User talk:bender235

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!


BON notification[edit]

Hello Bender235, there is currently a discussion open regarding one of your bot tasks at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#HTTP.E2.86.92HTTPS. Please see and comment on the discussion. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 21:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

ITN candidates - NK ICBM test[edit]

Hi Bender235. Did you actually make this removal while logged out? I think it might be helpful if you clarified in some way at that page. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

No, that wasn't me. I'm still logged in. And I'm not in Columbus, Indiana. [1] --bender235 (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. So looks like a mistake or not so subtle vandalism, then? You might like to restore your Support comment? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Done. --bender235 (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


Thank you for https→http on subdomain. Vzeebjtf (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand. --bender235 (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I thought you reversed the earlier change http→https on the subdomain because of the problem opening those urls. Vzeebjtf (talk) 07:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I could do it. But I wasn't sure if that was the consensus. --bender235 (talk) 07:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
My mistake. All the references at that subdomain on the page Wallack's Theatre are sans s, although the history shows you made a change for The New York Times at 08:29, 20 February 2017‎. But evidently you never made the change for the subdomain. So my difficulties must have been on some other pages, but I don't remember where. Vzeebjtf (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Converting to HTTPS[edit]

Do you think you could have your bot to convert links from "" to ""? The site seems to have converted to HTTPS, leaving some of the URLs broken. Would be much appreciated, thanks! S.A. Julio (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Will convert. --bender235 (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Formations(Group Theory) that you worked on, disambig[edit]

Hi, I was only able to redlink the article on the disambig page for Formation. Do you know how to make it a real link? thanks, 2601:190:4200:5F8:5EB:7097:E604:2B1 (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Bender the Bot[edit]

Just wanted to thank you for your Bender the Bot. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Appreciated. --bender235 (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Why did you shorten the information?[edit]

So the last time I checked the list of the tallest skyscrapers some skyscrapers were removed from the list,the list before include buildings 300+ metres but now it is only 350+ metres? Why did this robot remove useful bytes? Ruskiguy (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

This BOT does not remove information. --bender235 (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal links broken after bot edits[edit]

Hey! First off, as a security-minded person, I really appreciate that there are bots on Wikipedia that can change HTTP -> HTTPS. However, when Bender the Bot did so for links from The Wall Street Journal, it actually broke links. I took part in a lengthy discussion here, concerning incorrect information here. Long story made short: The bot changes the links in an incorrect manner, breaking them. I have examples. The bot made this edit. A user made an edit request here, with the info that "They're now dead links that redirect to nothing but login pages instead of the articles". I am a subscriber of the Journal, and this is true. After logging in, the links lead to error pages. The original links work perfectly. I'm assuming this has happened to all WSJ links that previously used the HTTP format. I don't know anything about how bots work on wiki, but I want to ask (no dumb questions, right? ;)) if it is possible to revert the changes? LocalNet (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. It's somewhat tricky to revert all these changes automatically, and also it's weird that this link
doesn't work, but the old link
simply redirects to
I think a better way than reverting the original edits would be to have a bot replacing /article/ with /articles/, and removing .html from the end of the new URL. --bender235 (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding, Unready, SiBr4, and Solar Dragon: could someone with more RegEx knowledge than I have please help me out with this replacement rule? --bender235 (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm unavailable atm but will check back in on his in about a week!   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
(https:\/\/www\.wsg\.com\/article)(\/[A-Z0-9,]*)\.html\1s\2 in javascript. or (https:\/\/www\.wsg\.com\/article)(\/[A-Z0-9,]*)\.html$1s$2 in perl. by the way this search and this search may be helpful in finding all of them. Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I have the bot running in no time. --bender235 (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Can you please take care of the links you added, which are also broken, as well? (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll have a look. --bender235 (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Should be finished. --bender235 (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
You forgot to remove the ".HTML" after every URL. 2001:16A2:89B8:8400:A52C:BD6E:D8FF:DB4D (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
No, I did exactly that. That's what Frietjes's RegEx above was for. Did you find an instance where it didn't work? --bender235 (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
This. I fixed it. (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I did that manually. Thanks for fixing. --bender235 (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Can you also fix all the links in this search and the rest of them at this search please? (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Already did that. Those links that are left are not in article namespace. --bender235 (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the "" links, I'm just talking about the "" ones and the rest of the "" ones that you touched and damaged. I just linked to the searches of them. (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll take a lot. --bender235 (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Did you look at both searches yet? (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I had a look. I will take care of this in a bit. --bender235 (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Bayesian information criterion[edit]

