User talk:Bender235/2013 archive

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Samson Satele, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kailua, Hawaii (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Bender, it is neither necessary nor desirable to use "01" and "06" for one-digit dates in the "birth date and age" templates. Please see examples provided: Template:Birth date and age. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I know it is not necessary, but I always add it to avoid confusion. --bender235 (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Bender, there is no "confusion," and the template page examples do not support your continued insertion of the unnecessary "0"; it is simply redundant coding. The "0" adds nothing. It should be deleted from all examples of Infobox NFL player together with all other deprecated coding that has been made redundant by recent improvements to the template. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I just saw Template:Bda creates an ISO 8601 conform microformat even when entering the way you are suggesting. Okay, I see your point now. --bender235 (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

added links pointing to Woodbridge High School, Liberty County High School, St. Francis High School and Hermitage High School

Allen High School (Allen, Texas) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mesquite High School

Jimmy Smith (cornerback) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Colton High School

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

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

DeVonte Holloman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to South Pointe High School

Jadeveon Clowney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to South Pointe High School

Justin Worley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to South Pointe High School

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Armon Binns (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pasadena High School

Richie Incognito (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mountain Ridge High School

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

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

David Carter (defensive lineman) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Henry J. Kaiser High School

Emmanuel Arceneaux (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Peabody High School

Josh Gordon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mirabeau B. Lamar High School

Kevin Rutland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to North Shore High School

Quentin Groves (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Weston High School

Reggie Walker (American football) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Grant Union High School

Rodney Hudson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alex Barron

Ronald Darby (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Medley relay

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I love this bot. Fixed all the links immediately. --bender235 (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Bobby Wuensch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Baltimore Colts

Jon Dorenbos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pacifica High School

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Bender, I know that you enjoy making serial corrections to Infobox NFL player and the like, and I've discovered a problem that I think is right up your alley. In the NFL player infobox, the link for "Tackle" is usually mis-linked and piped to "Tackle (football move)" in the player stats section, when in fact the word should be properly linked to the more specific "Tackle (American and Canadian football)." The error is widespread, and based on my own anecdotal observations, it appears that the error actually represents a majority of the NFL player infobox links. I would be grateful if you would add this issue to your to-do list of future fixes. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the information. I'll fixe that every next time I come across a wrong-piped link. --bender235 (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Head's up, Bender: WT:NFL#Naming standard for high schools. I though this was already settled, but a newbie wants to reformat this again. Explain why your format works better (i.e. space efficiency in space-limited infobox), and I will back you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Just did. Thanks for pointing me at it. --bender235 (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Simko Shikak revolt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page International Affairs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bob Cope, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Posthumous (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your recent edit to this article. WP:SEE ALSO says that the links included in such a section should reflect those in an article on the topic that's relating them, in this case Internet meme. Neither "Crank That" nor "Lisztomania" are mentioned in that article. Regardless, there are far more songs that share that meme aspect, and it wouldnt be practical to list them all or pick and choose. Dan56 (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Please name those "far more songs" that resemble "Harlem Shake" in the regard that they featured millions of user-generated videos following one specific theme. I'd like to know. --bender235 (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

List_of_Internet_phenomena#Music. Also, if you wanted me to check your talk page, you could use the talkback template. Usually, editors reply at the other person's talk page. Dan56 (talk) 11:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hallo,

Just wanted to give you a heads up, remember when you created an article about Jorge Mario Bergoglio, saying he was a papabile? Well, he is the new Pope! Congrats, you created the article about the new Pope!

I'm not religious, but just wanted to congratulate you on your luck ;) Link from the Void (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Haha, nice. Totally forgot about that. --bender235 (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing. Original revision. It's always interesting to see the history of articles about "ordinary" notable people who become vastly more important later. Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

An unsourced BLP. Haven't times changed! ;-) An optimist on the run!   22:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was a stub. --bender235 (talk) 07:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Bender. Query: should we be including high school honors in the infobox for someone like Patrick Peterson, who was a consensus All-American and won several major awards in college, and is a multiple Pro Bowl selection in the NFL: [1]? My take is that we need to prioritize what honors get listed in the infobox once they exceed 10 lines of total text, in which case, it's very easy to strip the high school stuff from the infobox, while mentioning it in the "early years" text. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably right. At least keep that link to the All-USA team, please. --bender235 (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I just created a really weak Da'Shawn Hand stub, do you think you can check to see if you can add anything to it?--Yankees10 01:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that. --bender235 (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

On March 16 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Xi Jinping, which you recently nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

ThaddeusB (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Re the mighty Mick..... he is so mighty that he only needs one name. Although other people have shared his Christian name (Caravaggio for example), only one Michelangelo made the name famous.

So adding his family name to it is a bit the same as writing Donatello's name in full, or Raphael's name in full, or insisting on always referring to that other bloke as Jesus Christ as if "Christ" was his surname.

In the context of the article on Michelangelo, his full name ought to be included in the text, but ought not be the title of the article. Some well-meaning person at Wiki-Commons has insisted on using full names wherever possible, which makes things harder to locate, not easier.

In article that refer to his work, the his family name is completely redundant.

Likewise Leonardo. In his case it's fine to call him "Leonardo da Vinci" which is what the people of Florence called him, but when shortening it, he should be called "Leonardo", not "da Vinci" (as Dan Brown did). At that date in Italian history, the name by which a artist is known is variable. Sometimes it was their first name. Sometimes it was their family name, if the family name was distinctive and the first name was not. (Verrocchio) Sometimes it was a nickname (Botticelli). Instances where an artist is always known by his whole name are rare (Piero della Francesca) or relate to the fact that several brothers or generations were artists, (the Bellini family).

Amandajm (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I just added the surname because every other name in the line had it included, too. It just looked better. --bender235 (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hummph! I just looked, and you are right. It is one of these cases where there is only one Bramante, and he is called "Bramante", not "Donato Bramante". The moment you introduce a first name, it like as if the writer is trying to distinguish the person from the great Bramante. Who's Donato Bramante? Well maybe he played for Juventus.

Carlo Maderno/Maderna/Moderna (there is no agreement) gets both. Bernini is just "Bernini" because, like Michelangelo he made the name famous. But his father, also a sculptor but much less great, is known by his given name as well, to distinguish him from his greater son.

The list should read: Bramante, Michelangelo, Carlo Maderno, Bernini. The people who need the full treatment are the Sangallo, of whom there were (I think) three, all up. Two of them were Giuliano and so are called Giuliano da Sangallo and Giuliano da Sangallo the Younger. But the second one of these is usually known as Sangallo the Younger, dropping both the forename and the "da". It looks as if I need to make a redirect on that one.

One of the really confusing issues about Bernini is that his name was Gianlorenzo, or Gian Lorenzo or fully Giovanni Lorenzo.

