User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 29

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

→

America's Next Top Model, Cycle 11

Just curious why America's Next Top Model, Cycle 11 has the LGBT project tag? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I always search the page for "lesbian" or "gay" or "homosexual", but seem to forget "trans". My bad :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Isis Tsunami

On 15 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Isis Tsunami, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 06:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea! Thank you! -- Banjeboi 07:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Preparation

Do you have links to the AN, ANI, and 3RR threads started because of Harvey Milk? Can you link them here, please? Thanks.

will do. -- Banjeboi 18:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

A thread involving you was started at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Harvey Milk and the Peoples Temple. --Moni3 (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The gift that keeps on giving! -- Banjeboi 21:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:SFBA stuff for WP 1.0

Hey, I was wondering if you were going to help out with the WP 1.0 stuff. I want to help out the WProject, but I am currently strapped in the middle of a strange RfA, WikiProject Robotics as well as WikiProject Universities. Do you think you can help them out or even help out some of the articles in WP:UNI? Thanks a bunch! - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well the only two that interested me beyond ones that are pretty mainstream is Harvey Milk which except for one issue is almost FA and Raymond Burr which certainly could use cleaning up. My suggestion to all the projects is to keep the target dates in mind and target the list. Compare it to your core topics - anything obvious missing? Get it looking good and added. Then working on your list look for major problems first ("I would be embarrassed if this was on the DVD"), then look to addressing all clean-up and cite templates so they can be removed either by addressing the issue or removing content to talkpage. Next I would look to sweeping through them for images that should be added or need fair-use added. It also might be good to target articles that you are the only project listed as other projects are also doing similar work. Over at LGBT I think we have to address the inequalities of our various groups to ensure that bisexual, transgender and intersex topics aren't fully ignored. It happens so we should try to catch things before the gift season is upon us! -- Banjeboi 00:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Protocol

While you did post "Comment. User notified of this thread.[8] -- Banjeboi 20:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)" in regard to User:Mosedschurte, it is highly improper to drag someone else into your ongoing battle to scrub all mention of Harvey Milk from any connection to Peoples Temple and then fail to notify them: I've had little sway in reasoning with the two editors there, Mosedschurte and to a much lesser extent Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs). I haven't been involved with that article since it was moved on August 6, and it's inappropriate to characterize my involvement with this based on my response to a request for comments from the Milk article (all of which are now archived from the Milk talk page) and disengenuous to include me in whatever ongoing dispute you have going with Mosedschurte. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if you felt this was out of line. On the Political alliances of Peoples Temple, what the NPOV board post was regarding, you supported Mosedschurte in almost every way on these matters through that talkpage, thus you were defending that content as written at that time. However it didn't seem like you were editing the actual article, which needs to be re-written and scrubbed of OR, POV and faulty sourcing. The general impression it gives is that those listed were responsible for this tragedy - I was only familiar with Milk's involvement but even that was blatantly POV and rested on poorly sourced items in some cases. My concern, as yet, is not with Mosedschurte as an {{spa}} but in their disregard for policies which you supported while dismissing concerns for NPOV, OR and RS. At the time that may have seemed like a good call but Mosedschurte has continually edit-warred to re-insert disputed content - against policy - into the Harvey Milk article, which is being addressed as well. Having had to spend way too much time on this disruption and seeing their work and interpretation - the cherry-picking of statements rather than accurately summarizing, for instance, - makes me question teh entire Political alliances of Peoples Temple article. As has now been pointed out several times no one has ever suggested that no mention should exist. I myself inserted NPOV and RS content when Mosedschurte refused to follow policies on this. When Moni3 rewrote it doing a comprehensive research into what sources state Mosedschurte again edit-warred to introduce scandalizing material - all of which is problematic as written and all of which still remains in larger form in the Political alliances of Peoples Temple. -- Banjeboi 19:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, this was in regard to your AN/I posting. And please stop lumping me in a count of single purpose accounts. I am not one and your postings are quite ambiguous as to whom you are accusing of SPA. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I did the ANI posting after the above occurred but per your concern have amending to clearly stated that you are not considered an SPA. Anyone involved in this should be quite alarmed by any RFC that 2/3rds of those who weigh in are SPA's, that Mosedschurte re-posts those quotes in several forums to justify violating policies is also disquieting. There has never been an effort to diminish this information but to correctly weight it according to reliable sources which is policy. In hindsight, ironically I was the only one to add RS and NPOV content regarding Jones/Peoples Temple because Mosedschurte was either incapable or refused to do so. When Moni3 rewrote it she did the same yet in both instances Mosedschurte just had to re-insert an entire section above and beyond what was already there. -- Banjeboi 02:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Topic Ban appeal

If we don't get through here, I don't know what to do. Please see this link, as the RfAR failed. I should note, the arbitrators evaded my questions. They weren't answered. That is why I am appealing.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 06:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added a comment there. This is all disquieting and I very much appreciate your looking into this. -- Banjeboi 10:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Even if this fails, I will try to ArbCom it again after awhile, as the original arbitrators never answered my questions, like how it was to benefit the wikipedia for the ban to be indefinite, so I am appealing.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 10:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there does seem to be a logic gap. I would feel the same even if it weren't me - I would think gee - there must be something else going on I'm missing here nut really there doesn't seem to be - maybe it's some pride or precedent issue, neither of which would seem acceptable. Hopefully Jimbo will see his way through this. -- Banjeboi 11:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:68.230.192.148

