User talk:Bender235

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!

See my archive for everything pre-2008.

Terrelle Pryor

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Terrelle Pryor, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

June Jones

Despite your edits to the June Jones article, he is still the current head coach at the University of Hawaii. Perhaps the discussion page on the article could be used until an official announcement has been made. —C A Morris (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

NCAA Division I football season or College football season

In answer to your question, the 1976 article is mainly about the progress of the 1976 season in Division I, though there's also a section about the results of the Division II and III playoffs and the NAIA playoffs, with room for anyone to add on. Thus, it really is about that particular year in college football. Starting with 1978, there are articles about Division I-A and Division I-AA seasons, and it's conceivable (but not likely) that someone will do a spinoff article about the Division II season of 31 years ago. Until then, "19__ college football season" is a good way to incorporate all the information. Mandsford (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Terrelle Pryor

A tag has been placed on Terrelle Pryor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DJBullfish (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Bob Stoops

Please refrain from reverting changes concerning U.S. College Football coaches until you have fully researched the changes. Bob Stoops has become known as Blown OUt Bob amongst students of rival schools, specifically the University of Texas and Oklahoma State University. This has been verified by multiple media sources. Unfavorable press is legitimate as an entry in this style of article. It is very similar to the section on Mack Brown being known as "Coach February" Thank you for your diligence however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgwilliams (talk • contribs)

Timbaland

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk • contribs)

Very funny. --Bender235 (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop it, you two. Keep discussion to the talk page and remain civil or you'll both end up blocked. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect XHTML Tag

Thanks I will fix that.--Kumioko (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Whitney Lewis

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Whitney Lewis, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

An opinion please

Hi. I notice you are a vastly experienced editor here at Wikipedia, and I was wondering if you could take a quick look at User:Refsworldlee/Oliver Golding, and let me know whether it would pass being introduced into mainspace, on grounds of notability (the subject may have given up acting, at least for now, and does not yet play tennis to the very highest standard, being a minor) or any other criteria you think may fit. This would be appreciated. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I pretty sure this article is ready to being introduced into mainspace. ––Bender235 (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Bender, I was thinking today about creating Darrell Scott but I see that you beat me to it. It is a very nice article. I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, especially those that touch on UT football, of course! I want to thank you for your hard work by presenting you with this barnstar:

		The College football Barnstar
		Thank you, Bender 235, for your hard work on college-football related articles, such as Darrell Scott. Johntex\talk 04:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that you made a small improvement to 2005 Texas Longhorn football team recently. I thank you for that also. Even though it is one of our Featured Articles it is nice to see that some improvements are still being made. Since you have great language skills in German, I wonder if you would be interested in translating onto the German Wikipedia? I think it would be great to have an article there. Naturally, it would not necessarily need to be as detailed, but if we could get the article to be FA quality on two different Wikipedias that would be amazing. Johntex\^talk 04:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about that, too, but besides it's a whole lot of work, it's also difficult to do. A couple of words and phrases can't be translated into German, such as "he rushed for 4,000 yards" because there is no word for "rush" in German. It's the same "he recovered a fumble" and a couple of others. I already tried to translate the Vince Young article into German, but I gave up. ––Bender235 (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the German Vince Young. I don't read any German but I think it is good to have even a basic article like that. Short articles are valuable too! Thanks again for your work. Johntex\^talk 19:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Rugby edits

While your edits for UK based rugby players are obviously well-intentioned the weight should be in stones and pounds first rather than kilograms.Londo06 14:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? The official websites of their clubs also have kilograms first, see [1] for example. ––Bender235 (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The convention is that for the country the most commonly used term would be used. ie if a Queensland Reds player was detailed on their website in m, he would still be detailed in cm as that's what it would be on the Wallabies page. The same goes if a Scot moves to a French side, it would be the country that is key.Londo06 14:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I didn't know that. I'll keep that in mind. --Bender235 (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football February 2008 Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Singlewingformation vs5.gif‎