I'll do some sorting out. Amandajm (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bender235. I wasnt sure if it was you that designated this page for deletion or if it was Bluerasberry. I left a note this morning on Bluerasberry's page, and I will repeat it here so that you can see it too. I created this page last year on Sandra Navidi as part of a school research project in which students were asked to create a Wikipedia page on an individual who is active in the financial industry both in America and in Europe. The article had recently been flagged as "Dead End" and also as an orphan. Yesterday some external links were added. Today it is being considered for deletion because "The links are casual mentions of this person, and not content focused on this person". I removed those external links and replaced them with relevent links that do focus on this person specifically. Please advise if this is sufficient grounds to have it reinstated. If so, can the "Dead End" classification be removed? And in addition to that, Sandra is mentioned on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Warriors. I configured a link from this article back to the Sandra Navidi article. Please advise if this qualifies to have the orphan designation removed. Whytestone (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Usually, orphan means 3 or less Wikipedia in-links. --bender235 (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Can I create these 3 additional links on other Wikipedia pages, or do I need to wait for somebody else to do it? Whytestone (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You can, of course. But make sure they fit the context. --bender235 (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. I've put a considerable effort into updating this article over the last week or so. Thanks to the constructive comments provided by you and the other editors, I made several corrections. I've removed much of what did not belong, and added more of what was missing. I believe that this article is much more in line with the guidelines & standards set forth by Wikipedia. Creation of my first article began as an assignment from a college professor, and now that I am starting to get comfortable with the editing process I am beginning to research a subject for my second article! Whytestone (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Columns-list has been nominated for merging with Template:Div col. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Beland (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brad Edelman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Radiators (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hiya Bender. I saw that you recently moved EJ Manuel to E. J. Manuel. I was the one who moved that article before, so I just want to point out http://sports.yahoo.com/news/qbs-center-stage-florida-state-135411298--ncaaf.html, a copy of the (now dead) source I had in there before. Manuel doesn't use periods in his name, and I think the article title should reflect this. Cheers, Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Even E. J. Manuel can't eliminate grammar rules. Per MOS:ABBR, Wikipedia spells his name "E. J. Manuel". --bender235 (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but since when has a Wikipedia rule ever held true 100% of the time? :) Look at something like WP:INITS: "Generally, use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources". As a general rule, a lot of leeway is given when reliable sources clearly indicate that a rule does not hold true for a given example. In this case, I think it's pretty clear. Not only do we have an AP report clearly stating that he uses EJ ("...although Daniels - Bruce Jr. - uses the conventional periods between letters while Manuel - Erik Jr. - doesn't.", but we have all these articles, these results, and the school's bio all saying the same. Yes, I'm sure you could find plenty of sources that say E.J. or E. J., but when you have a reliable source that specifies EJ? Why would you have that in the WP article, but still call him E. J. in the title? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, there are certain rules people can't eliminate when it comes to the spelling of their name. So Manuel wants his given name initials spelled without the periods. What's next? Somebody might want his name spelled all in CAPITALS, or maybe CaMeLcAsE. Should Wikipedia accept that, too? --bender235 (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much. Again, see WP:COMMONNAME. It's the most common name in sources, even if we generally go by those glorious rules of grammar. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The examples you brought are not given names, but stage names. For actual names, we use our Manual of Style. --bender235 (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I don't see how or why one performer is different from another performer. WP:Middle names treats k.d. lang as a legitimate exception, with no mention of whether or not it is a stage name. Second, the MOS: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." His official name may indeed by E. J. For that matter, his official name, as per his birth certificate, most likely doesn't have initials at all. However, that's all irrelevant. He is consistently called EJ in the news, and has demonstrated that he wants to use that name. As such, we follow the sources. Would you please point to the specific area in the MOS that says that for actual names, the person's intent is irrelevant and we always put periods and spaces in? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 05:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I've boldly moved the page back. If you do still have concerns, we can ask for other opinions at the Project talk pages. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind answering the questions I've brought up here instead of arbitrarily saying "same grammar rules for everyone"? That's not true, as the MOS points out: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." That's pretty clear. In this case, the best sources refer to him as EJ, and we have a specific source saying he prefers that form. There's your manual of style. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 02:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You can find sources for "E.J." and "EJ", just like you can find sources for "N.F.L." or "NFL". It doesn't matter. --bender235 (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

NFL.com and BuffaloBills.com spell it "EJ", for some reason. I moved the article. --bender235 (talk) 08:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thanks for it :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

There is now a move discussion at Talk:Franco-Prussian War/Archive 1#Move?. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but with three exceptions, I can't spot any difference in the sections that this edit says have changed. Clearly, I'm missing something! Can you explain to me the differences between the sections it says are different that to me look the same? If so, I will be extremely greatful, and much less perplexed. With thanks in advance! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Easy to explain. In those sections that don't appear to have changed I removed superfluous whitespace, using Advisor.js. --bender235 (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

What a shame! I was hoping for a complex, mysterious and exciting explanation of a cunning conspiracy theory!!

More seriously: Thanks. Most appreciated! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Bender235. You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

How come? --bender235 (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

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

1995 European Athletics Junior Championships (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mark Hylton

Anderson Russell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Marist High School

Cuba Gooding, Jr. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pacific Palisades

Mike Tolbert (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Douglas County High School

Nelson Rosario (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to El Camino High School

Sharif Karie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to West Springfield High School

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw your edit at Template:Infobox NFL player/doc to specify that the college name at NFL.com should be used. Any thoughts to the discussion you started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#NFL_player_infobox.2C_college_.E2.80.93_avoid_abbreviations.3F, whiere I suggested that WP:COMMONNAME should be used, which would account for all sources and not just exclusively NFL.com?—Bagumba (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'd agree with common name, with a little footnote that says "don't use abbreviations when both the long and the short name are equally common" (like "LSU" and "Louisiana State"; whereas "California-Los Angeles" instead of "UCLA" is not). --bender235 (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

As for LSU, my suggestion would be to to do an WP:RM on LSU Tigers and other related LSU articles. It would make for a simpler guideline to just say to use the common name from Wikipedia article titles for the school's football article.—Bagumba (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting confused on what your position is now. You made a change from USC to Southern California, when its neither listed on NFL.com nor common name in USC Trojans football.—Bagumba (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did that to avoid ambiguity with "the other USC" (University of South Carolina). --bender235 (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've started an RFC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#College_names_in_athletes.27_infoboxes.—Bagumba (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your input at the RFC before you make changes from USC to Southern California. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Al Jenkins (American football) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to St. Augustine High School

Pita Elisara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rugby

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, Bender. I saw you'd recently made some constructive edits on the Kevin Mawae article; I've just posted a suggestion for a few changes on the article's Talk page, and I wonder if you'd be willing to give it a look. I work as a consultant to the NFLPA, and the changes concern that organization, so I'd prefer not to make direct edits. Let me know if you can, no worries if you can't. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 02:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Just saw the update, thanks very much for making the change! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. --bender235 (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Bender, I see you have been busy with NFL Draft-related edits. As always, I appreciate your diligent work to improve NFL player articles . . . but I do have a small bone to pick with you: why are inserting and/or defending trivial cross-references to other players like this one:

"Hayden was . . . the second cornerback taken (after Dee Milliner). Hayden is the highest selected defensive player from Houston since Wilson Whitley in 1977."

These kind of cross-references are low-value trivia that often clutter articles with meaningless gibberish while the articles continue to lack high-value discussion and analysis of the subject player's career. And they're not really about the subject player, and they are usually barely relevant to the player who is the actual subject of the article; they often function as a hook to insert random trivia about teammates, other league players, the subject's college, etc. Frankly, I usually delete these kind of low-value cross-references on sight, and I know several other editors who do likewise -- including random references to high school and college teammates, references to the draft history of a high school or college, and references to other players who rank higher in terms of team or league records, season-leading statistics, etc. What's worse is when these low-value cross-references are inserted without a supporting source, and inevitably, the quoted stat or record is wrong or out of date and no means for cross-checking or updating the cross-reference are provided.

Please consider. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not consider these cross-references to be of "low value". They provide notable background on the significance of a certain draft pick.

Plus, Wikipedia does not have any space limitations. We are not required to cut down information to the most necessary. --bender235 (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jesse V., could you please check the talk page of Robby_Robinson_(bodybuilder) and help to achieve fairness in materials put on article about Robby Robinson? I would like to hear your opinion if you also support that within a couple of days an article about a famous bodybuilding legend turned out into an article about a ... I do not even have words. All the previous contributions were deleted, not only those from me, and new ones are presented so misleading that people who know Mr Robinson and his life and achievements will never believe this is an article about him. Thak you. RRWM (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure you're addressing the right person here? I'm not "Jesse V." and I have no connection to that article whatsoever. --bender235 (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laurent Fabius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

In this reversion you said, "corrections were wrong, plus notes parameter is useful. Please leave it the way it is."

The article as reverted by you now gives a 40 yd dash figure which is supported by neither of the two cited sources.

The article says, "All values from NFL combine, except bench press and forty yard dash (from Notre Dame Pro Day)", and cites two sources, described as NFL Events: Combine Player Profiles - Manti Te'o and Manti Te''o | Notre Dame, ILB : 2013 NFL Draft Scout Player Profile. As mentioned above, neither source supports the figure currently given for the 40 yard dash. The first cited source supports the figures given for height, weight, arm span, hand span, and broad jump. The second cited source supports the figures given for ten split, twenty split, shuttle, cone, vertical jump and bench reps.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't look at the 40-yd time. That one is wrong now, indeed. I was looking at height, because NFLDraftScout says 6-1.2. For the 40-yd time, we should use the NFL Combine numbers, because those are more reliable than hand-timed Pro Day numbers, and there are splits available. --bender235 (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on being the first editor to draw him out of his shell! I hope you don't waste too much time or energy trying to reason with him, though. I am kind of thinking he's not very persuadable. (Thanks BTW for the Barnstar -) JohnInDC (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's okay, I'd like to give him room to explain himself. I'm still wondering what "court case" and "identity theft" he is referring to, tho. --bender235 (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is something to be said for letting him completely and visibly fail to make sense! The only way I can see "identity theft" mattering here would be if this guy was a star at OSU and some time between then and today he had to change his name to something completely unrelated. (Witness protection makes more sense than ID theft in that case though.) Anyhow that might explain why the new name isn't in any of the record books! But it wouldn't explain why someone who went to so much trouble to put space between his current name and his old one would go to the trouble of connecting them back up again. He says he's "done with" us two however so we may never get an answer. JohnInDC (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not trying to mess you up or make your life difficult by removing his threats along with his edits. It's just easier to rollback whatever he does! JohnInDC (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I know. I don't blame you. --bender235 (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Plus, have a look at this!