This is by far the most common name used in the professional statistical literature. I have reverted your change, for that reason. Wikipedia must follow the statistical literature. BetterMath (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The name "BIC" is more common when model criteria are just being used rather than explicitly discussed. Statisticians are aware of the fact that calling this criterion "information criterion" is misleading because it has nothing to do with information theory (notice that the original paper does not call it "information criterion" for that very reason). Rather than going with a commonly used but wrong name, we should go with the correct one. --bender235 (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
You say that "Rather than going with a commonly used but wrong name, we should go with the correct one". That is false and misleading. Wikipedia must abide by the statistical literature. No Wikipedia editor can override a consensus of professional statisticians on the name. BetterMath (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Don't confuse finding consensus with a headcount of which term is mentioned most. Statistical textbook literature is very clear on not to call Schwarz's criterion "information criterion." They call it SC or SBC (Schwarz-Bayesian criterion). --bender235 (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I have many statistics books that use Bayesian Information Criterion and I do not think I have any that use Schwarz Criterion as the primary name. In the peer-reviewed literature, it is common to have tables that display "AIC" and "BIC"; I do not recall seeing any that used "SC" or similar. Additionally, R has BIC built in. BIC is far more commonly used that Schwarz Criterion. Whether that is appropriate is not for a Wikipedia editor to judge. BetterMath (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the peer-reviewed literature that merely applies model selection criteria adopted the misleading name "BIC". Articles and textbooks that actually discuss model selection criteria always mention that BIC is a misleading name. --bender235 (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
You acknowledge that BIC is the name used in statistical literature. That closes the case, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. If you want Wikipedia to not use BIC, then you should persuade statisticians to stop using it. There is lots of lousy terminology in statistics and mathematics (e.g. an orthogonal matrix should be called an "orthonormal matrix"). A Wikipedia editor does not have authority to change this. BetterMath (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Since we won't agree, I took it to the article's talk page. --bender235 (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Separately, and a minor technical point, BIC is Bayesian. Also, I think it would be good to include a paragraph, in the article, explaining why BIC has been argued to be not truly based on information theory. BetterMath (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I didn't doubt that Schwarz derived his criterion from Bayesian principles. But it has nothing to do with information theory. Schwarz didn't claim it did, and neither should we. --bender235 (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
The way to address this is to include an explanation, in the article, of how/why it is not derived via information theory. BetterMath (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
In an edit to the article that you made today, the edit summary claims that BIC is "not Bayesian". BetterMath (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, that was about the category Category:Bayesian inference. BIC or whatever you want to call it does not use the entire posterior (compared to WAIC for instance), so it is inherently not part of Bayesian inference. --bender235 (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
BIC is based on a first-order approximation to Bayes factor: see Kass & Raftery [JASA, 1995]. Ergo, it is part of Bayesian inference. BetterMath (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Point taken. Interestingly enough though, this paper (although using the "BIC" abbreviation) calls it "Schwarz criterion". --bender235 (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Name added[edit]

