Jump to content

User talk:Bender235

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.89.61.218 (talk) at 22:25, 24 February 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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!

Saul Perlmutter

I undid most of your edit to the Saul Perlmutter article. The information you added is private and we'd need a public source for it to have it in Wikipedia. If you have a source (that is not simply an echo of a past Wikipedia page) please re-make your edit and cite your source. Thanks —Quantling (talk | contribs) 14:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I found a public source here. I have restored your edits. Apologies —Quantling (talk | contribs) 14:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could've asked. ;-) --bender235 (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, … you're right. Now that I have learned my something new today, I'm free for the rest of the day!  ;-) —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.
That's seven. And counting. :-D --bender235 (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Underclass POY templates

I left a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_American_football#American_high_school_football_underclass_POY_templates. I see you created all of these templates and have not updated them. Also, no one agrees with me that we should create similar templates for basketball. Would you care to comment at Wikipedia_talk:BBALL#High_School_basketball_underclass_POY_templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you say Rivals 2013 or did you mean 2012? Also, did you have any thoughts on the basketball templates?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I said 2013. The class of 2013 just finished its junior season of high school football. As for the basketball templates: I'm not in favor of that. Actually, it might even be a good idea to delete some of the football templates. At least the ESPN templates. --bender235 (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Black v. United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White-collar (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) 11:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

F.Y.I., wp:APPENDIX does not prohibit navbox headings. For more on this topic, see Wikipedia:Related_information/answers#Generic_objections_and_responses. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss this here. --bender235 (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is our conversation over?
Well, I thought it was. Section title removed, done for my part. --bender235 (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, R is only the second step in BRD. So I was hoping that you would answer the question I posted. ("Which brings us to the other primary benefit of a navbox heading: Letting readers know in the table of contents that an article contains navbox information and making it easy for them to click to jump to that information. Again, not necessary, but helpful. Why not provide that help for our readers?") Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I already replied at the Luck talk page that I do not consider section titles for navboxes "helpful for our readers", whatsoever. --bender235 (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was not clear from your posting there: Do you reject the general proposition that headings provide an overview in the table of contents and allow readers to navigate through the text more easily? Or is there something about navboxes that make a heading unhelpful for them only? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is: section titles seperate sections of texts, because otherwise people would hardly know when one section of text ends and the next one starts. However, everyone can tell where the navboxes are, because they are navboxes. --bender235 (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my last posting on the Luck page I said "I certainly agree that a heading is not necessary to assist most readers to visually separate navboxes from external links." So I think you and I are in agreement with regard to that. Which still leaves unresolved the potential benefit of using headings to provide information in tables of contents. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I note that I also on the Luck pag that "the lack of a heading still leaves the conceptual problem of internal links in the external links section." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jump to navboxes

Do you reject the general proposition that headings provide an overview in the table of contents and allow readers to navigate through the text more easily? Or is there something about navboxes that makes linking to them in a table of contents unhelpful? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the number of people who want to jump from the WP:LEAD directly to the navboxes via ToC is pretty small. I willing to take the risk that among these people there are some who don't know the general direction of where to find navboxes if quickly needed. --bender235 (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Give notice of navboxes