Never having worked with vector graphics (SVG), my new uploaded images do to seem to work. You asked me to change [Image:Singlewingformation vs5.gif‎] to another format. Apparently, none of my graphics programs will open .svg. —Preceding [Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned] comment added by Bill Spencer5 (talk Bill Spencer talk) 13:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)• contribs) 13:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I didn't ask you in particular. The {{SVG}} template just labels graphics in general, that could be replaced with SVG versions. --Bender235 (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. I will try to find appropriate imaging software. Bill Spencer (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Walkersville High School

I see that you rated Walkersville High School as low importance and categorized it as an article with no info box. Does the info box that it contains not qualify as an info box or were you mistaken? And out of curiosity, what makes a high school low importance according to some editors and medium to others? I used the same style and template with every high school page that I have created, yet they are never consistantly rated. Just curious. I would appreciate your feedback. Wallstreethotrod (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was in kind of a hurry when I added the Template:WPSchools and thus forgot to add the infobox=no parameter. The infobox the article currently has is alright.

The importance rating is subjective. I don't really know where to separate between medium- and low-importance schools. In my mind the rating depends on how "well-known" a school is. Schools like Mater Dei (CA), Oak Hill (VA), Cardinal Mooney (OH), Highland Park (TX) are qualified for "mid" or even "high" importance because of their well-known athletic programs, for example. I wasn't really sure whether Walkersville has any well-known program, so I gave it a "low" importance rating. But you are free to change it. --Bender235 (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football March 2008 Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Pryor

When will this kid commit already, so we can have an end to this stupid vandalism? Grsz 11 14:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He should've committed on Signing Day. --Bender235 (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"I hate attention." What a joke! Grsz 11 16:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha, what a fool...started a fight after a game; could be suspended; i really hope so. [2]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Melaniebernier.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Melaniebernier.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the copyright holder of that image, so I don't know exactly what to do. --Bender235 (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Bender235! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be. Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany | watch Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board | watch

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Amobi Okoye

I noticed the recent edit you made to Amobi Okoye, but could not find anything in the NY Times article you referenced denying that he had been offered a Harvard scholarship. The original reference (9th paragraph) is at odds with your edit summary. Have I missed something? Please clarify when you get a chance. Thanks! —Travis^talk 01:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually doubt that Houston Chronicle article, because there is no other newspaper verifying Okoye's Harvard offer. Not a single one. At least I couldn't find one. I only found Okoye's statements that his father wanted him to go to Harvard and that he was admitted. But no one mentions an academic scholarship besides the Houston Chronicle. --Bender235 (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Compromise, see the article. --Bender235 (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you really can’t find anything else to back up the Chronicle story, feel free to change the article back to your earlier wording. (It certainly wouldn’t be the first time the Chronicle got something wrong.) I also haven’t seen any other reference to a scholarship from Harvard. —Travis^talk 13:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And, of course, all of the Alabama newspapers want me to pay $2.95 per article :/ —Travis^talk 14:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

Can I ask why you did this without an edit summary and reason? I'm a rather involved editor in this project, and I usually consider it rude for a real editor like yourself (as opposed to a troll) to not at least inform an experienced editor like myself why my edit was summarily reverted? Doesn't happen to me except usually by nutjobs, and you don't appear to be one!!!! Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I was involved in that article, too. I actually made that example list. If you look at that list, you might recognize that there are always links to the volcanoes despite there are specific articles on the eruptions. That's why I reverted it. --Bender235 (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ellipsis

The rules at Wikipedia:Did you know#The hook specify: "* Entries should start with an ellipsis of three full stops (not the ellipsis character …), and end with a question mark." So if you want to replace the dot dot dot with an ellipsis character at the Template talk:Did you know#Suggestions instructions, then you should remove the rule to allow either form of an ellipsis. If not, we could agree to revert your edit.