Hello Bender235! How can I get my name added to the section of notable people added? I'm a former tennis professional and coach to Pete Peterson and with Hall of Famer Dennis Ralston, a media entrepreneur and on air personality for radio and TV. Interviews include: Venus Williams, Mike Ditka, Bill Davis, Governor Hickenlooper, Senator Michael Bennett, Troy Calhoun-Air Force Head Coach, 40+ US Olympians, Chris Harris Jr - Denver Broncos, LaTroy Hawkins-Colorado Rockies and many more. I was raised and completed high school at Barron Collier High School in Naples from1982-86 then on to pro tennis after Ole Miss, and NCAA collegiate Coach at the University of Colorado Colorado Springs. Loved in Naples at 13 Cocohatchee BV and in Naples from 1978-1990. Can you assist me with this? Many thanks. COMedia (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)COMedia (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)COMedia (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)COMedia (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by COMedia (talkcontribs) 16:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, anyone can edit. --bender235 (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Roman vs italic for differentials[edit]

Hi, regarding my undoing of your edits to Logarithm, please see MOS:MATH#Roman versus italic and MOS:RETAIN. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware of this. What trumps MOS:RETAIN though is consistency throughout the article. Either use or , but not both in the same article. So if you revert my changes, please change the remaining ones to make the article consistent. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 Ok, done. - DVdm (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment[edit]

A1 Houston Office Oil Traders on Monday.jpg

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Vernon Jarrett[edit]

I left a (lengthy) message about my findings for both the name and birth year on the Talk: Vernon Jarrett page. Lwalt ♦ talk 10:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

United States Code[edit]

Can you help me edit United States Code? I tried to fix the table of titles to adjust for changes made on Sept. 1, 2017 concerning title 34 but title 35 looks kind of weird now. 21:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)700jn (talk

I'll have a look. --bender235 (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

List of Atlantic hurricane records[edit]

@Bender235: Hello, I was just wondering why you reverted this edit, claiming that it is wrong, without further explanation? The subunit for hours actually can be listed as a decimal, and is by the NHC: [2] --Undescribed (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I can be done, but it is uncommon and not easy to understand for the average person. I mean, we could also write "2017.6849" (day 250 of 365) instead of "Sep 7, 2017". It would be mathematically correct, but hard to understand. The natural subunits of "year" are "month" and "day", just like the subunits of "day" are "hour" and "minute", not "0.1 day" and "0.01 day". --bender235 (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Arb notice[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

prokaryotes (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:DTTR. --bender235 (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Your edit[edit]

Notice, that you should wait until the RFC has commenced, and judgment in regards to the outcome should be done by someone uninvolved. Consensus is not just done per counting votes. prokaryotes (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not count votes, I looked at the arguments. Unfortunately you created a frenzy by painting this as a "climate change denialism" debate (see the comments on the "Keep" votes), when it is in fact merely about what is within the scope of a particular article topic. --bender235 (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I've asked you September 7, why you argued that there is a bogus claim? Can you cite the content which in your opinion is a bogus claim? prokaryotes (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Wait, I have to find a WP:RS that proves how you misunderstand scientific literature? How about you find me a peer-reviewed article first that attributes Hurricane Irma (or any particular hurricane, for that matter) to global warming? I'm beginning to doubt you even understand the statistical concept of expectation.
Climate change affects long-run patterns, not individual storms. Hence the topic should be elaborated on in Atlantic hurricane season, but not in every friggin' single hurricane article. Why is that so hard to understand? --bender235 (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Dave Donaldson (2017 John Bates Clark Medal winner)[edit]

I was recently surprised to see that Dave Donaldson, 2017's John Bates Clark Medal winner, did not have a Wiki page. I drafted a simple one Draft:Dave_Donaldson_(economist) based largely on my knowledge of his work, using the Yuliy Sannikov (the 2016 recipient) entry as a template, and citing the Clark Medal announcements in the NYT and The Economist.

As a novice at this I submitted a draft to see if it was adequate for posting. But the draft was declined, not for technical content, but because the references do not show the subject's notability. It leaves me to question whether this reviewer is aware of the Clark Medal's significance.

It appears that you contributed to (and maybe submitted) the Sannikov entry soon after he won his Clark Medal, so I suspect you are aware of its significance. I do not know the Wikipedia culture well enough to know if this is appropriate, so I ask you to judge if it is worth posting, and whether you are comfortable posting it.