I don't think we're dealing with the most savory of characters here and I suspect what's going on is that, having tried so hard to construct a seamless and well-documented fake history for himself, he's concerned that what's going to turn up in future Google searches is our discussion of the fabrication. I think he's growing a bit desperate. (Of course this is all surmise on my part.) JohnInDC (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be a quasi-stalker guys, but this weirdness has intrigued me. I think this person may suffer from multiple personalities disorder. This is the most bizarre thing I've seen on Wikipedia in my 6 1/2 years editing. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Can't speak for Bender, on his Talk page, but I don't mind the attention - after all, you can observe a lot by just watching. I agree that this is a weird one. Unless the Charlotte club is in on the gag, it takes a lot of balls (and an uncommon willingness to play on others' trust) to pass yourself off to an OSU alumni group as an accomplished and admired football player from a storied age in the school's history. And, like I noted elsewhere, there's a kind of, I dunno, arrogance too in assuming that facts that are so easily checked will not be checked. It doesn't add up. And finally I was thinking how if this editor had just let the deletions stand, hadn't tried to force them back into place after block upon block, we'd have stopped talking about this after about 2 paragraphs. Certainly no one would have bothered to drop a note to OSU or the Charlotte group. Some people are their own worst enemies - JohnInDC (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"Not the most savory of characters" might be a fitting description. I'm not conjecturing here, but isn't it interesting there's also this verdict against one "John Strassini" of Charlotte, which says: "To corroborate his fictitious professional history and to generate funds for his businesses, Strassini fabricated federal income tax returns, Forms 1040 for himself and Forms 1120 for his two businesses. With these returns, the defendant claimed that he was the founder and CEO of multi-million dollar construction enterprises. He also sought the services of reputable accounting firms to create financial statements for his corporations." You may connect the dots now... --bender235 (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

...that WP:MOS, which I am well conversant with, is a guideline, not a policy. Unlike a policy, a guideline doesn't have to be followed robotically, and if improvements can be made, WP:IAR allows us to make them. It is almost never the case that reverting someone's well-thought-out alteration on a MOS issue (as opposed to accidental mistakes or vandalism) is justified, and it is never an excuse for editwarring. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I know MOS aren't "must follow" but rather recommendations. Yet I haven't seen any rational given by you on why we should not follow the recommendations. Any particular reason why the current, non-MOS compliant style is preferable? And remember, "I don't like" is not a valid answer. --bender235 (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Explanaton or not, there is never an excuse to edit war on the basis of a guideline. If had a little more patience, you would have gotten a thorough explanation - and one will be forthcoming when I have the time to make it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

There was no edit warring. What are you talking about? --bender235 (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to explain the delay: I am quite busy in real life, so my available editing time has decreased significantly. I have time to go through my watchlist and do what needs to be done there (occasionally even grabbing a few minutes at work), and to further some of my own content-based projects. Since the dispute between us is not about content, I considered it to be a low priority, and was planning on getting to it this weekend, when my time will be more available (albeit still less limited than usual). Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, "How long are you going to filibuster this" isn't very WP:AGF. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I partally reverted your change. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ARM_architecture&action=historysubmit&diff=556504822&oldid=556403241

I like KB myself but KiB would be correct, not kB. See revert. You seem very experienced, more than me, and thanks for all the edits (to ARM). Comp.arch (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh man, I changed "KB" to "kB" on a couple of other sites, too, unaware of WP:COMPUNITS. Damn. --bender235 (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, then maybe not a waste of time letting you know. Maybe you change those or at least know in the future. NB. As mush as I used to hate it the SI-prefixes are now used for external storage, hard disks (and flash memories), but not RAM or cache. Comp.arch (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Since you have made several edits at {{NFL predraft}}, I was hoping you might comment at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Template_request_for_NBA_Draft_Combine.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) _Template:NBA_predraft" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">11:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, regarding that issue:

There is not doubt that the contributions of Vicente Guerrero to human rights and egalitarianism were very important (and should be emphasized and described in more detail in the webpage). His reforms achieved social justice for the oppressed, e.g. Africans, Indians, poor Mestizos, etc.. In this regard, his reforms surpassed those of the USA and many European countries; he tried to supress State-driven ethnic discrimination more than a century before them!. I can see why then, the interest on making him one of the champions of indigenist and black revindication movements by 'making' him indigenous and black exclusively. However, one must have in mind that his reforms were made in an all-inclusive context, i.e. they were made for all Mexicans, regardless of ethnicity, and more within the spirit of true liberalism than within the context of the specific social 'fight' of a particular ethnic group. That's why some historians refer to Guerrero as the "most Mexican" of all Mexican heroes. Notice that even the Anglo-Saxons from the USA prized him because of many of his reforms, specially those that were very amicable and liberal towards Anglo-Saxon immigrants (e.g. the Austin quotation), but nevertheless, nobody claims that because of that Guerrero was Anglo-Saxon, even when in some of the paintings made of him he might had looked like one.

Some historians and people of his time regarded him as a Cuarteron (3/4 Spanish, 1/4 black and indigenous,--->historians), others as indigenous ('neutral' individuals and 'enemies'), others as black ('enemies', racism included), others as mestizo('neutral', 'friends' and 'enemies'), such that in the future most of the people that wrote about him limited themselves to describe him as 'dark' ('obscure') or trigueño ('olive-skinned', 'swarthy'). The rest is just myth. I don't know how on such a basis and on the visual analysis of paintings it can be claimed that his father was black and his mother indian (specially because the paintings are portraits of him, not of his parents, and many of them are posthumous). Also, the fact that his father was a royalist (supported Spanish rule) and his uncle was, in fact, a royalist soldier (i.e. part of the Spanish militia) does not seem to fit well with an exclusive indian and black heritage. The colonial regime was very harsh on blacks and indians, and did not allow them to have property, nor have freight businesses (much less gun making businesses) nor admit them among their military hierarchy. So, most likely Guerrero belonged to some of the Casta that included some Spanish heritage, but however he was mixed, with also black and indian heritage. Notice however, that as many insurgents and liberals, Guerrero despised the Spanish Casta system, that's why they all claimed to be Americans (from the American continent) and Mexicans (their country), regardless of their ethnic origin (Mixed, Spanish, Indian, Black, Asian, etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKMX (talk • contribs) 21:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Bender235, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Strike Σagle 09:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I did that to be funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsim64 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What was the purpose of these [2] changes? En- and em-dashes are hard to distinguish in the markup, and soft hyphens improve layout and appearance -- why did you remove them? EEng (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Soft hypens are a bit too much Insp. Gadget for Wikipedia. If you look at the source of the article then, it is basically unreadable, which is something Wikipedia should always avoid. --bender235 (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. And you changed the mdash/ndash markup to literal mdashes/ndashes because...? EEng (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Because User:Cameltrader/Advisor suggested it. And I don't see any reason not to do it. --bender235 (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I said why you shouldn't do it in my initial post here: the literal em- and en-dashes are very hard to distinguish in source. So in removing the soft hyphens you impaired the quality of what the reader sees (and summarily discarded a lot of someone's work) in the name of improving what the editor sees -- a tradeoff already made, in the opposite direction, by those who actually edit the article. Then you changed symbolic dashes to literal dashes, which does nothing at all except impair what the editor sees. Please don't make choices about what is or isn't convenient for the article's editors if you're not one of them. EEng (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you better get off the high horse here. I've been editing Wikipedia long enough to have an educated opinion on what's convenient for editors and what is not. That soft hyphen overkill you (or whoever) introduced to that article is simply ridiculous. I mean, ...sec­ond, com­pen­sat­ing..., what the hell is that? Could you name any plausible scenario in which it would be necessary for the viewer's browser to break a single word three times? Is there anybody browsing Wikipedia with a 10px screen, or what? --bender235 (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Brought this case to WP:MOS. And by the way, just because you contributed to a particular article more than I did does not make you its owner. --bender235 (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm perfectly comfortable up here on my high horse, thank you.