Let us further agree that only small percentage of folks actually want to jump to the navbox "section" from the ToC. What is your opinion of the "overview" benefit (since some articles have navboxes and others don't, having a navbox listing in the ToC lets readers know up front that an article has navigation aids)? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I simply do not consider it useful. Nor do it like it aesthetically. I just don't like it. --bender235 (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully request that you provide a response that speaks to the issue of having a navbox listing in the table of contents. See WP:I just don't like it. If you honor this request then I authorize you to delete this posting. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of WP:JDLI, and since this is not a AfD discussion, it does not apply here. WP:CONSENSUS on the Luck article is not to add a navbox section title, period. --bender235 (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus "means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." Only two editors have expressed concern regarding the navbox heading on Luck. Eagle 24/7's concern was that the heading was prohibited by MOS. I responded to that concern and Eagle 24/7 did not reply to my response. Putting aside "I don't like it," your concern is that it is unhelpful. I am trying work through that with you. Would you please provide a specific response to "What is your opinion of the "overview" benefit (since some articles have navboxes and others don't, having a navbox listing in the ToC lets readers know up front that an article has navigation aids)?" Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one needs it. --bender235 (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To say that something is unnecessary is not to say it is unhelpful. Is it your position that having a navbox listing in the ToC does not let readers know that an article has navigation aids? Or are you saying that such information has no benefit to readers whatsoever? Or are you saying something else? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If readers are familar with how Wikipedia articles look like, they will know that navboxes are at the end of the article, or nowhere. If readers are not familar with Wikipedia articles, they won't know what navboxes are, anyway. So either way, giving them their own section title is useless, unnecessary, and unhelpful. Could you please let go now? --bender235 (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustration with the length of this conversation. I hope that you will understand my frustration with responses such as "Dude ... I just don't like it." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent your most recent response is a repeat of your earlier point that a heading is not required to distinguish navboxes themselves from the proceeding material then I can only repeat, for the third time: "I certainly agree that a heading is not necessary to assist most readers to visually separate navboxes from external links." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot argue with the proposition that putting a "Related information" heading in the ToC is a silly way to educate folks about the general concept of navboxes and where they appear in articles. My point is that, without a listing in the ToC, the readers of a specific article - including those familiar with Wikipedia - do not know whether that article has a navbox unless they migrate to the end of that article. So, I suggest, having a listing in the ToC is a benefit. While you may take the position that the benefit is minimal, would you agree that there is a benefit? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we go from here?

Shall I deduce from your silence that you agree there is a benefit (however minimal) but that you are uncomfortable conceding the point? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You shall deduce that I said all I wanted to say. I do not want Navbox section titles, period. But since I do not own Wikipedia, I'm not the one in charge to conclusively decide this. So please get off my back. --bender235 (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I "get off your back" you will continue to revert navbox headings because you don't like them and don't want them. Good solution for you (almost as if you did own Wikipedia). I suggest that a fairer solution would be to work through our disagreement with a reasoned discussion of the relative benefits and drawbacks of the proposed heading. However, I can't do that all by myself. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yes, I would likely revert it. Or somebody else, like User:Eagles247. There is just no consensus for that personal style preference of yours. --bender235 (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have previously discussed the invalidity of "I don't like it" as a reason to revert. As it turns out, "no consensus" is also invalid. And, so far, you refuse to discuss the merits and drawbacks of the proposed heading. So we are left with this: You will keep on reverting because you want to and you can, not because you should. I am sorry, but I still say that looks a lot like taking ownership. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, what you're doing looks a lot like WP:POINT. --bender235 (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I would welcome a separate discussion of the propriety of my behavior if you want to start a new thread. Meanwhile, I note that you are not contradicting my assessment of your behavior. Are you now taking the position that you are acting improperly, but that your behavior is justified by by what you are alleging is my improper conduct? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

You should get someone to fix the dictionary on that thing. The English Wikipedia no longer uses "Honshū" to refer to the island. Our article is at Honshu.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I leave a note at WP:AWB/T. Thanks for the information. --bender235 (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help with editing

I am not sure if you can help me. I am looking for a couple of people to help me complete User:Sportsfan5000/Adam Windsor - I have been advised by am administrator that I should try and find a couple of good people to colaborate on this article with me as it had been deleted before. I am not great with wikipedia so any help you can give me would be great. If you can't help me though, maybe you know someone that could? It just needs a bit of work on formatting and maybe a few citations, but from my perpective it looks just about ready to go. Let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsfan5000 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a wrestler's biography, please look here for help. --bender235 (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Adam Hock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iona College (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) 10:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance fraud

Hi, I've reverted this edit of yours. For some weird reason, the Bibliography section (which you renamed Further reading) contains <ref>...</ref>-style references, so the {{reflist}} must be after those. I can't work out why the article uses this style at all. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Carimi

Made some edits to Gabe Carimi User Epeefleche is really giving me a hard time. I see you had some disputes with him earlier about this page. Possible you can help a newer editor out? He is very defensive about this page for some reason. I even did what he wanted and tried to expand the page and now he's reverting my changes. Thanks. If not, thanks anyways!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bender235&oldid=478679460"