Jack molyneaux (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Easily notable, moved to main space. --bender235 (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

HTTPS links: comprehensive source of domains to convert?[edit]

Hi bender235. I like the bot work you've been doing to convert HTTP to HTTPS links and have made a suggestion for how it could be taken forward on the bots noticeboard. Thanks for all you're doing. Beorhtwulf (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Steve Millar for deletion[edit]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Allreet (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Ariel Pakes[edit]

Regarding this edit changing Ariel Pakes to Ariél Pakes: while Professor Pakes seems to have signed his name as Ariél in early papers, his most notable work (Pakes 1986, BLP 1995, Olley and Pakes 1996, etc.) spells it "Ariel", as does every reference linked on that page. I would argue that "Ariel Pakes" is the name by which he's most commonly known. (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
Hello, Bender235.

As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Bender235. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Paul Ackerman[edit]

I didn’t put the citation there. If it is incorrect, that is not my fault. I removed the tag because it was obviously not necessary on face value because a reference was right next to it. But since you deleted the reference then yes, your tag is valid. Perhaps you should take this discussion to the person that put the referthere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postcard Cathy (talkcontribs) 15:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I will consider. --bender235 (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Multiple colleges in NFL player infoboxes[edit]

Hello, you have once (no edit summary) and again ("we only list what lists.") removed long-standing content from the Corey Dillon article.

As noted in my edit summary, multiple college are explicitly supported. The Template:Infobox NFL biography documentation states:

  • college - used to display the university or college institution that the player attended prior to joining the NFL. If a player attended multiple colleges, usually only the last college team is displayed (usually the one listed on; however, if important to understanding a player's college career history, an additional college team may be included. College teams should be wikilinked.

which was updated via this edit: [Revision as of 18:15, 27 August 2015 - Dirtlawyer1]

That update arose from the discussion at Including "all" colleges attended in Infobox? dating to 13 August 2015. The topic has been revisited at NFL biography infobox and similar.

As the documentation and our consensus do not align with your stated view, the article has again been reverted to its long-standing format. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually the infobox guidelines are pretty clear on that. So please establish (i) why we should divert from what is listed on Dillon's profile, and (ii) why including Dillon's freshman year at Garden City CC is "important" but his sophomore year at Dixie State is not. If you are able to do that, we can make an exception to the NFL infobox general rule of displaying "only the last college team" as it clearly says. Thank you. --bender235 (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Jake Freeman for deletion[edit]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Croudip, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Los Angeles Express (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 19:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited USA Today All-USA high school football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lamar High School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 11:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings[edit]

The Great White North.jpg you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow, thank you. Likewise. --bender235 (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

addition of John Matthew Cannella as a notable in the article for William L. Dickinson High School[edit]

This edit added John Matthew Cannella as a notable in the article for William L. Dickinson High School. Cannella may very well have attended the school, but there was no source added here and no source in his article, nor did the one source in his article mention the high school he had attended. If you have a source, why not add it? If you don't have a source to connect him to the school, why add the entry? Alansohn (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. I somehow reverted the edit you made that had added the source, which as an archive would not have come up in a Google search. My thanks for your adding the source and my sincere apologies for the deletion. Alansohn (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing[edit]

Hello, Bender235.
AfC submissions
Random submission
2+ months
3937 pending submissions
Purge to update

I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged.
Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Ray Hanken[edit]

Where did you find Ray Hanken's deathplace? Thanks. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

PFR has it listed (with a typo, unfortunately), and Find a Grave has his burial site correctly in Virginia. --bender235 (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clarence Esser, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madison Central High School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Tom Brady and WP:PEACOCK[edit]

I will comment that your summary "Less WP:PEACOCK" on Brady's article, cracked me up. Thanks for the irony. I currently reside in Massachusetts, so that subject, this week, has shades of Canute and the Sea.