As it is, I edit ellipsis characters in hooks to change them to dot dot dot, to conform to the rule. If the suggested example tells newbies to do it "wrong", that is, wrong from the rule's point of view, then that "error" may occur more often. I don't know of a good reason for the rule, as either form of the ellipsis looks the same to me, except on the edit page. But maybe it looks different on someone else's system, so I have been making them consistently dot dot dot, even before someone else added the dot dot dot rule.

I hope you didn't intend for everyone to have to use the ellipsis character for all hooks. Newbies can add three dots by imitating existing hooks, but an ellipsis character requires them to see &#x2026 in edit mode, and grasp what it means. One of us would have a full-time job changing dot dot dots to an ellipsis character. Art LaPella (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm changing it back. Art LaPella (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. --Bender235 (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

An Invite to join Saskatchewan WikiProject

Hi, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the Saskatchewan WikiProject! The Saskatchewan WikiProject is a fairly new WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories, and Wikiprojects, to do with anything Saskatchewan.

As you have shown an interest in Don Ettinger - Steve Clarkson we thought you might like to take an interest in this growing WikiProject.

Please assist with any ongoing requests

You might like to take an extra interest in our To Do list

Another project dedicated to Saskatchewan is the Saskatchewan Roads and Highways Wikiproject

Also, a descendant project for Saskatchewan is the WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods

We look forward to welcoming you to the project! SriMesh | talk 22:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football April 2008 Newsletter

The April 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Si cover 1963 10 21.jpg

Thanks for uploading Si cover 1963 10 21.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I thought it was okay to upload magazine covers for encyclopedic purposes. --Bender235 (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wealthy historical figures

I noticed you edited the main page of the annual lists of Wealthy historical figures and placed two members from the Fugger family. I appreciate your contribution to the list, however, the list remains as it is until the next one(which is set to come out on March 2009). For that reason, I have to remove the members from the list. However, you can send in more infomation as to who these people are and where their wealth came from the citie the sources and then they could be put on the next 2009 list. Thanks. Jughead.z(1) (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Geology of Mars

Hi, Bender. I saw your edits to Geology of Mars, but I was puzzled what they were intended to achieve. Collapsing templates like that just makes the source harder to maintain and it wastes your time. I've left your changes in place, but please reconsider whether you really want them. Also, as I'm regularly reminded, edit summaries are your friend. Cheers,LeadSongDog (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually I didn't intent to collapse the template data. I just wanted to update it. So I copied the template from its documentary page, where it happens to be collapsed. --Bender235 (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football May 2008 Newsletter

The May 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

LeBron James

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in LeBron James. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Zodiiak (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in LeBron James, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Thank you. Zodiiak (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ladies, gentlemen, and other Wikipedians of good cheer: Might I suggest some informal mediation or a third opinion here? -- JeffBillman (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tiptoety ^talk 17:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the one who reverted three times. That was User:Zodiiak. --Bender235 (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that the three revert rule clearly states that editors may make three reverts and can only be blocked on their fourth revert. I am simply leaving you a message to infrom you that edit warring can lead to a block of both parties involved. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 17:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, thats a mis-statement of the rules. You almost undoubtedly *will* be blocked for 4R in 24h. But there is no entitlement to 3R; you can be blocked for edit warring for less. Meantime, please also note the convention of marking your reverts with "rv" or somesuch; not doing so can look underhand William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Bender! I've noticed you were listed in a mediation cabal case for LeBron James. I've adopted the case and come up with a few questions that I'd like to hear your answers to. If you could reply to them whenever you can, I'd very much appreciate it! Thank you! Kntrabssi (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bender! Firstly, I apologize for being gone for so long. I didn't receive a notification on my talk page that you guys had responded so I sort of drifted off I guess! Anyway, I've offered a compromise at the page. Take a look! Kntrabssi (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Josh Shipp doesn't come last alphabetically

Try actually reading the edit before undo-ing it. This list is supposed to be someone alphabetical. (That means its in the order of the alphabet) Josh Shipp does not come after Russell Westbrook. At least not in our alphabet. I'm moving Josh Shipp back to his rightful place in the alphabetized order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.4.159.21 (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Prairie View A&M University Coaches Nav template

I've done a lot of work lately on the Prairie View A&M coaches, and then noticed that you have a Template:PVAMUPanthersCoach already in place. Sorry I missed it! I re-directed Billy Nicks to a page that several of us already developed, but I'd like to delete the template you made because there's another that's more complete. Sorry I didn't realize you had work in progress, I would have built on that.

