be a page called "Laplace's approximation applied to Bayesian statistics" -- I just happen to be particularly interested in the unifying view. Sure, other's perspective may be interesting. Inference (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your general plan for these two articles. Why couldn't selected applications also be discussed in Laplace's method? --bender235 (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you think I have plans for Laplace's method, and don't see any reason why selected applications couldn't be discussed on that page. Why shouldn't we have a page called "Laplace's approximation" being about approximating the integrand and integral, not in the limit, and not assuming any specific application field, but including any field where it may be of interest? That would be exactly what was implied by the title, and it happens not to coincide with the current content of Laplace's method (which has been well signposted). Inference (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to your idea, but you have to admit the article as currently constructed really focuses on the Bayesian application (not just the lead, but the example as well). Are you planning to add all the material and use cases you've mentioned? --bender235 (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok, that sounds good. Yes, the focus is currently on the application in approximate Bayesian inference. I may add the application to neural networks. Technically this is also Bayesian inference of course, but since these models have very large numbers of parameters, the method is adapted in various ways. Inference (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, You recently moved this, citing "spelling of last name according to VIAF", but all three sources use the spelling "LaMer" (chair named for him, NAS biog memoir - ignore the title page, APS fellows list. See also ANB. Could you please move him back to this, the most common spelling of his name. Thanks. PamD 21:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think I was able to move it myself, but it seems I can do so - leaving this here to alert you to the undoing of your move. PamD 22:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems all library catalogues are unanimous in their spelling. Plus, he seems to have spelled his own name "La Mer" in all his publications (example: [1], [2]), or at least I couldn't find anything that use your suggested spelling of "LaMer". --bender235 (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Far from unanimous: Worldcat is not even consistent LaMer or La Mer. I wonder whether Google and Viaf feed off each other? But the four sources I mentioned above seem convincing. See this for an example using LaMer. PamD 23:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Worldcat is not an authority control. I was talking about actual national libaries, like Library of Congress; "LaMer" isn't even listed among the variants there. I'm still not finding those third-party sources credible. When in doubt, we should go by however the person himself spelled his name. His doctoral thesis spells his name "La Mer". --bender235 (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Stochastic heat equation has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 5 § Stochastic heat equation until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Stan McGarvey has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bill Miller (American football coach, born 1956) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deunta Williams, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deunta Williams until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Maghrebi Jews. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cute, but WP:DTR. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Talk:Maghrebi Jews:

Casting aspersions makes you irrelevant. Consider yourself ignored (lucky in that respect as there is so much I can say about you). M.Bitton (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much to "say about me"? Don't hold back. --bender235 (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to sink to your level. Anyway, you made yourself irrelevant (forever). M.Bitton (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been contributing to Wikipedia for almost 20 years now, but I don't recall ever crossing you in any way. Seriously, elaborate if you can why you would have an apparent personal issue with me. --bender235 (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you both take this offline and hat the thread starting with WP:ADVOCACY as it's about personal contributors and not this article. Andre🚐 22:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, wanted to see if you had an account on this, as it has a tremendous JSTOR access. Andre🚐 22:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do have JSTOR access already from work, but thank you for letting me know. --bender235 (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok great. You may already have good sources. Not trying to be patronizing. Just figuring I'd mention it since you were using the Google Books and old NYT links. Those are good too. But there are some really good academic sources behind paywalls. Wikipedia Library also gives you De Gruyter, Cambridge, EbscoHost, Proquest, Gale, etc Andre🚐 23:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean, and I do have a preference for academic sources over newspaper articles. We have to keep in mind, though, that most of our readers do not have JSTOR etc. access, so Google Books links are generally a good idea. --bender235 (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just my 2c, when possible, I suggest you combine the sources like I suggested, bundle the easily accessible Google or NYT primary sources with higher quality academic sources that are more authoritative and less wiggle room for people crying WP:RSOPINION. I get what you mean about trying to make sure readers can access all of the material. That's why I mentioned TWL because I think it's underappreciated and underutilized and you really don't need much to get into it, basically just extended-confirmed user and the willingness to sign up for an account that asks for some information like a real name and email. Andre🚐 23:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bender, are you able to verify and approve the wiki article I created? Rickym1008 (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Bender235 This person needs a Wikipedia page.(Moslem Kazemi) Do you think they have enough notability to do this? Can you see their name in any competitions they have participated in and search? Please help us with this. Thank you.I ,hope (: I apologize if my answer is unclear. [https://media.imna.ir/d/2023/06/01/4/1876109.jpg?ts=1685613740000 Group A) Team Kazma SC) and is on the player's name page.Check the references 1 2 3 4 5 6The most well-known beach handball tournament is the World Championship, and this person has participated in these tournaments with the national team as much as necessary.2022 Asian Beach Handball Championship> Moslem Kazemi ,be created:) ALIREZA HASANVAND (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not writing articles upon request. Please have a look at WP:1ST on how to write an article yourself, as well as WP:ATHLETE on criteria that are relevant to establish this person's notability. --bender235 (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bender235, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, John Marshall High School (Richmond, Virginia), should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Marshall High School (Richmond, Virginia).

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Aunva6}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Adriel Jasmear Green has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1 § Adriel Jasmear Green until a consensus is reached. Red Director (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Kanem-Bornu Empire, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I contributed wasn't content, just fixed the bibliography style. --bender235 (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, apologies for wasting your time Kowal2701 (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Redshirt has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ferdinand Oliver Porsche is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferdinand Oliver Porsche until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Clarityfiend (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Andrew J. May § Jackson Latta undergraduate thesis

 – bender235 (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]