User talk:Bender235

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, 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!


Sacagawea statue[edit]

Hi Bender, I am so sorry if I am not doing this right. I was just wondering if you could add my bronze Sacagawea statue in Cascade Locks, Oregon to the list of statues on the Sacagawea Wikipedia page? My name is Heather Soderberg and my website is Thank you so much! Heather Hsoderberg13 (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what I am supposed to do about this. --bender235 (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


I hate complaining, but can't help it - your https edits do mask vandalism. Materialscientist (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but this of course is a possibility which each of our edits, semi-automatic or not. I'll do my best to catch nonsense where ever I find it. --bender235 (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Materialscientist: we both know my edits are not a violation of AWB rules. But I understand your concern with the technicalities. What would be a compromise you could live with? Me creating a bot-account and running those routines over there? --bender235 (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Materialscientist: Hello? --bender235 (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Google books[edit]

With regards to this edit. It is not a good idea to change from a specific nationality to com in Google books. Sometimes the pages are only visible for certain nationalities. If for example you change to, google usually defaults that to the nationality of the IP address making the request and that may make the pages inaccessible to some uses when it would be visible if the choose to look at it with (as an example).

I never heard of that and I highly doubt this is true. Do you have a source confirming this sort of regional discrimination of Google Books? What is true is that Google Books usually re-directs a visitor of to say if she's located in France. Also, it switches the language from English to French (in this case). Rather than having this switch "predetermined", it is better to offer our "general audience" readers the "general link" which is --bender235 (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
If you look at my edit history you will see it is very large and I do not have an example to hand. But I can assure you that it is true in some cases. I often test a page that is not available within the UK (uk) against Canada (ca) and New Zealand (nz) and while it is not always true that the book is accessible through those domains it is not uncommon either. This is not access for the whole book (which is quite frequently available in the states but not in the other domains) but for sections of a book. -- PBS (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm really not convinced of this story, because I find it implausible. Even if Google restricts access to some books because of some stupid copyright law (which definitely could be the case), the domain on which you enter Google Books should be totally irrelevant. Geo-blocking depends on your IP (hence your location), not the domain you're trying to access. So unless you can provide at least one example, I'm not buying it. --bender235 (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

As a secondary issue I am not at all sure that just because one accesses Wikipedia via https it is necessary to access links external to Wikipedia as https rather than http. What is your thinking about that and do you check if the external site is running an https server before you make a change? -- PBS (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly do that. Google has long been offering (and encouraging!) the use of HTTPS of all of its services. As has the Internet Archive, another of the URLs I am converting. --bender235 (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


Kindly note that you have been removed from Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage, see here. --Human3015 knock knock • 08:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I am stunned that you have done this has been done under false pretense. I do realize that the Wikimedia Foundation's decision to make Wikipedia and all related projects HTTPS by default has been somewhat controversial of late, but accusing me of breaching AWB rules is just ridiculous. --bender235 (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I have not done it, I'm not admin, I was just informing you. admin Materialscientist removed you, you can give your explanation on his talk page. Human3015 knock knock • 09:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize it wasn't you. My apologies. --bender235 (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Alan Sharp[edit]

Hello bender, I'd love to know what you changed on Alan Sharps (my grandfather) Wikipedia page, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, as you can see I converted some external links from HTTP to HTTPS. It's a mere technicality that increases privacy for our readers. --bender235 (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

https for[edit]

Your edit at Andrea Dworkin was acceptable but not for the reason in your edit summary, unless something has changed again. Wikimedia generally prefers HTTPS over HTTP, but the link you edited was for <>, not a Wikimedia property, and, because of restrictions in some nations, Wikimedia does not always require HTTPS, so external links to Wikimedia should begin with the double slash that comes after the opening protocol and colon, as in // In the Dowrkin case, both protocols work. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia does not "prefer", it has set it as default recently. Wikipedia in HTTP is no longer available. Thus, protocol-relative links are pointless. --bender235 (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me that, I learned something, but that doesn't apply to non-Wikimedia sites (and I'm not clear if all non-English Wikimedia sites are in that exclusive mode yet). On Saturday, I tested a site of my own that I set up for HTTP by trying the HTTPS protocol and got a browser message about the connection being untrusted (I don't have that kind of certificate) and, according to the browser, possibly a target of site impersonation. My site is minor but later the same day I tried a *.gov site that worked with HTTP but failed with HTTPS ( So, unless you're testing every non-Wikimedia link or at least every non-Wikimedia subdomain, I wouldn't convert their protocols to HTTPS. I assume protocol relativity works only for Wikimedia URLs (and perhaps some others but that's only a speculation), so I'll continue to link to the URLs that I actually used. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
You will notice that changing Internet Archive links to https does not affect external links to or any other site. In fact, I only changed those links for websites that definitely support HTTPS and encourage its use, such as YouTube, Google Books (basically any Google service), and finally the Internet Archive. That's it. --bender235 (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Durbin–Watson statistic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SAS (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) 09:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Since when?[edit]