WOuld you mind going to that template and proposing it for speedy delete? Also, please check over our work and see if anything we missed needs merged/corrected/etc.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, since my template is obsolete, go ahead and propose a speedy delete. I am fine with that. --Bender235 (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football June 2008 Newsletter

The June 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

redundancy can be useful. add doi, don't delete url

Please do not delete URLs when you add DOIs. The redundancy is useful in this case. You will note that both fields exist in the template. One does not make the other pointless. Please do not force others to access information in a way that you dictate. Choice is good. Cheers. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

See Template talk:Cite journal#DOI and URL? —Bender235 (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Where someone said "It's intuitively clear what clicking on a hypertext title means. Most readers will not know what a DOI is (I work for a high tech company, and this is my experience anyway. Random readers are probably even less likely to know.) Furthermore, the doi "looks" random, and users are taught to be wary about clicking on random looking links (these are often phishing or spam tracking links)." I agree with that. Please do not delete URLs. I'm not asking you to go out of your way and add them. I'm not asking you to not add DOIs. Just please please do not delete URLs just because you are adding a DOI. Thank you. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane article moves

Hi there. I saw you moved several hurricane articles, for example, 1945 Southeast Florida hurricane, to a name with a capital "H". Per the Manual of Style, this is not correct. If you feel an article should be named differently, you might want to leave a note on WT:WPTC. Cheers! Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lebron James

Hey there, in regards with your reference to the article i want to tell you that i didn't actually mean to readd the nonsense. I thought the last edit was the one that vandalized the page. Really sorry. Sergiogr (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced

It's not nonsense at all; it's our most fundamental policy, non-negotiable and not fulfilled by implication that the source is is the case itself. If you confirm that you used the case itself for the information, I'll do it for you, though you'll still need a reference for the statement that the case is a "landmark".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually read the Law journal article by Blakey? ––Bender235 (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No and reading it is irrelevant. If it says the case is a landmark case then cite it as a source. A further reading section serves to point people to...further reading. It does not act as a reference for the material because you are not citing it as a reference. If you tell me that it says it is a landmark case (not necessarily in those words), I'll reference that for you as well. Let me make this explicit. Tell me what information in this article comes from what sources, and I'll do the heavy lifting.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Allen Wilson (American football)

Please add references to Allen Wilson (American football). It's especially important that living people's articles be properly referenced. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. —Bender235 (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: PNG to SVG

Regarding your edit summary [3]:

you might prefer to read Wikipedia:Image use policy before making that type of stupid revert again

You may possible prefer to read this long discussion on talk[4], and read WP:CIVIL before doing a change that now has been reverted 4 times (for you alone) [5][6][7][8]. (Note that the very first revert - pointed the discussion out for you).
May i suggest that you either convert the existing PNG to SVG, create a better SVG, ask the original contributer to make one, leave the PNG alone or try to get consensus for the change on Talk? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Why should I suggest to convert the exisiting PNG to SVG? It's already been done. Compare those to graphics. I can't see any difference, besides the colors. So what is wrong with that SVG version? ––Bender235 (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bill Blankenship

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bill Blankenship, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Blankenship. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Physical oceanography

Thanks for cleaning up the references. Crowsnest (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Inflation vs normalization

To give the cost of an event in present year dollars, you need to inflate the cost of the event at the time. If a storm caused $100 million in 1950, that is about $900 million in 2008 USD - irrespective of what happened to the area afterwards.