However, I will bring to your attention Supermodel, and the canonical 1st picture in that article. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 00:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hm, I see that now. But still, I find terms like "supermodel" or "star quarterback" a bit too much puffery. --bender235 (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Bender the Bot breaking some FindAGrave links[edit]

Bender the Bot is breaking some Find-a-Grave links. For example, here. It seems that if the original link had a "&ref=acom" at the end, the bot leaves it but this breaks the link and yields a "404" error. Tewapack (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I'll see what I can do. Thanks for letting me know. --bender235 (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Paramus Catholic[edit]

hey man, I see you keep changing the high school name for Jabrill Peppers. Where do you see the official name of the school being "Catholic High School" as opposed to "Paramus Catholic?" Edday1051 (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This case is no different than Miami (FL) Central, or Midland (TX) Lee, or thousands of others. The school bears the name of the city its located in its name, but we still separate by our common naming scheme. --bender235 (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
you think those are the same thing? Is there another "Central" high school in Miami? They are commonly referred to as the "Central Rockets" according to the page, so it is appropriate to just use "Central", although I think "Miami Central" is even more appropriate. As for Midland Lee, it's commonly known as "Midland Lee," but it's official name is Robert E. Lee High School, so it makes sense to use "Lee" as the high school name, although using "Midland Lee" would be appropriate as well. Using "Paramus (NJ) Catholic" makes it sound like the school name is "Catholic High School," which is not at all what the name of the school is. The official name of the school is "Paramus Catholic High School" and should be noted as such. I had this same discussion with another user and I explained that "Paramus (NJ) Paramus Catholic" is the correct version under the standard naming scheme, but putting "Paramus" twice is superfluous, so using "Paramus Catholic (NJ)" makes the most sense. Edday1051 (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
No, it does not because given our naming scheme "Paramus Catholic (NJ)" makes it look like either "Paramus Catholic" is the name of the city, or the city name where the school is located is missing. As for additional examples of our naming scheme, how about Miami (FL) Northwestern or Louisville (KY) Male. As you can see from each school building's front, the city name is included in the school name, yet by our naming scheme at separate them by the state indicator. --bender235 (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
who thinks a city is named "Paramus Catholic?" LOL. Again, your examples make no sense since Northwestern and Male are the actual names of the school. "Catholic" just means it's a Roman Catholic school. In America, no school is named "Catholic." Some Roman Catholic schools are named after saints like St. Mary's or St. Josephs, but no Catholic school would ever be just called "Catholic" High School. That makes no sense. When a school has "Catholic" as part of the name, it is always an extension of the official name like "Bergen Catholic" or in this case "Paramus Catholic." Again under the standard template, the correct version would be "Paramus (NJ) Paramus Catholic," but as I've already said, using Paramus twice is superfluous. I personally don't like the three name template as it just creates confusion for those that aren't aware the way the template is presented(city/state/school name). It really should just be (official high school name/(state)). Edday1051 (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
"Paramus Catholic" is their actual name. The same way "Miami Northwestern" is official "Miami Northwestern", and are the other schools I named. End of story. --bender235 (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
um yeah thanks for proving my point. The official name is "Paramus Catholic," not "Catholic high school." Miami Northwestern is commonly called "Northwestern," while nobody refers to Bergen Catholic as "Catholic." I see where the confusion is. You seemed to have this idea that "Catholic" is comparable to "Northwestern" or "Male." And I can assure you they are not comparable. Edday1051 (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Miami Northwestern
Louisville Male