• Multiple soft hyphens allow a word to be broken at the one best point among several choices. That you think they imply breaking a single word over several lines calls into question your claimed extensive experience.
• As it turns out your edits didn't even remove the soft hyphens -- what you actually did, using an automated tool you apparently don't understand, was to substitute a literal soft hyphen for each occurence of ­, similar to your substitution of — and – for — and –. But since literal soft hyphens are nonprinting (except at end-of-line), by doing so you have made it not only (as previously explained) very difficult to visually distinguish an en- from an em-dash in the edit window, you've now made it completely impossible to see where the soft hyphens are. Good work.
• This article is full of medical terms and majestic 19th-century quotations, making hyphenation very helpful in avoiding unsightly underfilled lines, particularly in narrow captions and multicolumn notes/references. Your argument that readability of source text (seen by less than one editor per day) trumps readability of formatted text (seen by thousands of readers per day) is nonsense.
• In any event this particular choice, in this particular article, was made (or accepted with no hint of objection) by editors actually working on (or at least monitoring) it. This has nothing to do with ownership -- if you showed any interest in substantive edits to the article that would be quite a different matter from what actually happened i.e. you dropped in to impose your personal ideas of what markup should look like, and moved on.
• When you gain consensus at MOS for regulations micromanaging soft hyphenation please let us know, assuming the universe has not run cold by then. In the meantime, since you apparently don't know how soft hyphens work, or what the automated tool you're using actually does, think twice before applying the word "ridiculous".

EEng (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You're barking up the wrong tree. I'll give you a chance to reply at WP:MOS and explain what people there describe as a "joke edit" of yours, before I revert your edit. --bender235 (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Please, no more metaphors -- so far you've got me "barking up the wrong tree" while on "the high horse".

• Your insistence that you are combatting "soft hyphen overkill" is ludicrous since, as already explained above, your edit did not remove the soft hyphens but merely changed them to a form making then impossible to see in the edit window. (That the soft hyphens are still there is easily seen via the hyphenated linebreaks in the live article e.g. in most image captions.) This makes no sense at all.
• Talk:MOS is for discussion of changes to MOS or of MOS interpretation, not forum-shopped editing disputes unrelated to anything in MOS.
• Soft hyphens are part of Wikipedia markup, and in the absence of guidelines to the contrary they exist to be used according to the consensus of editors of the article in question. I am copying this discussion to Talk:Phineas Gage#Soft hyphens so we can hear if any of them finds soft hyphens as objectionable as you do.

EEng (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Your information posted on the Society of St. Pius V is incorrect. The society has been contacted about what you have posted. If you have any questions, you should read their websites http://www.sspv.org/ or contact them http://www.sspv.org/info.html because the article you had is not correct on their views concerning the Catholic Faith. Its not a matter of point of view, what I posted was the facts. Please read the info... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wessteele (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I was a student of that school. I know about the school better than you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasyuvan (talk • contribs) 17:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That was rude ! whats wrong with you ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thestudio5 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. --bender235 (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, Bender235! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and TheStrike Σagle 06:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate your attempt to impose the cite templates on this article, the previous contributors to this article did not chose to use them. Personally, I agree with them--I find the templates are cumbersome and a bother. If you have links to JSTOR and other sources, incorporate them in the current format, please do not impose a method of citation on an article that you are not a contributor to other than to impose that format. It makes it difficult for those who do contribute to the article on a regular basis. Therefore, I have reverted your edits.

• Per 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 and,
• per WP:CITEVAR-- Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page.

Please consider these policies if you intend to proceed with similar edits elsewhere, as with those today that raised my attention (i.e. the Prufrock article).--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that you're citing guidelines, not policies: did you realise that your revert removed valuable information I added (e.g., JSTOR, DOI, ISBN information)? --bender235 (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You are far from the first editor to fall victim to incivility. Take a look at my talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC).

Bender I have corrected the article on Martin Guevara Urbina. Can you please take a look and remove the tags. I have tried everything to correct it. There had not been a problem until now or when others tried to add to it or make a correcton. The article is Martin Guevara Urbina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofia alvarez1 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but I am not entitled to unilaterally removed AfD tags. No one is. The article in question will have to go thru AfD procedure (which, by the way, does not mean it will be deleted in any case). --bender235 (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on citations on the talk page for The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. I've replied there to a question you had and added a new section with a proposal. Please reply there. I'm writing here because I don't know how long you would have that page on your watchlist. WikiParker (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have that page on my watchlist anymore, so thanks for the heads-up. Yet, I see little point of still being involved in this one, since ColonelHenry remains impervious to argument. I must've done something bad to him along the way that I'm not aware of, and that an apology doesn't fix. --bender235 (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beer Léon Fould, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I have asked several times before, I request again. Please do not contact me again. This is relentless harassment.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Replied. What a pathetic abuse of WP:AN/I. What a pitiful character you are. It is just sad. --bender235 (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that you should give the undertaking I have suggested at that ANI. The is no further advantage to you in continuing the section at ANI. No matter how much you feel that you were justified, your posts to User talk:ColonelHenry after (s)he had asked you to stop were in breach of policy harassment, and without such an undertaking, I think than an uninvolved administrator would be justified in blocking your account until such time as you gave such an undertaking. -- PBS (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't get that. Who's supposed to be blocked? --bender235 (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

My apologies I had missed your statement in the ANI "I have no intentions to contact him anymore, just in case this was not clear". That was all I was suggesting that you gave. -- PBS (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd remove those. I understand your frustration, but they are extremely likely to backfire on you. Requesting people familiar with a controversy to come to an ANI discussion is generally considered acceptable. This case could possibly be considered canvassing (another accusation I would refrain from), but they are not meatpuppeting.—Kww(talk) 16:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so doesn't qualify as WP:MEAT. --bender235 (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hugh of Italy may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{Authority control |VIAF= |GND=101997744

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It feels very good to get some positive feedback on this work. --bender235 (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Joseph Goldmark at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Canadian Paul 03:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings.

I have made very few edits to wikipedia, and I see that you are a major contributor. Thank you so much for that! I find it an invaluable resource and you are a GREAT asset to this community.

I would like to know why you thought the version that you have/had is better though? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_adaptations_of_works_by_Philip_K._Dick&oldid=558017230 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_adaptations_of_works_by_Philip_K._Dick

The formatting/look is certainly better without having two dates/directors for the Total Recall, but it's not a COMPLETE picture to omit them imho.

Looking back I can see that my edit was crude (i.e. didn't link to the new total recall, put both directors together as one link), so my apologies for that, but I would really appreciate it if you could explain to a quite novice wikipedia editor/contributor why you feel that it's better with this information omitted.

I'm fine if it stays omitted, I just would, more than anything, like to get a better picture from someone who has contributed so much as to why it wasn't as good, when it 1) had more information/was a more complete picture of his adaptations.

Thanks in advance -- really look forward to hearing your response. (seems I will check back on this page)

The reason I reverted was basically because your edit corrupted the wikilink to Paul Verhoeven. Add it with a better syntax, and you're fine. --bender235 (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and heads up. I appreciate you taking the time. All the best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.225.250 (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jakob ben Chajim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Worms (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Bender235

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I was, in fact, not aware that Wikipedia switches to VisualEditor by default, and was unaware of TemplateData, too. I'll look into the topic. --bender235 (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you should judge words by their appearance. Try looking up their meaning before you revert a correction made in good faith. I think Wikipedia is a good institution, but my only contribution is to correct English grammar and spelling, and it is galling to see this work reverted by users not entirely conversant with the English language. For the record:

Rein, as in "rein in": to exert control Reign: to rule, as an emperor or king. 86.53.54.153 (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Please help me out here: what article or edit are you referring to? --bender235 (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your revert of my edit to the Grandfather Paradox page. I believe my change was constructive and added clarity to the description. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendanmiddleton (talk • contribs)

You are right. I shouldn't have reverted that. I'm sorry. --bender235 (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Joseph Goldmark at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, just leave it them. --bender235 (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Didn't help, but okay. --bender235 (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there any way to note that the link stated in "Ofcom Code on Sports and Other Listed and Designated Events" is broken, as it is important as many people will not follow it and it may not be accurate.