Since when do we do http to https link changing? MSJapan (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Since there's no grand agreement on things I can't say what “we” do, but I certainly found it useful. A lot of websites that Wikipedia articles rely on as sources offer HTTPS without any downsides, so it seemed only plausible to me to do this. A lot of users thanked me so far and apparently agreed. In general, using HTTPS is not sufficient, but certainly a necessary step to ensure readers' privacy. HTTPS prevents entities to scan traffic at internet hubs. --bender235 (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Should've read your talk page. This seems to be related to an earlier discussion, and seems to be your personal judgment. This needs wider discussion. MSJapan (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@MSJapan: Wider discussion? How about WP:VPP? Wikipedia and all its Wikimedia sister projects already moved to HTTPS permanently. For what reason should external links not? --bender235 (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
That VPP discussion closed no consensus due to technical issues (as clearly stated), and WMF does not decide what services external servers should run. That's why not. MSJapan (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
MSJapan FYI... The VPP you mention is moot. It was closed as something the Mediawiki people should decide. They decided and Wikipedia is now https only. The only reason not to move to https is where countries (ie China & Russia) are blocking websites. https makes it harder to go around the blocks. Reasons not to switch, such as https is slower, are no longer the case. https is now faster. Another FYI... the new HTTP/2 protocol technically handles both http and https, but the browser companies are only going to support https. Note, I have no position on what Bender is doing. Bgwhite (talk)
@Bgwhite: fyi, it is this edit we're talking about.
  • Bender... I don't think what you are doing is wrong... but you are going about it in the wrong way. Making mass changes to lots of articles in a short period of time is almost seen as disruptive (it is seen as crusading, and people react negatively to any form of crusading). You need to go slower... remember that most editors don't know about the WMF decision to favor https, or why they favor it. They will instinctively react negatively to mass changes (especially to changes to citations). This reaction may be a "knee-jerk" reaction, but it is a natural, instinctive reaction never the less. You need to anticipate this reaction, and take the time to educate other editors as to why you are making the changes you wish to make. I realize that you left edit summaries explaining what you were doing, but a simple edit summary is often not enough.
What I would suggest is that you craft a short paragraph, outlining the situation with http and https... something you can cut and paste onto the talk pages of articles. Post this paragraph, wait a day or two... then return and (if there are no objections) update the links to https. If there are objections, take the time to respond to them. At a minimum, this will let others know that you are acting in good faith. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I see your point, but do you honestly believe this is practical given almost five million articles on Wikipedia? Am I supposed to post on five million talk pages about this issue? It doesn't seem practical to me.
In my opinion, this subtle URL switch from HTTP to HTTPS for (some!) websites is no different from other low-level copy-editing types of changes that I have made for years. For instance, I replaced some words---some words with some words—some words, or 4x winner with 4× winner on thousands of articles without anyone complaining. The HTTPS switch is of the same kind, only that it is less esthetic and more practical. It harms no one. Honestly I have no clue why anyone would oppose this other than pure “nobody's touching my article without asking me” kind of knee-jerk reactions. --bender235 (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Bender, if the VPP was moot, you should not have cited it as support for your position. You have been questioned by at least three different editors on this talk page and have yet to give an answer that boils down to anything other than "because I want to." The fact that WMF is https does not force external sites to do so. I went back to VPP, and if a site does not use https, the reference breaks, period. Therefore, there appears to be no pressing reasons to change external citations, especially when you have no idea if those sites are running https services. So do you want to "protect users' privacy" or only make them think their privacy is secure? The sites that are being visited still use cookies, https or no. So I don't see a pressing need or an appropriate rationale for mass editing like this. MSJapan (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the elaborate answer, and giving me the chance to clear some obvious misunderstandings. The point "if a site does not use https, the reference breaks" is, of course, true. That's why I do not convert each and every link, but only those who offer and encourage the use of HTTPS. One example is the Internet Archive, who reached out to the New York Times for their announcement of switching to HTTPS. I repeat, they encourage readers to use their HTTPS service for sake of their own privacy. Same goes for Google who, being a tech-savvy corporation, have been early to the game and both enabled and encouraged the use of HTTPS for their services since 2009. Google Books, Google News, and of course are among the most linked-to references on Wikipedia. Both encourage HTTPS use. And if I change those links from HTTP to HTTPS, no reference will break. None.
As for "why is this important since there are cookies and all...": a HTTPS connection to Google or Internet Archive obviously does not protect your privacy from Google or Internet Archive. But from everybody else. Who could that be? Well, the list of adversaries is long. And I'm not tin-foiling about government agencies here, although that is a practical concern for everyone currently not in a western democracy. Instead I am talking about any entity that could manipulate plain HTTP traffic between you and a Google or IA server. People that slide-in malware or worse into your traffic if it is unencrypted. I don't want to expand this to a 101 lecture on internet security, but I hope I could clear some misconceptions. To summarize, the reason to read Google Books or Internet Archive via HTTPS is no different from the one for Wikipedia: "to ensure the security and integrity of data you transmit." --bender235 (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, HTTPS isn't perfect either. Also, I'm not going to dig everything out, but there are problematic edits. I will point out this, where you've changed not only HTTP to HTTPS, but also changed a template. So you're doing more than just conversion, and not disclosing that - fact to cn is totally different. You also tagged a 1068 byte removal as a "minor edit", as well as a 658 byte change, both of which appear in contribs in the dark red "major change" category. Lastly, why are we at Wikipedia beholden to an external site's policy? MSJapan (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
MSJapan I don't see how a template changed from the diff you gave. Everything stayed the same except for the https change. The two "minor edits" you gave were indeed minor (depending on one's view of the https change). How many bytes were changed isn't the definition of minor. Combining refs into one named ref or cleaning the cruft from a Google link are minor. Bgwhite (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Once again sorry to correct your misunderstandings. FREAK is an attack on a particular low-security export-graded level of encryption that is deprecated for decades. The disclosure of the attack led to many fixes in SSL/TLS software. As for the "problematic edits": this changes a template to its original name (AWB auto feature), and this removes a reference duplicate by adding a name tag. Both are perfectly inline with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I'm unsure where this discussion is going. I get the sense that your opposition is unreasonable, hence a "knee-jerk" move. --bender235 (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
In the end, majority of links will go the https route. Things will really start rolling when HTTP/2 gets installed on web sites. It might be better to wait until this happens. Say when Google finally goes https for unlogged in users, then change the links and use a bot to do it. Would save time and grief. Bgwhite (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, HTTP/2 will be a game changer, but I don't see it widely deployed until the 2020s. --bender235 (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
@MSJapan and Bgwhite: here's a wider discussion. Please weigh in. Also, now there's an RfC ongoing. --bender235 (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 August[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