I don't know where you have that "commonly called" nonsense from, but as you can see (and as I mentioned earlier) it is written on each school's main entrace, "Miami Northwestern" is officially "Miami Northwestern", and "Louisville Male" is officially "Louisville Male". Exactly the same way "Paramus Catholic" is "Paramus Catholic." Still we don't write "Miami Northwestern (FL)", or "Louisville Male (KY)", and we won't write "Paramus Catholic (NJ)". --bender235 (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Miami Northwestern is a big time high school football program and it is commonly known as "Northwestern." You think the students there go around telling people they go to Miami Northwestern? No they call it "Northwestern." As a matter of fact, we should change it to "Miami Northwestern" and "Louisville Male" since that is the official name. Again, you must not be from America if you think "Catholic" is comparable to "Northwestern" or "Male." You arguing this with me is comical. Edday1051 (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
You are from Germany? No wonder you don't understand this. "Northwestern" is the actual name to describe the area of Miami that the school is located, so it makes sense that it is commonly referred to as "Northwestern." Calling it by the full name of "Miami Northwestern" is like German people referring to Germany as the "Federal Republic of Germany." Germans simply refer to Germany as "Germany" or "Deutschland." Oppositely, as I've already explained, nobody refers to "Bergen Catholic" or "Paramus Catholic" as "Catholic High School." Catholic just means it is a Roman Catholic school and "Catholic" would never be used by itself to describe the school. If you simply said you are a student at "Catholic," people would be like do you go to Bergen Catholic, Hudson Catholic, Paramus Catholic? Edday1051 (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Again, and this is my final comment on this: we stick with our naming scheme. Miami University is "Miami (OH)" in our scheme, not "Miami (OH) Miami", even though the complete and official school name is "Miami University," and no one just refers to it as just "University". In that same vein, "Long Beach Poly" is "Long Beach (CA) Poly" in our scheme, not "Long Beach (CA) Long Beach Poly" or "Long Beach Poly (CA)". Also, if you are in Miami then say "I'm at Northwestern" makes sense, but anywhere else it does not. When Miami Northwestern plays on the road, they are introduced as "Miami Northwestern", not just "Northwestern." --bender235 (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
What? So you are on my side then? You just proved all of my points. As I've already stated, I'm totally fine with "Northwestern" or "Poly" and the other examples using the shortened unofficial form in the standard naming scheme, becasue that is what those schools are commonly or colloquially referred to as by students, the general public, or media sources. But it is wholly inappropriate to do so with "Paramus Catholic" or any other school with "Catholic" in the name because nobody refers to "Paramus Catholic" as "Catholic" and it makes no sense to put "Catholic" in the school name of the standard naming scheme. Edday1051 (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
there are two options here. You either have it my version which is "Paramus Catholic (NJ)" because that gets rid of the superflous use of Paramus or if you want it your way, then you have to use "Paramus (NJ) Paramus Catholic." Otherwise it looks like the school name is "Catholic High School," which is just plain wrong. Edday1051 (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea how you can interpret my answer as "proving your points." I wrote Long Beach Poly is has it's city name in the school title, yet we write "Long Beach (CA) Poly" instead of "Long Beach Poly (CA)." Same for Paramus Catholic: it's "Paramus (NJ) Catholic", not "Paramus Catholic (NJ)". Anyhow, I'm tired of this discussion, started a thread over at WikiProject National Football League. --bender235 (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
becasue you are arguing about "Poly" and "Northwestern" and other names when I've already made the point that those are fine because those are the colloquial names that are well known to describe those schools. We are in agreement with those names, but that is not what this argument is about. The argument here is about Paramus Catholic and the usage of "Catholic" as the school name, which is just plain wrong and I've explained why it's wrong numerous times already and you have not addressed that. Instead you keep talking about "Northwestern" and "Poly," which I've already explained the distinct different between those and "Catholic." Edday1051 (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