Consider the following two extreme events:

1. A storm, such as the Indianola Hurricane of 1886 completely destroys a city which is then not rebuilt.
2. An earthquake identical to the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, except that it occured 500,000 years ago.

The first will have an enormous cost, but a 2005 wealth normalization would give an insignificant value - as the population is non-existent. The second is even more extreme: As its before humanity was there, the cost is obviously 0. However, by definition (the calculation Pielke used would break down), a wealth normalization would give an identical figure to that of the 1906 earthquake - about $120 billion (2006).

Which of my hypothetical events has a higher cost, the storm that permanently destroyed a city, or the earthquake that hit an uninabited area? If you looked at wealth normalized figures the earthquake would be vastly more damaging, which is absurd. This is because wealth normalization attempts to say what the event would do IF it happened today, it is not the value of the damage caused in present year prices. That is what an inflation adjustment is for. Wealth normalization is a useful figure to know, but it is NOT the cost of an event.--CycloneAlley (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You are making absurd comparisons. The whole wealth normalization thing is just a better way to compare the damage of early 20th century and present day storms. Even the WMO says "recent increase in societal impact from tropical cyclones has largely been caused by rising concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal regions." —Bender235 (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was taking it to extremes. Yes, wealth normalization is a better metric. However, wealth normalization is not now, has not been and never will be "cost" - do not ever conflate the two terms!--CycloneAlley (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Fact is that inflation adjustment is just the same, just not as precise as wealth normalization. ––Bender235 (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The cost of an event is related to the damage caused not the damage potential. If a hurricane destroys one house on a sparsely populated coast its inappropriate to say the value of the damage caused is the value of the town that developed there after the event. Hurricane Katrina is the most costly storm in US history, that fact the Miami hurricane would do more damage today doesn't mean it was actually more costly. $100 in 1950 is equivalent to $900 in 2008, so saying something did $100 damage in 1950 is equivalent to saying it did $900 (2008 USD). It is not equivalent to saying it did $5000 (2008 USD) - even if that is what wealth normalization would indicate.--CycloneAlley (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually using the numbers I just used to explain the semantic difference:

1. The event caused $100 worth of damage in 1950
2. That damage is worth $900 in 2008
3. If the event occured again today it would cause $5000 in damage

To call the $5000 figure more accurate, when talking about the damage caused by the event is incorrect; but the inflated $900 reflects what the damage caused would be worth today. The $5000 is more useful when discussing potential for damage. Therefore, the inflated figures are better for the articles on the storms (as they report what the storm actually did), whilst normalized figures are more useful for broader discussion - such as that in effects of global warming.--CycloneAlley (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football July 2008 Newsletter

The July 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but what particular article or edit do you mean? ––Bender235 (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 11 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Farrar (scientist), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

In recognition of your efforts on Wikipedia and for your large number of helpful edits to United States Supreme Court case law articles, I, Cdogsimmons, award you the Society Barnstar.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. ––Bender235 (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Eisentrager

Stop with the supercilious meddling with Eisentrager which you incorrectly misspell as "Eisenträger." NO case book spells it the German way. This is an American case, with American spelling which is consistent across the board. You don't change the spelling just because you think it looks wrong from your German perspective. Many immigration cases in American law often misspell foreign names. You don't "change" it to the "right" spelling just because you think or know it's the "right" spelling. It's standard practice to let the Anglicization of the name stand so as not to cause further confusion later. The official version is Eisentrager -- NOT Eisenträger, and that's that.

Your overzealous "correction" of German names in American case law is wrongheaded, pernicious, and unhelpful. 220.255.114.249 (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I not sure whether I violated any convention with that. I started a discussion on the SCOTUS project talk page. ––Bender235 (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. 220.255.112.52 (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Helvering v. Davis

A tag has been placed on Helvering v. Davis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.
Y ELEMENT ( ¶ ) 15:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)