Per consensus at Template talk:Marriage#Who is widowed - topic or topic's spouse?, please do not use "widowed" when the spouse has died. It should only be used when the article topic has died and their spouse survived. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for letting me know. --bender235 (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Convert disp=s[edit]

Re this edit at Douglas DC-3: The "slash" options like disp=s were deprecated in {{convert}} quite a while ago. They now show "or" instead of a slash, and they also put the page in a tracking category for cleanup. The following shows a tiny asterisk after each convert, and holding the mouse over that shows a warning. Pretty obscure, I agree.

Its cruise speed ({{convert|207|mph|abbr=on|disp=s}}) and range ({{convert|1500|mi|abbr=on|disp=s}}) →
Its cruise speed (207 mph or 333 km/h*) and range (1,500 mi or 2,400 km*)

Anyway, I will replace disp=s with disp=or in that article in due course, but you might like to bear this in mind for the future. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. I'll keep it in mind. --bender235 (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mohammed Aman (disambiguation)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Mohammed Aman (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnecessary disambiguation per WP:TWODABS

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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

No objection. --bender235 (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Efraín Ríos Montt 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Martez Ivey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halfback (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) 10:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. --bender235 (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks[edit]

For tirelessly getting links rewritten to their stronger HTTPS forms. I've read a number of comment threads reacting to your changes, and people seem to keep interpreting it as blind activism that will break links, rather than thoughtful selection of institutions which have made public and clear declarations of HTTPS support and enforcement. I appreciate your detailed responses to each one, and I hope you continue working on rewriting them. Keep a cool head and stay polite, no matter how many people don't seem to read your full rationale, and you'll make a stronger Wikipedia. Konklone (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the pep talk. But this has come to a point where there is not much left I can do. Changing literally millions of links by hand is too tedious. Using AWB for this, as I used to, is no longer allowed. AWB authorities, in particular Materialscientist who revoked my AWB editing rights twice now, made it clear that they consider a switch to a secure URL protocol as insignificant and secondary as fixing wrongly piped Wikilinks like [[Airplane|Airplanes]] to [[Airplane]]s. A bot request, to have this task done fully automated, was run down by people who do not understand the issue.
So what's next? Since people on Wikipedia keep telling me how not to do this, I asked on WP:VPT which way is left. So far, none. In the end, this is a masterpiece of Wikibureaucracy. People who understand the issue agree that it is important to protect readers' privacy, but no one can come up with a way to do it that doesn't violate some petty rule from years ago. --bender235 (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
@Konklone: feel free to leave a comment here. --bender235 (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, looks I'm too late (I don't get notifications of Wikipedia pings, as a not-super-active community member). The discussion was archived or removed. Feel free to email me at if I can ever be helpful. Konklone (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@Konklone: It was indeed moved (and extended) to a Request for Comments on the issue. Please leave a comment if you have time. --bender235 (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


If you find time for it, please take a look at the article about Gustav Laabs. Any help is appreciated and I will of course add you to the DYK nom for the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I could help. --bender235 (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

A cupcake for you![edit]

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg Thank you for your edits to Wikipedia more specifically Giancarlo Gandolfo. They are great! :) Pictogram voting comment.svg ' Olowe2011 Talk 23:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. --bender235 (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Economic results of migration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Foreign exchange (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) 10:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, correction, a request[edit]

Hi, thanks for your edits to my page.

A correction - this links to the wrong footnote: "published by Hard News, in India.[1]" - it goes to " Jump up ^" - I was a featured contributor at

The Hardnews link is:

I've added some info to the page but I'm not sure about the format.

Also - I would love to see a page about someone - is this a conflict of interest: my mother Zakia Sarwar, a teacher, teacher trainer pioneer and pioneer in large classes teaching in Pakistan whose work is acknowledged worldwide. She started the Society of Pakistan English Language Teachers (SPELT - over 30 years ago. Here are a couple of links about her and her work:

Thank you Beenasarwar (talk) 04:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I have a question[edit]

Hey..I'm completely new here on Wiki and just made this account to ask you a question but I'd like to ask you this question in how can I do that? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiousmind2015 (talkcontribs) 13:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

There's an "email this user" button on the left side of your screen that will, obviously, send an email to me. --bender235 (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Bad link[edit]

You've just made a large number of edits, each with a red-linked "this RfC" in the edit summary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Shot. Didn't realize that the shortcut WP:VPR does not work for the archive. But I was referring to this RfC) --bender235 (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation; I've now made it work, for that particular archive page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC) / HTTPS / PRURL[edit]

Hi, re this, I wasn't aware of that RfC while it was open. Are you (and others) also changing existing protocol-relative links to If so, why? ―Mandruss  19:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