Are you Richard Bender, Iowa politics? Rod Halvorson Halvorrod (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

LOL, no. --bender235 (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Edits with References[edit]

Dear Bender235,

I noticed you are a reviewer of different topics and you already approved several edits on many pages on Wikipedia.

Please I need your help as I have edits with references, I want these edits to be reflected on my company's page on Wikipedia, how can I guarantee the edits will be approved by you or other reviewers?

Please feel free to contact me on or to write on my Talk Page on Wikipedia.

Thanks in advance

--SFlowerSeed (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Which article are we talking about? --bender235 (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Frederick A. Douglass High School (Oklahoma) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Frederick A. Douglass High School (Oklahoma). Since you had some involvement with the Frederick A. Douglass High School (Oklahoma) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Archive URLs[edit]

Hi Bender, I can't recall if this was discussed before, when converting to https it shouldn't change the path portion of the URL in an archive URL ie.

This can break archive URLs if the is converted to https because the webarchive has it archived as http. -- GreenC 04:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's true. Did my bot do that somewhere accidentally? --bender235 (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Nope! Glad it's ok. Thanks for confirming. -- GreenC 00:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Trump–Russia dossier[edit]

Hello! Thank you for wanting to improve this article. However, I had to undo your changing of CAPITAL LETTERS to small-caps. Maybe it would look better in small-caps, but the material is inside of quotes - directly quoted from a source - and so we can't edit or change it, it has to stay as it was in the source. Apparently putting the last name in all-caps is the way intelligence documents are written. I'll watch this page, if you want to respond. Thanks, and see you around Wikipedia! --MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

We had this problem at Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster and settled on {{smallcaps}} (eg. Don't Panic! vs. DON'T PANIC), a stylistic alternative that looks good in a quote. -- GreenC 00:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, you could propose that at the article talk page if you like. --MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
BTW it's not correct one can't change material inside direct quotes, particularly something like font style.. see the MOS on direct quotes which allows quite a lot of leeway to make changes such as spelling, clarity, etc.. -- GreenC 02:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Really? WP:MOS says "In direct quotations, retain dialectal and archaic spellings, including capitalization (but not archaic glyphs and ligatures, as detailed below)." Anyhow, this kind of change would have to be discussed on the article talk page - rather than here. --MelanieN (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
The MOS says nothing that would apply to the use of {{smallcaps}}, contrary to your quote, capitalization is retained. It's purely a matter of style, there is more than one way to display capitalized letters. -- GreenC 06:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with GreenC on this. Small caps, by definition, is still capitalization. It is just written in a way that is friendlier to the eye. --bender235 (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I have never encountered this topic before, so bear with me. What is the purpose of changing the intelligence agency style quotes? That's how they do it, and we're just quoting exactly. Their intention is not to be "friendlier to the eye", which is not a universal Wikipedia or journalistic requirement. On the contrary, it's designed to catch the eye.
Is there some requirement that this be done? If it's not broken, why fix it? It can safely be ignored. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
The purpose is simply readability. You tell me, which one is easier on the eye: THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG or The Quick Brown Fox Jumps Over The Lazy Dog? By our guidelines, caps and smallcaps should be avoided all together, but if I had to decide between the two in terms of readability, I'd clearly choose the latter.
As a general comment, I question the premise that we have to quote from the Steele dossier (or any source) with the absolute identical typesetting. I mean, why stop at capitalization? Why not also mirror the type face? At some point, this is absurd. The point of a quotation is the content, not the image. --bender235 (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Using your example, I agree, but this situation is different. It only uses single words (just last names), often in the middle of sentences. Here's an example of one of the allegations:
  • "Russians apparently have promised not to use 'kompromat' they hold on TRUMP as leverage, given high levels of voluntary co-operation forthcoming from his team."
That's quite readable, and the capitalization serves its purpose well. It makes it easier for the reader of the dossier to scan the page for relevant names. I don't see how single words are problematic, at least in this instance. This isn't an example of shouting. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Again, repeating my second point: why do we have to have absolutely identical typesetting? The capitalization in the Steele dossier is the author's way of emphasizing names. If we wanted to convey this emphasis (which, to be honest, I don't even know why we would), we could do that just as well with italics. --bender235 (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with what we want to accomplish. We don't need to draw attention to the last names, as in the dossier. It's a matter of quoting, without dickering with the quote. One gets the real flavor of the original when it really looks like the original. The MoS doesn't cover this type of situation. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The button on the user page[edit]

That is a very tempting button. Can anyone shut it down just like that? Just wondering Rᴀɴɢᴇᴅ Rᴀɴɢᴇʀ 📧 01:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Admins only. --bender235 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing[edit]


There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Ancestral Puebloans--> Anasazi :-)[edit]