Ian 176.27.37.81 (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in fact there is. We use {{Dead link}}, which is a maintenance template. I implemented it on said article. --bender235 (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

A national archives search finds [3] and the original URL is also archived in the waybackmachine [4] going back almost four years. I'm not sure why the original malformed "broken link" warning wasn't simply corrected rather than being deleted; seems like double the work for everyone. 212.139.97.134 (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, this edit summary spooked me a bit, until I realized that you had apparently cancelled the "typo" change without removing the mention of it from the edit summary. Could you be a bit more careful with that? I have a feeling I've discussed this problem with somebody else yonks ago (I don't think it was you – I can't find it in your archives, at any rate). Graham87 03:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that seems to be a WP:AWB bug. The edit summary I entered always has been only "Typo fixing". You might report a bug, if anything. --bender235 (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Done; see this new bug. Graham87 11:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Rothschild family shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 12:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, bot. I'm well aware of these rules. Problem is, 99.195.110.214 is not. --bender235 (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

3RR is a two way street, bot. The edits are not vandalism therefore, you get no exemption from 3RR. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the reply came so fast (and with a templated answer) I thought you were in fact a bot. For instance, you recommended for me to read WP:BRD, when I in fact gave that same advice to said IP.

And again, I know the rules. But you tell me, what am I supposed to do in this case? I already requested to have the article in question semi-protected, and the IP blocked from article name space. --bender235 (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion appears to be ongoing - the IP editor is engaged. Even if the article is left in a state you disagree with, while the discussion is ongoing, just leave it and let the discussion finish. If you can't form consensus with the other editor, seek a third opinion. Editors can't be blocked by name space. From the looks of it, and assuming good faith, the IP editor has as much claim against you as you do against him even if one of you is wrong but well intentioned. No malicious intent is evident. I'm not going to protect the page, because the dispute appears to be between just the two of you. If the IP reverts, I'll block it. If you revert in response, I'll block you. Sound fair? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds fair. But contrary to what you believe, IP does not "have as much claim". He simply misunderstands the topic, but instead of asking, he kept on reverting. Well, at least for now it seems over. --bender235 (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

He reverted again, if you noticed. I won't react, for now. --bender235 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bender.

While checking this user out, I noticed that you had reverted one of his edits. Could please check out his entire editing history? It seems that he is editing articles merely to enter unsourced nationalistic jingoism.

Here's one example.

Original Text:
There is inconsistency as to the reason why Birch was assassinated. One view is that Birch's assassination was because he outlawed slavery in Perak. Dato Maharajalela, whose income depended on capturing and selling the indigenes of Perak or Orang Asli as slaves, was then incensed and plotted with some of the slave-traders to kill Birch by spearing him when he was taking his bath in the river.

His edit:
The reason why Birch was assassinated was because of his policies, arrogance and disrespect towards local customs and the Rulers Sultan of Perak, for example by refusing to remove his shoes when he entered the palace.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.137.181.165 (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right. This one was another case. I'll give him a warning. --bender235 (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 World Youth Championships in Athletics – Boys' 110 metres hurdles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Atlantis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Phoenix (journal)

Financial accelerator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mark Gertler

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, with this edit you added a bunch of unsourced assertions to this section. We cannot list "notable papers" just because one editor feels that this is the case, we need objective criteria. Please add your sources for these assertions. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I know this problem, and I've been pondering the addition of this list for long. Try name some "objective criteria"! Basically, this "notable papers" section is more or less as much WP:OR as is any "notable alumni" section at younameit university. --bender235 (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That is incorrect. When listing notable papers in journal articles, we (at WikiProject Academic Journals, that is) either add articles for which we have reliable sources confirming that they are notable in some sense (e.g., because they got a major award) or we list those articles that received the most citations (an objective criterion and the way it was done before your edit). --Randykitty (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of the sources you just added are really inadequate. You cannot cite a book to support the statement that some article by the same author is notable... --Randykitty (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Awards are bad criteria for good papers. What we want to capture is influence, but that is unfortunately intangible. We could of course cite a book or another article that calls the first one "notable" or "influential", but what makes the reviewer notable? What I'm saying it: it's a tough call. I'm trying to add references from definitive text books to underline the importances of each of these papers. --bender235 (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: if one "cannot cite a book to support the statement", then what? --bender235 (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course you can cite a book to support a statement. What you cannot do is cite a book by Krugman to source the fact that an article by Krugman is notable. As you say, "influence" is intangible, so all we can go by are sources, like WoS. And unless a textbook says "this is a landmark paper" or something similar, it's just a citation and doesn't mean that an article is particularly notable. --Randykitty (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

So only the Krugman-praising-Krugman paper is what you criticize? --bender235 (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

No, there's also Romer praising Romer and I don't have time to check the other references. I have a strong urge to revert this POV/OR list back to the one sourced to WoS, unless you can give good reasons why this should not be done. --Randykitty (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Be careful not to confuse Paul Romer with David Romer.

The list itself is far better then thr previous one, because the bibliometric approach is missing a lot. Some of the entries are now sourced, more sources will come. Leave it for now. --bender235 (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Due to a security update to the wiki software, older versions of STiki are no longer functional. You've been identified as a user of STiki, and are kindly asked to upgrade to the current version at Wikipedia:STiki#Download before continuing with use of the tool. Continuing to use older versions will be detrimental to the STiki project. Please see Wikipedia talk:STiki#Errors for a discussion of this issue or to respond to this message. Thank you! 04:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Zero interest-rate policy, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. greenrd (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Bender dear, when you do them could you please leave a little edit summary, because when people make changes, and label them as minor, I get anxious, unless its a person who regularly works on the same pages as I do. And thanks for you useful work! Amandajm (talk) 10:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Seconding the thanks for your useful work. Citations, a crucial part of an encyclopedia, are too often inadequate or incomplete on Wikipedia. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

A big thank-you for your detailed attention to these pages. You pick up exactly the things I miss.Sjwells53 (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. --bender235 (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to D. Madhusudhana Rao may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | birth_place =[[Andhra Pradesh]], [[India]])
• | PLACE OF BIRTH = [[Andhra Pradesh]], [[India]])

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the author of the above-referenced article. I added several internal links to remedy one of the shortcomings that was cited. Thank you for your help. mrwick1 Mrwick1 (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC) (my name/time stamp isn't working!)

Okay. --bender235 (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You added {{External links|date=June 2013}} to Ultra high definition television this evening (diff), with the edit comment "some copy-editing". Sorry, but I don't see how this is helpful to readers or other contributors:

• You haven't explained what problems need to be fixed (per Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems).
• Describing your edit as "copy-editing" is misleading. Seen on a watchlist, your edit comment gives no reason to expect that you believe the article requires further work. It implies that you did some fixing rather than leaving it to other people.
• Given that today is 5th September, your decision to date the tag "June 2013" is incomprehensible. I wasted time looking back through the history trying to understand where the tag came from. Are you trying to make the problem appear long-established?

I can see that your experience here dates from 2004 and you have 158107 article "edits" but I can't imagine your motivation in this instance. Please reconsider. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Oh dear - Pointillist (talk) 08:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're complaining about. I moved the already existing {{External links}} from the "External links" section (where it does not belong) up on top (where it does belong). This is, by definition, copy-editing. I did not add the template, but User:Funandtrvl did in June 2013. Couldn't you have checked the (diff) you linked before yelling at me? --bender235 (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a relief. I thought one of us was going mad. Please excuse my stupidity! - Pointillist (talk) 08:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. --bender235 (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bender235,

I was having a spot of bother defending the information in List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes because the figures are not adjusted for inflation, and because they contradict, for example, NOAA and ICAT. Peering at the talk, I see you contributed to the Talk section "Remove Normalization". I'm not sure I follow all the details of your response to Datheisen, but the only other comment is an anon handwaving.

This seems like some process of data rectification that wasn't concluded?

I've left a comment [5] Leptus Froggi (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Answered. --bender235 (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

How exactly does he fit WP:ATHLETE? He never appeared in a professional game.--Yankees10 21:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I assumed he does because of his notability arising from his college football days. You don't think so? --bender235 (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Not really. He didn't win any notable awards or anything.--Yankees10 22:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, he did lead a nationally ranked team in tackles for consecutive years. I'd say he's notable. Maybe a third opinion would be useful. --bender235 (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure thats notable, but I don't know if I would consider it notable by Wikipedia's standards. I'm open to a third opinion--Yankees10 23:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dan Kendra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fullback (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that my edit of the above Wiki page was not constructive. The link to the supposed village website seems to be no more than a marketing page for various search terms and ads. There is no real information on the village there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.53.150 (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm affraid you have to be a little bit more specific on which edit you're refering to here. --bender235 (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bryan Schwartz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Augustana Vikings football (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. --bender235 (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about not updating the source in the template I thought by doing the Ref tag it updated or put it up for Approval.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Costliest_U.S._Atlantic_hurricanes_by_wealth_normalization

Thanks for fixing it.