No, so far I don't. Since Wikipedia is HTTPS-only, all protocol-relative links will be HTTPS anyways, so what would be the point of changing, right? --bender235 (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Right, thank you. I'll continue to use PRURL for, then. In fact, one might go so far as to say that we should be changing HTTP to PRURL, not to HTTPS. ―Mandruss  03:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Why would you say so? It's not like Wikimedia is going to switch back to HTTP. Ever. --bender235 (talk) 04:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
My thinking was that HTTPS and PRURL have exactly the same effect for, so why spend six characters unnecessarily? Upon further reflection, it does require some editor effort to remove those six characters from new URLs that have been copied from the browser's address bar. And it makes sense to do them all the same way, thus simplifying the environment a bit. So maybe I'll start using HTTPS instead of PRURL, and changing both HTTP and PRURL to HTTPS when I see them. ―Mandruss  06:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I liked the idea of protocol-relative URL when Wikimedia still gave the option between HTTP or HTTPS access. But now it seems more like an obsolete feature. --bender235 (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bender235 and Mandruss! Sorry for this late comment. I only noticed this RfC after it was closed. I think that since WP has switched to https by default, it would be much better to use WP:PRURLs (where applicable). Dropping six characters after a copy-paste from an address bar is not such a hard task, isn't it? Using Protocol-relative URLs takes less space, as it was already spotted. Moreover, it could be usefull, some day, to let user-agents opt-out of the https redirection (e.g. with a cookie or an http header). I know that this sounds crazy. Everyone, including myself, prefers https. But, as we all know, using PR links instead of https links won't change anything for https users and won't block anyone in some countries where people might be affraid of complaining when WP gets blocked through https. Besides, the more we force Big Brother to increase its decryption power, the faster BB will get money for spying even more. BTW, the RfC could not be seen by readers living in countries that block https, so the concensus was reached among https-only readers. Sorry if I missed something. Ekkt0r (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't buy that logic. There is basically no downside to traffic encryption, and even if this gives reason to ‘Big Brother’ to find ways to decrypt, the race will continue. TLS 1.3 is in the making. --bender235 (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I do agree that there is no downside to traffic encryption. But this is not the point. Since:
  • a) using WP:PRURLs will not disable https for anyone reading WP with https, and
  • b) everyone is redirected to https when entering WP via http,
protocol-relative URLs for, and any other site accepting both http and https (even if http gets instantly redirected to https by those sites) will continue to be rendered as https. So encryption will continue to be used for everyone.
On the other side, imagine that for some reason some user is forced to read WP through http. Should WP force this user to copy the https absolute link he/she wishes to follow, paste it in the address bar of a new tab, remove the s and, only then, clic "Go" or press return, and repeat all these steps for every link he/she wants to follow? If those users who might, some day, have no choice but access WP through http decide to go through the difficult task of first convincing WP to allow for an opt-out feature, and then opt-out to be able to visit WP with http, then they will be very upset everytime they see an absolute https link where a PR link would have been fine for everyone. These users will get bored of converting https to http and will wonder why PR links were not used.
If my suggestion of using protocol-relative URLs insteat of absolute https would have meant disabling https for anyone already using https, then I would not be writing all this. But this is not the case. Hardcoding https will only result in more trouble the day WP finds out that some countries are blocking https for selected users. Do you think these targeted users would be able to protest if they represent only a tiny percentage of the population in their countries? No, they will be ignored. Targeted blocks are probably already being used in some countries. Should WP disappoint those targetted users by adding an avoidable hassle (removing the s in some external links)? I don't think so. Creating potential problems for users that are targeted by their governments will not help these users fight their govs.