I left a note in which you mentioned on User talk:68.230.192.148. Boston (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. I've added them a kindly note as well so at least they have a chance to either produce a source and hopefully see where the vandalism aspects come into play. -- Banjeboi 01:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

George Takei

It's fine to open discussion regarding the format of a website link in the infobox, but until it is determined, the format currently being used should be followed. If it is determined to use a different format, then it can be changed. I see no reason to circumvent current protocol in anticipation of a change. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The only reason it is in that protocol is that someone changed the infobox, whether there was any discussion or not I find it quite distasteful to impose one's preference as such. i doubt i will get it overturned quickly but will fix it when it happens. -- Banjeboi 04:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Many Thanks (Re: Amanda Lapore) & Marilyn Agency question

Dear Benjiboi,

I've just seen your help on my "first battle" for about Amanda Lepore's picture credit. I was first under my real name login "Gabriel Moginot", but mister Cumulus Clouds have set a war against me ! Anyway, i have a new profile now, but i can't find how to ask for stopping blocking my IP address, do you know how to do ?

Currently, i mostly work with the FR wikipedia, but i would like to improve the EN one to ! So i shared my work and pictures with the FR one, put some pictures into article, improve article on fashion with the help of other members, etc. But, already on the FR wikipedia, i had to explain (and fight) to have the right of showing the photo source (which is in fact my name). I don't consider that as a self promotion, i consider picture credit as an integrated useful information, and in any kind of media credits are clearly displayed (i never call a magazine to ask "who made the picture ?").

Anyway, i have to tell that a big mistake was made, Cumulus Clouds asked for a deletion of Marilyn Agency article, Marilyn is one of the most important model agency, i am not the author of the page, it was already on Wikipedia (i've just add a picture of a model from this agency). But this page is deleted now, can we ask for get it back ? Or am i supposed to create it to get it back ?

Thank you for your help. All the best. Gabriel. --Vogue Magazine - Style com (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, technically we should not be putting a photo credit on an image like "photo by" or "credit:______"; the Amanda Lapore image, I feel is fine although it would be better if there was an article about the photographer - it has to be written, of course, with a neutral point of view and should assert notability. If they haven't won some notable photography awards then the article would rely upon numerous magazine and newspaper articles written about them.

Similar issues with the Marilyn Agency, it has to be notable and verifiable by reliable sources. I can't find any trace of the article itself so I'm unsure why it was deleted.

Finally if you are the photographer you should check out our conflict of interest policies - these don't prohibit as much as discourage people writing about themselves, their friends, their company, etc. You can still do this but you must be careful to present content in a neutral way and rely on reliable sources. I feel some of the treatment on these issues was too harsh and some was warranted, vandalism, especially persistent cases, drain energy from the community. It's good to be bold but it's also helpful to step back and learn from mistakes if all your work is being removed. I'm happy to offer advice if you want to work on restoring some content that was deleted. -- Banjeboi 20:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

CadenS, usage of gender-neutral pronouns

Hi Benji, this is just a friendly request. As we have seen, Caden seems to take great offense to being called "them/they/their". Though you probably meant no offense, and you and I may not understand Caden's objection, I think it would be best to avoid any further hurt feelings, and use "him/he/his" from now on. If you have time, it may also be helpful to change your recent usage of "them/they/their" to "him/he/his". This would help reduce the tensions all around, I think. -kotra (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm a bit stunned at the outrage over this issue - actually, almost any issue - but I will state the same thing I've shared with other editors who have had issues with gender neutral language in articles and when being addressed or referred to as a user here. It's not terribly realistic that other editors will oblige or even remember that a particular user prefers a specific gender pronoun. In almost every case, but this one, the issue is using he or she when they prefer the opposite or something else. I might remember to use just he, him, his for CadenS but it likely would be a first as I'm pretty bad about about such a thing so default to gender-neutral language in almost all cases to avoid presuming someone's gender or outing them if that is an aspect they prefer to keep private for whatever reasons. No offense was intended, and with very few exceptions of users I have a much different relationship with, I generally always avoid implying gender. Part of this speaks to commenting on the content not the contributor - in this case it's referring to the conduct rather than CadenS personally. If you still think I should amend my recent posts I will do so, however absolutely no offense was intended and if I slip up again I likely would respond in a similar fashion. Past users have been told - not by myself - to "get over it" which I think is blunt, and perhaps harsh, but might apply here. -- Banjeboi 23:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

