Hello, and welcome to my talk page! I try to respond very quickly to queries here, but sometimes I do procrastinate, so.....yeah. If I left you a message on your talk page, simply copy-paste this: {{subst:mytalk}} to anywhere on my talk page. If I reply to a message here, I will copy-paste this template to your talk page. I do not like to watch talk pages, as there are many edits that occur which are unrelated to my topic, and just creates more junk mail for me. Thanks for stopping by!

Hello, Benhen1997! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Thanks for uploading File:Little Caesars Pizza Bowl Logo.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed

Hello Benhen1997 in the top of your user page you have contributed {{rollbacker}} which says "This user has rollback rights on English Wikipedia" but according to this page you are not rollbacker please don't give wrong info at your user page untill you are not granted this right you are not permitted to write this Greatuser (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not remember adding this icon to the top of my page. Should I remove logo on the edit script?
Ben S. Henderson (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please Remove the logo (icon) from you your user page, if you are granted this right you may add the logo Greatuser (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Again, I do not know how this appeared. Thanks for your help,
Ben S. Henderson (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its OK i feel happy to help other users Greatuser (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed

Thanks for doing the Gators team statistics. I did them all last year and know that it is very time consuming! ~ Richmond96 T • C 16:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem! Ben S. Henderson (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 Philadelphia Phillies season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Adams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed

Hey Benhen1997

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

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

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

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

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

I appreciate the work you're doing on rail route templates, but is the inclusion of every river really helpful to the reader? Those articles are more about services than the physical routes themselves. In the case of the Silver Meteor (for example), I would think the inclusion of rivers more appropriate in articles about the individual CSX subdivisions over which that and other trains run. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do see where you're coming from. My original intent was to include only major water crossings (Hudson, Delaware, Susquehanna, St. Johns, etc.), as a reader may be interested in that to know where the route leads. I didn't quite plan on including things like the C. Stanley Weaver Canal, or other non-important or non-navigable waterways, it just sorta happened toward the end. As I continue, I will try very hard to keep the small, non-important rivers out of the diagram, to keep the diagram from growing to a massive size (Template:Amtrak Acela), and revisit those on which I have done way too much (Template:Amtrak Acela).
Ben (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I've been looking at the growth of the various Amtrak templates and it's just out of hand. These are route templates. They're meant to show the stations the service stops at. There's so much detail now that the stations are getting dwarfed. I'm having trouble reading them. Mackensen (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For your future reference, official standings can be viewed on the SEC website[1]. Head-to-head results as tiebreakers are not used until the regular season ends and all conference games have been played. Prior to that point, the SEC uses winning percentage in conference games to establish the standings. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification.
Ben (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've done some work on Oklahoma football season articles. There's currently a discussion on talk:2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team about whether the NFL draft following the season should be displayed in a table or a block of text. We need some people to put in their opinions. Kobra98 (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benhen1997. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benhen, I notice that you tried to nominate a GA at WP:GAN. This actually won't work due to the bot; you can see instructions for how to nominate at WP:GAN/I. Thanks for your work on this one, and good luck with your nomination! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for your help. Ben^Yes? 19:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Florida State Seminoles football team should be withdrawn. Sports team seasons are ineligible until that season is complete. Come back in 6 weeks. E.g., See Talk:2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/GA1 and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/1.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)  Done Ben^Yes? 20:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Oregon is not a Pac-12 North Division co-champion with Stanford. You are correct that they are indeed tied for first, until you take into account the tiebreaker, which is Stanford's win over Oregon. I'd like to point out that I am a die hard Duck fan, but the page has to be accurate.

Athies22 (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are tied for first, they are co-champions. See the 2011 Oregon Ducks football team page, where the same thing happened, only in Oregon's favor. Oregon still went to the championship as the divisional rep, but the division championship is shared among the two tied teams. Also see 2012 Florida Gators football team.
Ben^Yes? 00:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, is that they are not tied for first, in case of a tie, there is a tie-breaker, which Stanford wins. If that is the case about the 2011 page it should be altered. As for Florida they are in a different conference which may have rules that allow for divisional co-champions, the problem here is the Pac-12 does not. Not only does the Pac-12 have no mention of divisional co-champions, the University of Oregon Athletic Department has released nothing regarding being crowned as divisional co-champions.

Athies22 (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll look into the conference rules. Thanks for bringing this possibility to me. I didn't consider this.
Ben^Yes? 00:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben,

I'm aware of the problems of constantly reverting the editions on Arena Corinthians. But I don't understand this last revision. I did as written on the dispute resolution guidelines ("When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can;"). I gathered more sources to the controversies, written them in impartial form (the older revisions are clearly biased and even go off-topic, starting to talk about a club officer's night life) and moved the controversies topic to the bottom of the article (which is what I usually find in other articles around Wikipedia).