What I am proposing is absolutely neutral for everyone already using https. Using absolute https will only disapoint users, should an opt-out feature be adopted some day. I'm not suggesting to revert the decision of making https the default for WP. I'm suggesting that we keep articles as protocol-neutral as possible. I admit that having no https opt-out can drive some users in some countries to protest against blocks, but there will always be some users who won't be able to fight against blocks nor find workarounds. I just wish that these users be able to get an opt-out feature from WP if they can't fight against blocks by their govs. I agree that these users should fight against blocks, but I also think they know better than us whether such fights are worth or not. WP should not treat them badly just because they decide not to fight. WP should be, imho, as user-friendly as possible to all its users, even to those who don't want to fight. Some people might think that this is a bad idea and that WP should do politics. I would answer that WP can still do politics by refusing opt-outs or by accepting opt-outs only for carefully selected countries and for a limited time, until diplomacy gets rid of gov-driven blocs.
A tiny change to your AWB edit rule to make it convert http to PR links (instead of absolute https) would be so great! Don't you agree? Ekkt0r (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Another advantage of using protocol-relative URLs for and is that if/when WP becomes available with an .onion address (as Deku-shrub suggested in this RfC, see Wikipedia_talk:External links/Archive 35#.onion linking and clearnet gateways and Wikipedia_talk:External links/Archive 35#.onion linking proposed standard for the archived discussions) then, in case and/or also become available through a .onion address, a small number of changes (in the way PRs are handled) would probably be enough to have these links rendered as onion addresses. Ekkt0r (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
That would require both Wikipedia and Google (Books/News/etc.) to become available as .onion at the same time. Highly unlikely. --bender235 (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it would require to add .onion availability for WP at the same time as and/or Google (Books/News/etc.) become available through .onion addresses. If WP becomes available through a .onion address, then whenever a WP:PRURL pointing to needs to be rendered for someone accessing WP through its .onion address, WP would use https if has not yet become available through a .onion address, or the clearnet onion gateway address of if it has already become available. The implementation of the PRURL renderer would first use a hash table to find whether or not the address in a given protocol-relative external link points to a website that is known by WP to be available through an associated .onion address and then, if the answer is yes, it would output the right .onion address. As you see, there is no need for any synchronisation. All we need is some changes in the renderer (to make it aware that it is working for WP's .onion address) and a small table of websites for which WP accepts to use their associated .onion address in PRURLs.
We also don't even need to update the hash table immediatly after a new website becomes available through a .onion address. This update just needs to be done if (and when) WP decides to start rendering PRURLs for that website using that site's official .onion gateway address.
I'm not an expert of Tor, but I think/hope that what I wrote makes sense. Ekkt0r (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how that would work. If WP was available through an .onion address, all PRURL would link to .onion, too. Unless we add domain-specific filters to the Wiki software, which I don't see yet. --bender235 (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I also think that there would have to be some sort of filter. But if I'm not mistaken, nothing forbids a .onion website to have an external link to a normal site (i.e. without a .onion address). Of course, links from .onion to .onion would be prefered because in such situations no traffic needs to go through an exit node. Coming back to PRURLs, I would imagine that any attempt to make WP available through a .onion address should, during some beta phase, only try to convert PRURLs to .onion addresses. It would, later, also examine https and http. But I need to learn more about Tor... Ekkt0r (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