By they way, I removed CadenS post on your talk page because it was not good. In case you didn't know (but I'm sure you do), your are allowed to remove comments from your talk page, even legitimate warnings etc. As an update, there seem's to be an agreement coming together that Caden will stay away from sexuality articles. He, along with Kotra and myself seem to think it's for the best. There are a few admins that seem prepared to make it an enforced thing, but maybe some of the key players (yourself included), including Caden himself, can come to some sort of an informal restrictive time period. That might be better all round than having the banhammers take control. I think Caden is very open to a voluntary agreement. Thoughts? — Realist² 00:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(response to Benjiboi) I would appreciate your making an exception to your rule for CadenS. In this case, the avoided hostility outweighs the minor inconvenience, I think. I certainly will defend you if anyone accuses you of commenting on the contributor rather than the content. It shouldn't come to that, though. -kotra (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Realist2, I did notice that and appreciate it. I basically needed to walk away after that so I was happy someone else addressed it. I'm unsure if any sort of ban is needed here as the issues are being addressed. I'm also concerned that this flared up (4?) months later so would suggest more of a last warning than a time limit although that may already be implied. I would prefer he simply avoided the heat in all editing and perhaps a limit to one revert per article per day when the issue is sexuality - if that is the issue, and apply a time limit on that with an exception concerning reverting vandalism. Kotra, I will try but will hardly guarantee as I just had to switch the sentence preceeding this one. More than likely I will simply forget, but if I do remember will try. -- Banjeboi 01:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for making an effort. -kotra (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Archiving Jimbo's page

You should just let the bot archive it, and not worry about it too much. Jimbo has said he'll look into, though it might take a couple of weeks. Wait another week or so, and you can always ask if he's made process and point him toward the archive. Why you would want to edit articles on someone as ^{any adjective I would use here would have to be redacted per WP:BLP} as Matt Sanchez is beyond me, but there ya go. Don't stress and don't be impatient. He'll get back to you. A ni Mate 02:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback - a bit more constructive than just reverting. I have precious little interest in that article or the subject therein, but simply wish to clear my name. I would feel the same about any article, and my hunch is almost any user treated as I was. Looking from the outside in, one almost has to assume there is something else going on - it's implied I intent to do bad stuff there but little evidence to support this. There is no need to permanently topic ban any user until they have proven beyond AGF that they intend to disrupt/vandalize an article. I doubt that could be said of my conduct there or on almost any article. -- Banjeboi 08:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Chris Crocker

Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I will look into it. -- Banjeboi 18:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Jack Chick

Well, I can't say that was unexpected... but I really was not making it up: he really did publish a tract which refuted the Godless notion of "gluons" and preached the truth of, um, intelligent nucleonics. Would you place that fact in one of the subarticles, perhaps? (If not, well, that's reasonable: the only remotely significant mention of it I found is a post from Pharyngula.) 71.248.115.187 (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You may have answered your own question. If there isn't much significant mention of it there may be no need to mention it. The Jack Chick article is a WP:BLP which has tighter restrictions - in essence we don't need to add information lkely seen as negative when it's unneeded. The bit you want to add may have a home on the Chick tracts article. You may want to first post you reference on the talk page and ask if and where this could be included. -- Banjeboi 18:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Public sex

I have re-commented out the image.

Please do not reinstate until someone at OTRS-permissions confirms we have received the subjects consent (or a scan of a release form by the photographer, or equivalent), on showing an identifiable person, naked, with a caption claiming that they are "waiting (or cruising) for sex".

Thanks.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've asked the photographer for ideas on how to handle this. I disagree that the man in the image is readily identifiable but I think a reasonable viewing of the image - a naked man in the regular cruising area - does support the caption "In the infamous 'meatrack' on Fire Island Pines, men regularly cruise for public sex." What I'm sensing, however, is that no caption will satisfy your concern until you have a OTRS form of some sort so I'll see if the photographer is up for this. Seems unneeded to me but if our restrictions are as such then so be it. -- Banjeboi 19:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

PUI retag (re: Image:JUMP logo.jpg )

A notice for you - this is not the point of PUI. Switching the license whilst a PUI is in case causes problems, please do not do this. Asenine 15:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The article it's attached to is likely to be deleted anyway so I won't quibble - whether a newbie is familiar with our image policies or not we do use logos all the time so I felt those licenses were fine. -- Banjeboi 22:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Severed

Sorry that I removed the "rescue" tag prematurely. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. -- Banjeboi 22:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey B

When did you change your signature to read "Banje"? What's it mean? --David Shankbone 18:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure when I changed it - I seem to tweak it every so often. It refers to banjee which has a multitude of spellings. -- Banjeboi 22:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Jan Morris

In an edit summary, you mention "political correctness"; what's the politically correct language you object to? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The idea that wikipedia should be politically correct and never mention the former name of someone who is transgender or transitioned. -- Banjeboi 22:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Both Crimsone and myself have stated arguments grounded in policy, not in "political correctness" for why it is inappropriate to give undue weight to a trans person's former name. To accuse either of us of being grounded in "political correctness" denies the good faith in which I am acting (and in which I believe Crimsone is acting). I understand your arguments and am not accusing you of manipulating policy to advance your political views about trans people, whatever those might be. SparsityProblem (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I apologize for not swimming through the whole talkpage before simply dealing with cleaning up the lede again. If we need to suss out policy to clarify this issue then so be it. -- Banjeboi 00:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Thanks for the invite. My plate's is rather full though so I'll have to hold off for now. -- Banjeboi 23:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)