User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 16

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 15 |

Archive 16

| Archive 17 →

Sanchez's escort history

SatyrTN is trying to archive the section on the Talk page, though it hasn't been resolved. As SatyrTN also has a campaign going proclaiming that Sanchez was never an escort -- even though Sanchez clearly admitted having been one -- I don't think SatyrTN is archiving in good faith, and merely wants the section "blanked." You've been pretty judicious in this matter, so I welcome your input on whether you think the escort section should be archived just yet. --Eleemosynary (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I find that highly problematic, I welcome resolving the issue by introducing the similar texts that have been proposed numerous times rather than conveniently banishing the material from the very active page. Benji boi 00:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're allowed to "banish material from the very active talk page" whenever you want, but I can't? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What material did I banish? There seemed to be agreement on the section I labeled "resolved" (00:28, 1 March 2008) two days ago. The other section I quickly archived was an uncontroversial grammar fix and restoring a ref that you did. Are you suggesting that either of these topics is seen as needing further discussion and resolution? If so I'm happy to re-open either or both. Benji boi 01:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't want to bring those back. My point is that you have and do archive material less than a day old, labeled as "no evidence to indicate", but when I try to archive a BLP violation that's over a month old because there is no evidence to indicate it's true, you cry foul. Just pointing out what looks like a different set of standards for material you agree with vs material you don't. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That section was started by me and I correctly felt it was resolved for the reason I started the thread, that indeed it was considered resolved that the image should be considered stable and free. I acted on the consensus and took the image to the image lab to get a headshot for the article. Are you suggesting I acted in any way to stifle dialog or against consensus? There is plenty of evidence that Sanchez is (or at least was) a gay escort and prostitute, including his own statements, and no consensus as how to deal with that controversial material as of yet. Benji boi 02:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The escort thread has been disregarded for over a month. The two youtube threads don't have anything to do with escorting and both have been disregarded for a month. As I said - it looks like a different set of standards for material you agree with vs material you don't.

And I've laid out the challenge to find reliably sourced material that says Sanchez was an escort, which hasn't come forth in several months. Why does potentially BLP-violating discussion need to sit on the talk page? If or when reliably sourced material is found, we'll need to start discussion. Until then, it's a) taking up huge amounts of room, b) potentially BLP violating, and c) not helping the article in any way. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the issue here is again who sees the issues in terms of BLP and who sees it in terms of RS? I don't have a BLP concern because I think the evidence of truth is very substantial, but recognise that RS must be satisfied for the relevant discussion to be added to the article. Perhaps others agree? Jay*Jay (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent. I think that's a reasonably fair assessment Jay*Jay. There seems to be disagreement on RS being met for the content to be added to the article, as of yet.
And SatyrTN, please consider using {{stale}} if you really think a thread is indeed stale. Frankly I reserve that for threads that are so old they've lost relevance which wouldn't apply to any of the threads you tagged as resolved. Most every issue with Sanchez is simply controversial at this point and I will continue to seek to add sourced content despite a seemingly concerted effort to remove items not laudatory of him. Benji boi 03:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still seeing a different set of standards. I have to wait "until they're so old they've lost relevance", which evidently is more than a month and a half and tag it as "stale". But you get to tag "resolved" in under a day and whisk things away to the archive. As I've pointed out several times in this discussion, if you get new sources about the escorting, they'll have to be discussed - that's fine. Who says the old thread has to stay until then, though? It's huge, it's BLP, and it's not helping the current discussions. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I certainly disagree. I've worked hard to clean-up the entire talk page and the various archives so have tried to be careful in archiving anything before its due. Is there something I've tagged on the Sanchez talk and archived that wasn't resolved? If so maybe we should investigate it. I agree it's nice to keep the talk page shorter but that's hardly a reason to archive a thread that's quite clearly important to the subject of the article and considered highly contentious, and others seem to agree with my assessment.

As Sanchez is pretty much a non-name and discredited right-wing blogger at this point I rather doubt we'll be seeing much more than the below-the-radar treatment he was getting prior to his national exposure as a gay pornstar and escort in light of Coulter's "faggot" remark. So we should probably work with what we have rather than simply dismissing it all as old and await some new source to restate what has been said already. And I think it all informs the current article as we have a long track record of him trying to mitigate anything seen as morally questionable on his part and several editors seem to want to lean not on verifiability or truth but instead upon Sanchez's wishes. I find all of this dubious at best. Benji boi 04:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your question

Hey Benji, the other day you asked a question at WT:LGBT about the quotes that Leah's requesting. I just saw your question and replied there. Basically, I think she wants quotes from Robison and Maguire where they have spoken publicly in support of the LGBT community. Aleta (Sing) 23:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems odd but OK, I'll look and see what I can dig up. Benji boi 00:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

I finally saw it today.. wikilinks in the LGBT portal quotes do work so wikilink your lil heart away sunshine! lol :] - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 08:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yea!, This would actually be a nice project to spend time on. Benji boi 00:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They, wikilinks, also work in LGBT portal random picture. ;] - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, Oi; another worthwhile project I've neglected. Benji boi 22:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered by SatyrBot around 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC) SatyrBot (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Histmerge request query

At Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen#New rewuests, you wrote: "San Diego-Tijuana metropolitan area This looks like a basic cut and paste but the editor is unlikely to see any of my involvement as welcome so would appreciate someone else looking at this. It may be quite simple. Benji boi 00:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)". But which other page was San Diego-Tijuana metropolitan area cut-and-pasted to or from? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm unsure. as i look at this I'm not sure how to tell? Benji boi 05:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heath Ledger

Why did you undo my revision to Heath ledger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MalcolmGould (talk • contribs) 18:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because Ledger's name isn't Heathcliff. If I had reverted you it would have be reverted soon enough by someone else for the same reason. Benji boi 00:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources report it e.g. Internet Movie Database and as a sample from a search Human Archives Organisation. Do a search and you'll find many more. MalcolmGould (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that neither of those is considered a reliable source for that information. From the talk page archives I've found "Ledger himself said in a Vanity Fair article that Heath wasn't short for Heathcliff: (story here)

“

"Finally sitting down to a plate of meat loaf and potatoes—his curls blowing in the rising wind—he’s asked if Heath is a shortened version of Heathcliff. “No, just Heath. But I do have an older sister named Kathy,” he says. “Well, Kate.”