A bunch of your edits appeared in my watchlist. Most make sense, but I'm wondering why you reordered some references, like you did here. I'm not upset, just curious.--BrianCUA (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The shuffling is done automatically by AWB, and it is to make sure that references appear in descending numeric order. In other words, A[1][2][3] rather than A[3][1][2]. --bender235 (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I see. Sometimes when I put them in with the best first, so that even if they are not in numeric order my order is deliberate. It's really not a big deal, but I'm wondering if there is a policy on this or if it is just a style choice. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure, either. Like I said, AWB does it automatically, and they usually don't implement stuff that is not backed by atleast our WP:MOS. --bender235 (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Phil Prince at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Bender235. Please note that articles must be at least 1500 characters long to qualify for DYK. Please be encouraged to type more into the wikiarticle on Phil Prince. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for putting them right but what's the difference? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

HTTPS is the encrypted version of HTTP. It basically prevents anyone between you and the webserver you accessed to read or interfere with the data you requested. There's also a nice website by the Federal Chief Information Officer on the issue. --bender235 (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Aah, thanks, I know it must be technical. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. --bender235 (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to World War I casualties 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Oba Chandler[edit]

Hi, could anything be done with the four deadlinks at the Oba Chandler article detected today? :) If so any help is appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I counted four. I fixed them now. But for future reference, doing this is pretty easy: have a look at WP:WBM. --bender235 (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi, why did you lock the aristotle page?? I discovered some interesting things that i would like to add. I understand you not wanting it to be vandalised but i would please like it if you cpuld un lock it. Thnx

,Amy White — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy white1009 (talkcontribs) 16:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I did not lock any page, since I am not an administrator. --bender235 (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Phil Prince[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Phil Prince 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) 17:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Debate on Bernard Shaw's nationality.[edit]

Was he "Irish" or "British" or do we need to define his nationality in some other way? A debate on the subject, to reconsider a long-standing consensus that he was Irish, has started at talk:George Bernard Shaw. Just in case you're interested. Current comments are at "Nationality", at the foot of the page - although an earlier thread at "Irish"? may also be relevant. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Project Invite[edit]

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Virginia Tech, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Virginia Tech. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Go Hokies (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Nissan leaf[edit]

I don't see any mention of 2500+ Nissan leafs in Sri Lanka. Husny Mohamed (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No sure what to make of this comment. Is there anything you want me to do? --bender235 (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


If you want to, please help by improving this weeks TAFI article Marie Serneholt. Any help is appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[edit]