That template is referenced in the Camille article but since Camille is no longer in the top 10 of normalized hurricanes as of 1900-2010 update should the link be removed?

Marcus1979oz (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)MarkMarcus1979oz (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sure. --bender235 (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello - some editors fight off the vandal hordes, as I do repairing pages with citation errors. If I didn't - there would be a large backlog in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting and in Category:Pages with missing references list as in Category:Pages with broken reference names (more than 1500 yesterday). But it is impossible to work it alone. Do you know how to do a "Blitz" (excuse the comparision) to find willing editors to work on it. It is much more easier to repair references if you do it one hour, one day or one week ago after the errors were made instead of months and years after the error was done. Very, very difficult to find these errors.

Only with WikiBlame Search it is possible to find and repair such errors.

Best wishes --Frze ^{> talk} 08:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Not quite sure what to make of this. --bender235 (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nick Setta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! I was mistakenly reverted your edits. I was confused when hitting the button! --    L o g  X   21:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Happens to the best of us. --bender235 (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paloma (cocktail), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Backlog status (Purge)

Category	Current status
Pages with incorrect ref formatting	Not done
Pages with missing references list	Done
Pages with broken reference names	Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character ",".

Best wishes --Frze ^{> talk} 04:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a suggestion on Wikipedia:Bot requests for a new REFBot working as DPL bot and BracketBot do. I beg politely for consideration. Please leave a comment if you wish. Thanks a lot in anticipation. -- Frze (talk · contribs) 04:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, i was reading the article Sexual desire of which you are a contributor,Sir..Under the para PHYSICAL FACTORS AFFECTING SEXUAL DESIRE i was expecting the find something about the 'time that has passed from the previous ejaculation in men'(being the reason that during the short term abstinence in sexually active men, they feel a high urge to indulge in sexual activities) affects their sexual desire..but there is no mention of the specific thing in the article..i have been anxious about this as i have to continue my research project on libido.. Sir, can you please help me find out the reason for why could i not find this fact here..many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed beerman (talk • contribs) 13:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I made no contributions to this article. Please post your questions on Talk:Sexual desire. --bender235 (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Florida High School Athletic Association (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Gainesville High School and Osceola High School

Brian Cushing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Clay Matthews

Jimmy Nelson (American football) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Halfback

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a neutral notice that an RfC has been opened at an article which you have edited within the past year. It is at Talk:Clint Eastwood#8 children by 6 women. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't have much to do with this article. --bender235 (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Earl Heyman may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 1247-earl-heyman-wins-the-indiana-golden-gloves-heavyweight-championship |accessdate=April 21, 2012}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, your edit was back in July 2013, but I just now noticed that you listed Professor Oppenheim's religion as Jewish, linking to Ashkenazi Jews. Do you have any source material? I had been looking for a while. And was he always Jewish, or did he convert to Anglicanism? I've found sources on his personal life hard to find. IMHO (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I added a source, didn't I? --bender235 (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atari Bigby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trelawny (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Er, that's not really what I meant. I meant make it part of general fixes so that when actually substantive edits are done with AWB, that will also be done. It looks like you're just changing links to HTTPS and doing general fixes, many of which are just cosmetic, which isn't really that much different from running a bot to change the links. Mr.Z-man 00:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's general fixes, typo fixing, and that HTTPS switch combined. Sometimes only the latter. Where's the problem? Do I destroy anything? --bender235 (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

As Werieth pointed out, this is very similar to WP:NOTBROKEN. If you're going to make thousands (or tens of thousands) of edits that make almost no substantial change, I really think you should discuss this somewhere. Mr.Z-man 00:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Really? What happened to WP:BOLD? And by the way, where would we discuss this? Again I'm asking, do I break something with these edits? Or are you just trying to make a point? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any downside to these edits. --bender235 (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I can think of a half dozen or so issues that this would cause, flooding peoples watchlists with excessive edits just to convert http to https when it can probably be done via a lua module will cause issues. Werieth (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

"Flooding watchlists" is a minor bureaucratic concern, not an issue. But tell me more about this module option. How would it work? --bender235 (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think WP:BOLD applies to a plan to edit over 160,000 pages. I would suggest the Village Pump. Then if there actually is consensus that this is something that needs to be done, we can actually have a bot do it (or some other way like editing the citation Lua modules). Also, I would suggest you read WP:BOLD (particularly "... but please be careful!") and WP:POINT. I fail to see how I am disrupting Wikipedia by suggesting you get consensus to make 160,000 edits that make no substantial change. Mr.Z-man 00:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't see the point of starting the big bureaucratic brouhaha at VP over edits that do no harm. I am careful here, am I not? What do I break? --bender235 (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Replacing redirects does not break anything either. Nor does making whitespace changes or other cosmetic fixes. But the community has decided that doing such edits en masse is usually inappropriate. I'm not saying to start an RFC and wait a month (though it's not like there's a deadline). Just see if anyone agrees with this. Because so far, of all the people who have commented on this, no one really has. Mr.Z-man 01:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

What makes you believe switching from HTTP to HTTPS is only "cosmetic"? And why is it negative thing? --bender235 (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I don't really care that much. If you'd rather sit in front of AWB for hours upon hours instead of taking a few days to potentially discuss a better option, that's up to you. Though I will point out that if someone does get annoyed by edits like these flooding their watchlists, calling their annoyance a "bureaucratic concern" is not likely to appease them. Rules are bureacracy, users are people. Mr.Z-man 01:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to brush you off. I'm listening to other options, of course I do. I'll think about starting a discuss at VP. --bender235 (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Please STOP making HTTP--> HTTPS changes. There's no consensus for mass edits of this type. Was it requested? Was it discussed in advance? It's strictly unnecessary. Wikipedia is WP:NOT here to secure people's web browsing from snooping. That is their responsibility (VPN, secure proxy, EFF's HTTPS Everywhere, etc).

Obviously, such edits are to be discussed at WP:AWB/Tasks, or the Village Pump. Unfortunately, now, it's going to AN/I because:

• WP:BOLD was never intended to apply to AWB or mass edits of any kind. As part of WP:BRD, reverts should be easy, so that discussion can commence at once. AWB mass edit reversions are not at all easy.
• "Flooding watchlists" is hardly a "minor bureaucratic concern" - it's annoying to thousands of editors at once and has been beaten back dozens of times. Example: when an editor changed user names, she used AWB to rename herself in every Talk page and archived Talk page she had ever visited; that editor lost all the good will she had ever built up in the community, just for watchlist flooding.
• It's harmful: HTTPS is blocked or snooped anyways in many corporate environments, and some countries; you're therefore breaking access to resources, and forcing connection startups to be slower in every case.
• There was a long discussion of such edits at Talk:The Pirate Bay. TPB added SSL service in 2008. In 2010, an editor switched every link in that article to "https:". It was reverted, and discussed quite intensely. Later, an editor even wanted the one remaining HTTPS link gone, too. As I said: intense. What you're doing is definitely not non-controversial, and being so widespread, it's worse.
• What you're doing is now going against three editor requests to stop. I see you stopped at 01:16. Good. Please stay stopped. Looks like about 500 HTTPS related edits (correct me if I'm wrong) - that's a lot without discussion anywhere.
• Smells of edit count fluffing, just like one editor who shall remain nameless did many, many times enroute to one million edits. That was deemed unwanted many, many times, by many, many people, and so he shall never be an administrator as a result.

--Lexein (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't do this for "edit count fluffing". In fact, before I started I opened a bot request, but was told it is of "minor priority". I would love if a bot would have done these edits instead of me via AWB.

I don't buy the "countries who can't DPI your HTTPS connection will therefore block it" argument. If that was the case, then your country is the problem, not HTTPS. --bender235 (talk) 10:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S.:I started a discussion on this over at Village Pump. You may want to join. --bender235 (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Responded there. I didn't make a "can't DPI" argument. I made the "already blocked" argument. --Lexein (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Pointless and clueless change, whose main function is to break caching. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You do understand that there's a difference between HTTP and HTTPS, right? --bender235 (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• You need to stop. Otherwise I will be taking this to ANI and requesting your block for disruptive editing. Werieth (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. On what basis? As it has been pointed out at VPM it is the Wikimedia Foundation's unanimous decision to protect readers' privacy, which obviously includes external links. There has been no valid argument against doing this so far. You and others have failed to explain why HTTPS is "pointless". And since Wikipedia is not a poll, ... well, you get it. --bender235 (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

In most cases your switch to https does nothing, for the privacy of the reader. If a large scale project like this is going to happen it needs to be done via bot. See WP:BOTPOL, this falls into the category of bot or bot like activities. You have been told several times in different locations by different users that this action is problematic. If you think this is a good idea, file a WP:BRFA and get it approved, otherwise you need to stop. Werieth (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

In most cases your switch to https does nothing, for the privacy of the reader.