I didn't know I was doing something wrong this time. Is that wrong? Gathering more information to put in the article?

130.88.164.18 (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see now….I didn't see the move to the bottom. Thanks for bringing this to me. Sorry for any inconvenience. Ben^Yes? 23:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, I am sorry for causing you trouble earlier, I should have done that from the start.

130.88.164.18 (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for troubling you again, but it the same use who made the first changes on the controversies (User:Rauzaruku) seems to keep reverting the revisions I did to the article. His text is simply a transcription of an article (and a very poorly translated one) And this guy continues to threat me and impose his will (if you go to the talk page, you'll see his behaviour, and later I found that he even deleted another comment at one moment just so he wouldn't need to respond, to later come with another threat), I know talking won't do anything: he simply won't listen.

On another topic, but still related to this, he said "blogs are unreliable sources" as the reason for undoing my revisions. I completely understand someone's blogspot or wordpress is clearly unreliable, but what about editors working for a news portal or agency on a regular basis (which is quite a common occurrence and released by a certain agency, which has credentials and credibility to publish news and reports)?

Sorry again for the trouble.

130.88.164.18 (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This IP have a serious WP:COI problem. He is a Corinthians supporter (proved here at this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arena_Corinthians&diff=584127037&oldid=584077211, he says "MY world championship" in portuguese) trying to do propaganda here, just it. Now he is desperated, trying to impose his COI, fancruft and biased article. Rauzaruku (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 SEC Championship Game, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Franklin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On the Charles Payne (journalist) page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on User talk:86.148.106.245.

While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.

If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.

Continued edit warring on User talk:86.148.106.245 or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice.

BTW, you should review WP:BLANKING. Toddst1 (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll keep WP:BLANKING in mind. I would never start/engage in a war intentionally. WP:BLANKING will keep me from doing edit wars more. Ben^Yes? 03:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to mention something similar. While the IP's attacks on your user page were completely unacceptable, and their vandalism of someone else's talk page which lead to you warning them also wrong (so your warnings completely justified), as Toddst1 has hinted at WP:BLANKING does allow the IP to remove most of the stuff on their talk page including that which you were removing, if they desire. It sounds like you know this now, I only really mentioned it again so people know I am following up. Nil Einne (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw that you're a contributor to college football articles, so could you leave your opinion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject College football#NFL_Draft_section. I'm trying to get responses. Kobra98 (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013–14 Florida Gators women's basketball team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anderson University (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your changes. Most of what you did was adding street names and shields that do not appear on signs along I-4 (and some of which are incorrect, e.g. SR 438). As for the truck routes, there happens to be a linked article: Bannered routes of U.S. Route 17#Maitland truck route (and signs on I-4). --NE2 02:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the county FDOT maps. This one in particular shows that SR 438, per your example, is a (technically) correct listing for that road. I, myself, have, however, driven through Orlando many times before, and I know how some of the bannered routes are (frustratingly to people who don't live there, such as myself) not listed on the overhead signs. So, I do understand your rationale completely. I should have checked around for the Truck Routes for more information. I did save my (over?)expanded version of the exit list for I-4 in my sandbox, as I had a feeling that this would happen, so I can see if it can become more realistic. Most of what I did was putting the bannered route names and street names in the {{Junction}} template to eliminate situations such as DeBary, Deltona (CR 4162). Ben^Yes? 03:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those county maps are full of errors (not only SR 438, but SR 15 in downtown, SR 424A, CR 434, the south end of SR 423 [typoed as SR 523], CR 535, the east end of SR 536, the east end of SR 482). Signs are posted indicating that state maintenance ends at Rio Grande, and FDOT GIS data and straight line diagrams agree (if you're looking for maps, the federal aid maps are imperfect but do show state maintenance accurately). With the exception of one recently-removed sign just west of Edgewater, SR 438 has not been signed east of Rio Grande for the 15 years I've lived here. --NE2 03:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2013 Florida State Seminoles football team you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TonyTheTiger -- TonyTheTiger (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2013 Florida State Seminoles football team you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:2013 Florida State Seminoles football team for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TonyTheTiger -- TonyTheTiger (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly are you not listing the seeds on the Super Regionals? Do you not realize that the seeds carry over to the Super Regionals? And do you not realize that it isn't until the College World Series itself that only the Top 8 seeds get listed, not the Super Regionals. Please explain why you are listing it opposite of how the NCAA lists it, especially since that is the source. Bigddan11 (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]