I thought we agreed that we should use //, when referring to archive-links? See I'billin, Huldra (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No, see this RfC. --bender235 (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Do you call that a good practice: you opened the RfC...then you closed it ...with the conclusion you wanted? Should you not have had the decency to let someone else close the RfC? I see some strong objections there, which you have ignored. Oh well, I guess a RfC about your conduct is next? Huldra (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I did not close it. I merely added the archive templates on the top and bottom. And added a summary. Of course this is irrelevant, because what matters is others' opinions during the RfC. You can read it. So stop the ad personam.
But anyhow, if you think I somehow manufactured consensus in that RfC, feel free to open another one. Of course, no one will agree that we should use protocol-relative links for any website anymore, since Wikipedia is HTTPS-only now and forever. --bender235 (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I see "In conclusion, there is near-unanimous support for converting the mentioned links to a secure HTTPS connection." signed by you...if you did not close it, who did? Huldra (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Looked up the version history for you. And again, what does it matter? The consensus is clear and obvious. --bender235 (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Just to get this clear: it was archived by a bot, then you added "the conclusion"? Huldra (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Open an ANI and have an admin of your choice reword it, if it makes you feel better. Serious, this is ridiculous. The consensus in this RfC was crystal clear. --bender235 (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Fine, I will, Huldra (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
So you honestly accuse me of writing an RfC summary that is factually wrong? --bender235 (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ..I think we need more eyes, Huldra (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation bot[edit]

I put in a bug report so that the citation bot will stop converting google books to http. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Where exactly? --bender235 (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Citation Bot does the exact opposite of what you are doing, so I asked them to stop it. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope this gets fixed. --bender235 (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Benny Nelson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halfback (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) 10:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 20 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

History of Baden-Württemberg[edit]

Hello, Bender235 -- I just undid most of what had been done in an edit to History of Baden-Württemberg. I had to do that manually since a bot had added another edit. I didn't see the need for a "Needs a copy-edit" tag when I had just completed a thorough copy-edit of the article. Also, the editor had re-worded the first sentence so that it no longer made sense. Since I had forgotten to put the GOCE template on the article's talk page, I did that. However, I noticed that the size of an image in the article had also been changed. I didn't know whether to change that or not. I thought I'd ask you to check it. Corinne (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Ramon Llull[edit]

Hello, Bender.

On the Llull article, under his picture, the date of his beatification is 1847.

In the preliminary text, just before "Early Life..." the beatification date cited is 1857.

Thank you for your hard work!

Elaine Ginman97.34.1.37 (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you're asking me to do. --bender235 (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi, Bender. I had to revert a bunch of re-spacing edits on the Florida–Tennessee football rivalry article, going back to mid-October. Your https edits were mixed in the middle; please feel free to re-run your https script on this article again, and I will not revert. Thanks, and sorry about the bother. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I'll do it by hand. --bender235 (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

http->https in tools[edit]

Just noticed that my edit to Canada you fixed I used citation tool for Google Books for this.... has there been any conversation about fixing the tools (like RefScript and refill) to comply with the latest RfC on the matter? If so i would love to comment and help-- Moxy (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

If there was any, I'm not aware. --bender235 (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jordan Wynn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dave Schramm (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) 10:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. --bender235 (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Burbank high school notable alumni[edit]

Lana Maria Parrilla ("Regina," on Once Upon A Time) Sabrina Soto (HGTV)

Source - we went to school together

Stacie — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

So? --bender235 (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Minor Barnstar Hires.png The Minor barnstar
For spending so much time working on the http->https conversions for, Google Books and Our researching readers deserve optimal security when clicking on our references :) Astinson (WMF) (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Or there is another way of looking at this. My watchlist is turning massive in the "active" sense because of the number of India-related articles that are being processed. Specifically, that causes problems for one of Wikipedia's well-known hotbeds, ie: caste stuff. Seriouusly damaging edits are likely to be missed because of the sheer number of gnome-ish edits going on. Win some, lose some. - Sitush (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015[edit]

{{subst:User:BracketBot/inform|diff=695283912|page=Aram Khachaturian|by= by modifying 1 "[]"s|debug=(0, 1, 0, 0)|list=yes|remaining=*{{quotation|We will consider that if these comrades <nowiki>[Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Myaskovsky, Khachaturian, Kabalevsky and [[</nowiki> |lines=1}}

Sargan test[edit]