You're the third person claiming this, and I still wait for an explanation. Why does switching Twitter, for instance, from http:// to https:// no difference in terms of reader's privacy (ignoring the fact that Twitter switches HTTP requests to HTTPS by default now, so all I'm doing is repairing an outdated link). --bender235 (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

As a reader the protection of https doesnt exist. https is designed to protect user input (forms,passwords,credit card info), not general web browsing. For general web browsing https can actually cause problems. I know several environments where secure links are blocked. Also just because twitter does something doesnt mean that it actually means anything. Most people on twitter are probably signed into accounts where the https difference may matter. However since they automatically switch from http to https WP:NOTBROKEN applies. All your doing is creating a false sense of security, as the https links you are creating dont actually make things more secure. If one is truly worried about security tor, or other VPN can be used to attempt to make their actions more secure. Werieth (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is wrong. HTTPS protects from mass internet traffic surveillance, either by intelligence agencys at IXPs (like here) or third-party private entities at your ISP (like here). I'm well aware that it doesn't protect you against anything. One can still see which URI you request and "browse behind" you, but that is infeasable for mass traffic analysis like in the cases mentioned above. The point is: HTTPS doesn't offer perfect reader's privacy, but it offers some. And some is more than nothing (that HTTP offers). --bender235 (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

If you think that https actually protects you from that type of snooping Ive got some prime beach front property in Mongolia for sale. If you want to mass convert links file a BOTRFA. Werieth (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, funny ... explain to me, how would Phorm-style DPI of a HTTPS connection work? Surprise me. --bender235 (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

URLs are easily harvested whether from http or https connections. form data may not be exposed, but for the links you are changing users are not entering form information, just viewing the content. Thus zero protection was added. Werieth (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Then I may explain to you once more that this is not feasable for mass DPI like in cases of Phorm. Harvesting URI's and re-request each HTTPS website costs for too much bandwidth and computer capacity. No ISP would do that. Completely ridiculous. They do DPI to avoid this additional traffic, and to scan the existing one. --bender235 (talk) 11:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

And you are completely wrong, bandwidth is cheap. Creating such a data mining process is childs play, the resource overhead is minimal compared to the tradeoff. Werieth (talk) 11:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

That sounds completely absurd. Imagine that in the case of the BND at DE-CIX. If they would re-request every HTTPS request, how would they do it? And wouldn't it show up in the server logs of the visited sites at some point, if they were "following" users? Microsoft already got caught with this on a much, much, much smaller scale. And you think IAs and ISPs are doing that without anyone noticing? Or maybe you have a source backing your claim. --bender235 (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It only takes a half smart tech to route all activity through a proxy server so that it appears that all activity from a given ISP goes though just a handful of IP addresses. After that its trivial to hide the spying url lookups with the rest of the normal requests. I dont recall off hand which country in the middle east already routes most traffic though 1-2 IP addresses and has been doing for several years. I happen to know the information technology field fairly well as I have spent the last 12 years in it. What these groups are publicly admitting to being able to do is about 3 generations behind what they can actually do. Werieth (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You really believe a given ISP is both able and willing to do this, yet no one has ever noticed, and no information about this happening has ever leaked, and no one ever confirmed that this is actually what can be done? This is getting beyond tin foil. If that's all your confidence in modern encryption, then you might as well hide in the basement wailing. --bender235 (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Lets look at a few points, https isnt that secure, there are reports going back several years about it being compromised/easily hackable. 2 ISPs can and do route all traffic through a few IP addresses. 3 some ISPs take an active role in monitoring what their users view. 4 https does nothing for security of basic internet activity. Take those points, and put them together, its not tin foil hats, its basic logic and understanding how the internet works. The best place to hide is in plain sight, creating what I described is trivial. It just takes someone who knows the field to actually realize what can be happening. Im not saying that ISPs are currently doing it, but its fairly trivial to implement a system like that. Werieth (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

PS its not modern encryption. The standard method for https is 2025 years old. Odds are its going to be hackable. Werieth (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Those points can easily be rejected. https:// is old, but the underlying technique that is used today is not. State of the art would be TLS 1.2 with AES CBC, which is by all definitions (a) "modern", and (b) secure/unbreakable. (Yes, there is the CA problem, but that does not affect the technique). But even the outdated older SSL/TLS versions offer "some" security, because it still takes effort to decrypt them.

Claiming that ISPs do DPI their costumers' HTTPS traffic, or even the thought of it being technically feasable, is just laughable. --bender235 (talk) 12:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daryon Brutley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eufaula High School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

You have changed http://web.archive.org/web/20070210055628/http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageNavigator/People_Board_Emeritus link to https one on the page Hillary Rodham Clinton. This page is removed from the Internet Archive and not available even via https. So to say, you have replaced a dead link with another dead link. Can you please check the status of the URLs before and after you change them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.162.65.66 (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that one. Still I don't see any damage done by my change. --bender235 (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI I requested semi-protection of the article. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 21:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You have marked one of my articles as a spammy / conflict of interest. I dont know why, but I want to clarify. I am new to wikipedia and have created 2 articles both of which have authentic news sources and citations. I know you think I am the only one editing. The thing is I am new and trying to get use to editing here before I can write a few more articles, which I plan to. That biography is not spammy and I would be grateful if you unmark it. In future I will keep in mind that editing a single article could be misinterpreted. And I appreaciate you correcting the links with http as well. Thank you Bender235. - Scottkenway — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottkenway (talk • contribs) 20:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't meant to be offensive. Spotting a single-purpose account always rings alarm bells for me, and, I'm sorry, but your biography of Waiz Wasey came accross a bit dubious. The sources you named hardly meet our guidelines for reliable sources. I just felt it needs some work. --bender235 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

On 19 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article London Britannia Airport, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the proposed London Britannia Airport has been dubbed "Boris island" by the media? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/London Britannia Airport. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Ricardo Lagos is one of the four editors of the Journal of Economic Theory. You seem to have linked his name to the ex-president of Chile, who is not the same Ricardo Lagos.130.132.173.102 (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Liebling Kreuzberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cynism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Bryce Brown requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Specs112 t c 00:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Pure vandalism. No speedy needed, just revert. --bender235 (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there's a concern that the link in your blurb for ITN does not actually have the planet HD 106906 b listed in it. Can you add the information as requested in the nomination discussion? I don't think I am comptent enough to do so myself. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC) This has been taken care of, hopefully it will soon be posted. μηδείς (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for giving the article as much attention as you have! DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) --bender235 (talk) 08:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand this edit to Solow–Swan model. Wasn't it correct before? Terrific work, by the way. Thank you. --NilsTycho (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think both are correct. Feel free to revert it if you want. --bender235 (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I am writing you because you made recent edits to Old age. Please be so kind as to review my draft of extensive editing at User:Vejlefjord/Old age - draft and the explanation on the Talk Page. What do you think about its use? Thanks. Vejlefjord (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not actually an area of my expertise. I only made copyediting changes to that article. --bender235 (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

is not meant for mass changes to core articles like these [6]. Please reconsider and have a look at #4, 5 in the AWB rules of use. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Please stop [7]. Materialscientist (talk) 10:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I don't see any harm caused by this, but ok. --bender235 (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No harm in ideal world. In reality, such edits cover up vandalism and spam watchlists (you happen to edit highly visible articles, which is why I'm here :). Materialscientist (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I see. But this "accidental spam cover-up" risk exists with every edit on every article, doesn't it? --bender235 (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but we care more about core articles - they are more watched (by regulars) and viewed (by visitors), and thus are more prone to abuse. Materialscientist (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is "core article" defined somewhere? --bender235 (talk) 10:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's vague. Bots tag talks of such articles, but it is easier to look at traffic stats [8] and number of watchers (in the left panel on every page; well, some toolserver applications might be dead these weeks). Materialscientist (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The article Sauk Prairie High School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

School miss spelt in URL and merged with the correct page by another user.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TheEpTic (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The article Sauk Prairie High School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