Hi there,

I'm very much, shall we say, on the liberal left and of a scientific nature. And I very strongly object to the politicization and political correct-ification of Wikipedia articles, particularly regarding names of Native American peoples (among whom I also identify, actually). In any case, we need to re-hash the issue, and I will bring it up, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time defending it. Your arguments were clearly correct, your opponents' arguments extremely petty and haphazard, and the article is (still) in clear violation of, like, a lot of different things. I suggest we get our ducks in a row on this and deal it a hammer blow. For one thing, there is an excellent case for two different articles. The Anasazi are NOT the only anecestral puebloans, so whether or not the Hopi refer to them as Ancestral Puebloans or not is entirely immaterial. Check out this article, for example: I did notice that you had at least two people agreeing with your well-reasoned arguments, so we should get together with them and take this as an official complaint to whoever the hell deals with this stuff. Some of your detractors have rather bad track records (Uyvsdi, in particular) and I have had to deal with them before, and I have won. So, basically, we should be able to do this. I'm not very good at the Wiki appeals process though, so help me out here. They also managed to bury your objections by archiving them, which is another obvious censorship move. Thanks for your time.

Cheers, Tran Smyth — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

update: Ah, here we are, taken right from the Wikipedia article on (modern) Pueblo peoples...

"The Pueblo peoples are believed to descend from an admixture of three major cultures that dominated the US Southwest region before European contact:[6] Mogollon Culture, who occupied an area near the Gila Wilderness. Hohokam Culture, the archaeological term for a settlement in the Southwest. Ancestral Puebloans who occupied the Mesa Verde region of the Four Corners area.[7]"

Yeah, so basically, their whole argument was garbage all along. Calling "Ancestral Puebloans" something different from "ancestral Puebloans" is clear WP:B#LLS&H%I#T — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

My opinion on this issue hasn't changed, but I've given up fighting windmills. --bender235 (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Look, I understand that. But this isn't windmill fighting. Labels matter, just as the PC holy warriors say they do. There has to be a way to build a consensus on this issue. How many people do we need before you are willing to help press the point again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Marvin Bagley[edit]

You probably shouldn’t have moved his page, his WP:COMMONNAME is “Marvin Bagley III,” with Duke and with the Kings. Rikster2 (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Sequential proportional approval voting[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing—Sequential proportional approval voting—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Dhalsim2 (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

bell hooks[edit]

I reverted your edit to Ain't I a Woman citing WP:LCITEMS. I meant MOS:LCITEMS. --ChiveFungi (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the rule that you're citing? "When such a name is the first word in a sentence, the rule for initial letters in sentences and list items should take precedence, and the first letter of the personal name should be capitalized regardless of personal preference." --bender235 (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
The name doesn't appear in a sentence as such. Is a reference a sentence? You could argue that "hooks" should be capitalized, but "bell" unambiguously should not be. --ChiveFungi (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I confused the incident which you were referring to. But in any case, I find it disturbing that we allow people to bend the rules of orthography at their whim. It's one thing to pick your pen name, but a whole different thing dictating people how to capitalize it. What's next? Somebody insists on having his name spelled upside down, and we comply? --bender235 (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Eh, I dunno, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Nobody complains about "iPhone" and "eBay". If we can be flexible with brand names, why not with people's names? --ChiveFungi (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Toni Kroos. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:DTR. You're ridiculous. --bender235 (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Falcons Fury Drop Tower @BGT[edit]

Hello, I noticed this page was slightly outdated, but have no real inkling on how to update it with history or a closed status. If it's not a big deal, that's fine. Just figured I would toss it out there - The ride suffered some issues back in June, and shut down, it will be closed until further notice according to the website. Currently, no re-launch date of the ride has been provided by the park, just a memo that they will push an official reopening date once it's fixed if you message them about it. Again, no big deal if this is just a minor update, or an unnecessary one, I just don't know how to actually update the page properly, or I'd have done it. [1] SoulPride21 (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)