I would appreciate if you can revert the title of the "Sargan-Hansen test" to the original title "Sargan test". This will be more fair and accurate. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakunneed (talkcontribs) 15:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Why? We also have Gauss–Markov theorem and Durbin–Wu–Hausman test, despite several decades between the authors. --bender235 (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

i am eric davis the third[edit]

my father was a great man he was the innovative of the world wide internet as we know it today i cannot share our real names because his own identity must not be discoverd he was the fifth element which is the open source project for all of the internet without his suffering pain and work they would be no internet today tommorow or in the future 1035ericdavis (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. --bender235 (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


Please take a look at the refs on Clara Henry. Much appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

attack on you[edit]

Se Talk:Atlantis. 2 new editors suddenly arriving. Doug Weller talk 16:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm Allthefoxes. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Amarillo Venom  with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. --allthefoxes (Talk) 02:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

(a) Don't template the regulars, (b) there was an edit summary. --bender235 (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Greg Little[edit]

I saw you moved Greg Little (American football) to Greg Little (wide receiver), but I'm not sure why you did so at this point. There's only one American football player with this name with an article right now. I know there's a recruit with this name, but I did a quick google search and it doesn't appear he would pass WP:GNG at this point.--Yankees10 18:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe not at this point, but certainly a year or two from now. Plus, Greg Little (wide receiver) is only more precise, so no damage IMHO. --bender235 (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Then we should wait the year or two to move it. There's no guarantee this other Little will be notable. It's crystal balling right now. I'm gonna move it back for now. If you still feel it should stay at WR then i'm certainly fine with a WP:NFL discussion for others opinions.--Yankees10 05:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Alright, if you insist. --bender235 (talk) 06:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USA Today All-USA high school football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Westfield 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) 09:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Your suspected sockpuppetry on Atlantis talk[edit] Murray (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

ESPN RISE football navboxes[edit]

Bender235, I have nominated four navboxes related to the ESPN RISE awards, three of which you created, for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

(+) Excuse me idk who to tell but someone needs to fix the date Jesus died cause he is still alive today, he resurrected you need to put that in there he's still alive, that's like the biggest part of my faith as a christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to an online editathon on Black Women's History[edit]


Black Women's History online edit-a-thon

Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG

--Ipigott (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Evolution of cephalopods, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moose Creek (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) 13:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Listing of high schools in NFL player infoboxes[edit]

Hey, Bender. I believe you were one of the strong proponents of using the format "Fort Wayne (IN) Bishop Luer" to list players' high schools in Infobox NFL player. I'm in the process of replacing the last 150 or so instances of Infobox NFL coach with Infobox NFL biography (the new Infobox NFL player, improved to accommodate certain additional coaching parameters), and it is apparent to me that the AP Style Book format of listing high schools (i.e. the one above) is too darn long, and more often than not results in line-wrapping whenever the name of the high school does not match the name of the town where it is located (e.g., "Fort Wayne (IN)" for Fort Wayne High School).

I would ask that you put your thinking cap on, and see if we cannot come up with a shorter manner of listing the players' and coaches' high schools, perhaps by simply omitting the name of the town where the high school is located in the infobox. We don't list the location of colleges and universities in the infobox, and we can certainly add the high school location to the main body text if it isn't present in the text already. Please give this some serious thought -- I'd like to contemplate a universal change for all NFL bios in the next two or three months. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that you ask me about this. Actually I encountered this issue with too long high school names in the past. Usually I would abbreviate the name. For instance, St. Thomas Aquinas High School (Fort Lauderdale, Florida) became "Ft. Lauderdale (FL) Aquinas". With the school you mentioned, one could write "Ft. Wayne (IN) Luers" for short. But in general I'd prefer if we stick to the established style. I know we don't list locations for colleges, but that's because there's only one "Duke" or "Notre Dame". But if we're talking about "Central High School" or "Cook County High School," things would get confusing if we left out the location. --bender235 (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
So, have we reached a decision on this matter? I noticed you reverted the change on Leonard Fournette. Lizard (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, not only because I felt your change premature, but also because "St. Augustine (LA)" is confusing, because it implies the existence of a town "St. Augustine, Louisiana" like St. Augustine, Florida. --bender235 (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
So basically, put the town name in front of the school name in instances where the school and town are different names? Lizard (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. So Manuel Dominguez High School in Compton becomes "Compton (CA) Dominguez" for instance. --bender235 (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 1 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 3 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)