URL Miss spelt and all data has been moved to the correct spelt URL.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TheEpTic (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edit of the article for Colts Neck Township, New Jersey made a series of purely cosmetic internal changes along with one slightly more visible change to adjust column width for references. There was no edit summary at all for this edit, nor were there any edit summaries for a significant percentage of your other recent edits. Please understand that making changes of a cosmetic nature is discouraged -- such as adding and removing spaces in headers and at the end of paragraphs -- and that this edit was cosmetic in nature. It probably took me longer to figure out what you changed than it took you to make the changes and all edits, from major rewrites or the most trivial space adjustments, should be accompanied by a meaningful edit summary. Alansohn (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I forgot the edit summary. --bender235 (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Zac Dysert may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• $2,208,000 with a $48,200 signing bonus.<ref>http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/8377/zac-dysert]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Deer penis may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *Chapman, D. I. "[http://{{DOI|10.1111/j.1469-7998.1977.tb04189.x/abstract Seasonal changes in the prepuce of adult fallow

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Bender235, will you be more mindful of WP:CITEVAR, unlike what you did here and here? WP:CITEVAR states, "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." This is why SlimVirgin reverted you here (on that first edit displayed in this paragraph); the Veganism article has an established reference style and that's the one SlimVirgin prefers. And for those of us who like to use citation templates... With regard to using Template:DOI, a lot of us (me included) prefer not to use that template because we like to see, in the article, what we are citing (the author's name, reference title, etc.). And the only reason I reverted you here is because you placed the reference (what is currently reference 7) out of order; I didn't mind the other edits. But, looking at the #AWB section above on your talk page, I see that Materialscientist seemingly objects to you changing http format to https format. However, you are still doing that http change across Wikipedia. Why are you still doing that? Why is that format better/more important? As you know, the vast majority of editors don't use that format to cite. Flyer22 (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

In those articles I included the PMID and/or DOI links in templates rather than raw links. In most of the articles I did this CS1 templates where already in use, so it wasn't a breach of CITEVAR at all. More like making citations consistent. In Veganism, it was different, and SlimVirgin reverted it. I don't mind that. --bender235 (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not consistent citation style when the article does not use Template:DOI, but rather has the full reference on display in the editing space; that is partly what I am asking you to be more mindful of. Even in the second diff-link above in this section, the full reference is on display in the editing space with the use of Template:PMID; it would be more consistent if your changes displayed all of the detail in the editing area. Again, a lot of us like to see, in the article, what we are citing (the author's name, reference title, etc.). And I take it you have no comment on the http matter? Flyer22 (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue with the http/https switch was that people complained it would be not "worth" an edit to do this, but it's okay to do it as part of general fixes.

I see your problems with {{cite doi}} and {{cite pmid}} (I suppose we're talking about those), but then again filling {{cite journal}} everytime is too much a waste of my time. Filling those references is nothing a human should do, but only a machine/bot. --bender235 (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, obviously, those are the citation templates that I mean. And at the very top of their pages, as you've likely noticed, is the following message: "Per WP:CITEVAR, only use this template in articles whose references are formatted as described below. Please do not use the cite doi template in articles whose references are formatted differently." Yes, it would take significantly more time for you to fill out those templates than it would to add them as their plain format forms (unless only dealing with a few references). But just like that is part of the reason you wouldn't want to spend time doing that, it is part of the reason others wouldn't want to spend time doing that or re-doing it. Sure, it's quick to do if a person is reverting you, unless there are intermediate edits that make reverting you more complicated. However, let's say that a person stumbles onto an article that they have no idea formerly used only one of those formats, the format you removed, but they decided that they want to use that format as well (and it's fine for them to do so because there is no article watcher there to object to the change or because there is WP:Consensus to use that style); that person will now have to implement that style, if they want it in the article. That is extra work for that person that could have been avoided. It's not just that a lot of us like that citation style; it's that it's very helpful to see, in the editing space, the reference detail. That is why we like it.

Anyway, I ask that you try to keep all of this in mind and, when you do, to not change the reference style to the plain (no detail) format unless you are doing so for the article's reference style consistency or because the article largely lacks any reference style consistency. Flyer22 (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you got that wrong. "Per WP:CITEVAR, only use this template in articles whose references are formatted as described below," means that you should only use {{cite doi}}, {{cite pmid}}, etc., when the article already formats references in Citation Style 1. That is the case when it already uses {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}}, or any other [[template listed here. So adding {{cite doi}} to an article already using {{cite journal}} does not change the citation style at all.

The warning on {{cite doi}} means you should not use it on articles using {{vcite journal}}, or some other (manually formated) citation style, without WP:Consensus. --bender235 (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I did not state that "adding {{cite doi}} to an article already using {{cite journal}} [changes the citation style]." In my opinion, I clearly stated what my problems are with your citation editing, and my main problem with that is you removing a reference style that gives reference detail in the editing space (meaning the area where we edit the article) and replacing that with a generic Cite:DOI format that does not; that is indeed going against WP:CITEVAR. If I have a citation style going that very clearly includes reference detail in the editing space, and your citation style is a generic one that only shows numbers in the editing space, that is a different citation style. It is one that I do not welcome, and I know that many others on this site do not welcome it either, for reasons that I have already stated above. So I have kindly asked you to stop doing it. Above you stated, "I see your problems with {{cite doi}} and {{cite pmid}}." I thought we were clear on what my problems with your changes are. Flyer22 (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

{{cite doi}} does remove "reference detail from the editing space", that is true. But this change is not subject to WP:CITEVAR. CITEVAR is about the reference style, not about the technicalities in the background. So again, I understand your problems with {{cite doi}}, but that is not subject to CITEVAR. --bender235 (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

"[R]emoving a reference style that gives reference detail in the editing space (meaning the area where we edit the article) and replacing that with a generic Cite:DOI format that does not" is indeed changing the reference style and is therefore indeed subject to WP:CITEVAR...if it is a consistent reference style you are replacing in the article. Perhaps you should look at such complaints at User talk:Chris Capoccia/Archive 2 (for example, Deleting reference parameters except for unique identifiers like pmid) and User talk:Chris Capoccia/Archive 3 to see that various people in the community feel this way. I don't at all see why you are so prone to keep doing this, given the problems I identified with it and that there is vast objection to doing it. If I need to bring this matter up on the WP:CITEVAR talk page, I will. Flyer22 (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I find it deeply discouraging that people like you try to abuse WP:CITEVAR as veto rule for "changes I don't like". Bring it up at some talk page if you will, but that bureaucracy bullshit is none of my business anymore.

From now on, I will only convert raw links to {{cite pmid}} or {{cite doi}}, like here.

Also, I will replace code like PMID 1234567 with {{PMID|1234567}}.

The other stuff, I won't do anymore. May some other guy take on Wikibureaucracy hell. --bender235 (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I find it deeply discouraging that people like you somewhat misunderstand WP:CITEVAR and try to turn that misunderstanding into a WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue with regard to the people pointing out problems with such a misunderstanding and then refer to it as bullshit. As you can see in the Chris Capoccia's archives, such as the Effects of cannabis and Deleting reference parameters except for unique identifiers like pmid discussions at User talk:Chris Capoccia/Archive 2, at least Chris Capoccia has a bot come around and fill in the reference detail that he removed. He at least recognizes the importance of maintaining that material. Flyer22 (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my tone. It's just that I had to much of this Wikibureaucracy over the past months. --bender235 (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand; I often don't like dealing with such matters either and I generally don't have fun on Wikipedia these days (it's more like a job to me, as I've noted before on my talk page). Wikipedia presents itself as not being a bureaucracy, but even WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY makes it clear that parts of Wikipedia are like one. I also apologize, for the bit of snippiness I displayed in our above discussion. I suggest that we put this matter behind us and that we both do our best to keep the reasonable aspects of our above comments in mind. I see you around on Wikipedia often and generally appreciate the work you do here. Happy Holidays, Bender235. Flyer22 (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Just never take my negative comments personal. Happy Holidays to you, too. --bender235 (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you enjoy the film The Dark Knight Rises? Are you named after Bender from Futurama? Do you or have you listened to the Backstreet Boys? Take your time with these 3 grueling questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.7.126.253 (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Like my personal page acknowledges, my nickname due to the Futurama character. But what do you intend with those questions? --bender235 (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That you very much. --bender235 (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi - Please could you do me a favour and carry out a quick copy edit on Hew Dalrymple Ross. Many thanks in anticipation. Dormskirk (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Another editor got there first so please ignore. But many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I'll see if I can help, nonetheless. --bender235 (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)