”

The subject of an article is general considered an expert on themself. Benji boi 22:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - the trouble with most sources, particularly on the internet, is that they mostly quote other sources, and so on, thus perpetuating one original (possibly unreliable) source. MalcolmGould (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Building articles here takes a bit of research sometimes! Benji boi 21:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blank?

I'm assuming this was a mistake...? --Closedmouth (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no. That was a timeline that was being transcluded into an article thus making editing and verification difficult. There seemed to be no reason fr it as size issues of the article should be handled quite differently. I'm open to finding a better solution but I find that one unhelpful. Benji boi 21:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you want it gone, you could try prodding it. Blanking is almost always a bad idea. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for the suggestion. Benji boi 19:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break, the source itself said she was fired.

The wikipedia entry I linked to describes what happened to her as a firing, "termination of employment."

All you are doing is trying to whitewash what happened by clothing it in a euphemism.

That's probably beneath you. 72.222.181.186 (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source you cited included the word "canned" in the title but no, did not say she was fired. I've added another reference which states she was. Please familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policies on biographies of living people and neutrality as we are writing an encyclopedia and we should be dispassionate as well as accurate. Please also avoid personalizing this and stick to content. Benji boi 19:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki definition for fired includes the word canned

Thank you for adding an ADDITIONAL reference to the one I already had used. The one I had used used the word CANNED which the wiki lists as a synonym for FIRED. Your fatuous pretense that you added anything to that is typical wikiposturing. But if it makes you feel better, go for it. 72.222.181.186 (talk) 07:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As stated previously we are writing an encyclopedia and as such we need to do so with a neutral POV. I've added a reference that covers the assertion so I consider the matter resolved. Please save the personal remarks against me, other editors or even the subjects of articles for other websites. Benji boi 00:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Just so you know, I have semi-protected Melanie Morgan for one week due to your report. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Benji boi 03:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Not sure if you know about this or not.. ☆ 05:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMG. Thank you for letting me know. Banje boi 13:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kindness

Dear Benji,

Thank you for the beautiful poem and the kind words of sympathy you offered me. I am still in a shock stand, but reading the words of my Wikipedia family are giving me the strength to get through the days. The funeral is on Thursday, and I am certain it will be beautiful. Your kindness to me will never be forgotten.

With much love,

Jeffpw (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was beautiful and wonderfully supportive, Benji. — Becksguy (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are so very welcome, I'll do whatever I can to further offer support Losing love is never easy so I wish you all the peace possible as you journey on. Banje boi 10:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Stonewall riots

Correct Judy Garland info, refs on talk. Banji boi

done. Banje boi 02:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

Sometimes, the vandalism that we revert does make me laugh. :) Have a nice day. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Yes, I didn't want to encourage or agree with them on violating policy. I may still direct them to Trapped in the Closet (South Park), all about Cruise. Seems "I'm his Katie Holmes" to refer to being a beard is gaining some traction as well. Someday all the closet doors will open and even more people will be confused. Banje boi 13:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

flup

[1] ensure added. Banji boi

More Sanchez nonsense. Banje boi 04:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Down-low (slang)

issue re:source noted in talk. asap Banji boi

feh, article a bigger mess now, leave it for others to clean. Banje boi 20:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my page

Bear is Isac's ex-lover, and a personal friend for more than 20 years. He is new, but came here specially to add his condolences to this page. You're a good friend to guard my page, but he is on the up and up. Jeffpw (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that. Keep taking deep breaths and know you have a lot of folks keeping you in their thoughts. Banje boi 01:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC0

Allen R. Schindler, Jr.

convert six refs to cite template. Any other refs avail? Benji boi

Refs converted by SatyrTN, check for more refs as well. Benji boi

Leave for now. Banje boi 15:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Homosexuality in animals re:penetrative sex

per talk request add content specifically addressing penetrative sex. Banji boi

Await clarification, this may or may not be needed. Banje boi 14:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality in animals re:homophobia

This may be of assistance to you? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo

Thanks, will look to adding it once I'm back. Banje boi

“

One thing that does seem to be exclusive to humans is homophobia.

"It's a very interesting question as to why anybody ever cares," Mann said. "There are different theories about why people find it threatening.

"Some think it disrupts male bonds, like you're not playing for the right team. The funny thing is that people say homosexuality is unnatural, that non-humans don't engage in homosexual behavior, but that's not true. Then they'll say it's base and animalistic."

Humans' resistance to the idea of homosexuality extends even to research on the behavior in animals.

Scientists who study the topic are often accused of trying to forward an agenda, and their work can come under greater scrutiny than that of their colleagues who study other topics, Mann said

"It's kind of a shame because I think that probably is a reason why people don't look at it more," Mann said. "That's probably why we haven't gotten further. You would think we'd know more than we do by now."

”

Add to article if not already there. Banje boi

done. Banje boi 14:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]