User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 22

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 21 |

Archive 22

| Archive 23 →

re: "resolved" boxes

Please don't put these on the page anymore. For those of us who monitor the page via edit comparisons, the complex wiki-code makes these very difficult to read and almost impossible to sort out. If you feel that there is value to tagging a particular discussion thread "resolved", just say so with a simple word and signature. Bold it if you must but please don't clog up the page with all that junk. Rossami (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I happened to see this note. Since I'm a fan of {{Resolved}}, I suggest continuing to use this template, but without 'subst.' The template's own documentation shows an example that doesn't use subst. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm, Ok I'm confused. I took a while to learn to always use "subst" on these. Is {{resolved}} and likely {{stale}} an exception? I'll also not likely remember to make an exception on one page vs all the others so let's sort this out. Banjeboi 06:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked at WP:VPT and they said it was OK to use the 'resolved' template without SUBST. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your a gem! Thank you for checking into that - it will saving typing as well as headaches - a win-win! Banjeboi 01:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree

I agree with what you said at the top of your user page. It can get annoying and frusterating. --Eric (mailbox) 06:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Banjeboi 06:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, lol. Sorry, I think I mispelled frusterating? Pardon my bad grammer. --Eric (mailbox) 06:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol! No problem - I speel poorly as well. Banjeboi 06:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I'm likin' the background and layout of your pages though. They're nice. Especially the colors. --Eric (mailbox) 07:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, feel free to use anything that works for you. More is more! Banjeboi 07:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright cool, thanks. Just curious, I'm looking at the message on the top and it says that you've been topic banned? Is this about you and is it becuase of what I think it is? --Eric (mailbox) 07:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As I'm not reading minds at the moment, I'm unsure what you think, so I'll tell you! Matt Sanchez is a former gay pornstar who then joined the military and while at Columbia University started advocating for and complaining about the treatment of military recruiters on campus, amongst other things. He was then given a conservative award at the same event where Ann Coulter called John Edwards a faggot. In the aftermath it was revealed that Sanchez had been a gay porn star, and he himself shared that he had also been an escort for men on a radio interview. All of this was being worked out on the article which Sanchez was a vociferous and disruptive contributor. He has since been community and Arbcom banned for quite a few things including incivility towards myself and other editors. Since his ban he has made great use of the OTRS system of which JzG (Guy) is apparently one of the volunteers at and apparently Sanchez didn't want me editing on his article. I find the whole situation, and frankly JzG (Guy)'s behavior, a low point for how content disputes should be handled and how admins should behave. JzG (Guy) never warned me and their most compelling reason - believe it or not - was that I wanted to edit there so bad. Which is false, I have little interest in that drama. Hopefully all will be righted someday with both Sanchez and JzG (Guy), but until then I have equal amounts of compassion for both of them that they feel acting in such fashion towards others is appropriate or humane. But then again, I'm bias, I prefer to be treated respectfully! Banjeboi 07:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, that's pretty heavy stuff, I discreet my thoughts toward admins but looking at your point and the history of the situation I believe some admins are over zealous and quick on the trigger sometimes. Yeah. --Eric (mailbox) 21:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had quite a few zealous anon attacks and mean-spirited things but this was the one episode that caused me the most stress. It's actually helped me be more sensitive to assuming good faith and allowing other editors to reflect and sort themselves out. We should encourage better editing not punish those we have issues with. There's some lovely line, I think from someone in the Kennedy clan - that we should all be a bit nicer and wouldn't the world be a better place for it. Banjeboi 22:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hpc

I wish that the community would just leave the editors of that article alone and let them sort it out but thanks to the actions of FCYTravis that is now very unlikely to become the case anytime soon. So I am going to keep that article on my watchlist for now. If I do become further involved with it will be to back its current editors and perhaps do some copy editing.

At first I voted for a weak keep but the actions of Travis and some of the comments and attitudes of the pro deletionists caused me to change my mind and vote for a strong keep.

Albion moonlight (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this does seem to be just too touchy of an area for some folks. I expect such actions and comments from drive-by anons so was bit shocked when it was coming from admins. Hopefully Haiduc will be able to help refocus the lede so it's more clear what the article is about and the writing and sourcing will be raised to such a level that next time one of the articles that dare not be named comes to AfD we can point to this one and say - this really is just an editing issue, we've been here before, let's clean it up. The other thing I've found is once an article is sourced beyond belief and better written it's easier to notice and revert vandalism as it just sticks out so readily. So fake and poorly sourced items can more quickly be spotted and sorted. Banjeboi 22:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan

Yes, the thought that Ward is being is being so unnecessarily hostile because he's just assuming I'm another mad fan had occurred. On the other hand, I'm somewhat surprised that a man so apparently proud of having a PhD he lists it on his userpage is insisting on a standard of evidence that not required anywhere on Wikipedia or reputable media. I will continue this discussion some more, and if unproductive then I will file an RfC, though the tide appears to be turning in favour of quality journalism already. Thankyou for your input, it's good to work with you again. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And with you! Frankly Ward could take a lesson from what we've endured on a regular basis, we've been down this path so many times. That talkpage was, and still is a mess, and that article is a BLP minefield that needs so much cleaning up. We could also post for help at the BLP board for fresh eyes to look at the driving/rehab stuff. It seems a bit undue but I'm not that familiar with her. Banjeboi 22:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have to say the main dilemma facing me as a copyeditor is that, as the only time I've read about her was in yesterday's paper, I have no grasp of what's important and what's not beyond standard Wikipractice. I'm also suffering from strange sleeping patterns which are making it difficult to concentrate for long periods of time.

But, you've done a good job clearing out the talkpage and I think we've already done a reasonable job cleaning up the article. Here's to a positive conclusion. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers - lets hope it's a goodie! Banjeboi 01:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lonnie Frisbee.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Lonnie Frisbee.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow!

Thanks. I am always surprised when someone has something good to say about my work, I am so used to the opposite. Haiduc (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm simply disheartened by a few, sadly they seem to be admins, who are ready to sling mud and throw piles of bad faith on people who are doing a stunning amount of work to explain complex cultural issues on what amounts to, at times, an encyclopedic blog. It's little wonder that many scholars simply return to their respected work and don't bother sharing the nuances of intricate material. If human sexuality was simply, I think, there would be less wars. In any case please work with Moni3 to and the rest of us to fix that article, if we keep plugging at it it would be so very fun to get it to featured article status! Banjeboi 23:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lindsay Lohan. 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. Ward3001 (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeez Ward3001 you're really pushing this! You're the only one who is edit warring and it's rather puzzling why, an RfC was started because you've been deleting sourced content repeatedly. And now you're templating a regular. I certainly hope you see the four non-anon editors there as working to discuss this but you're obstructionism doesn't serve you or the article well. Banjeboi 02:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

you seem to be in the minority hold-out about including this sourced content with Kww: Consensus is not determined by counting votes. And it is especially inappropriate to revert in the middle of an RfC. The purpose of an RfC is to get a broad set of opinions, more than four or five editors.

You also may consider don't template the regulars a bit of useful advice: Not when the regulars revert in the middle of an RfC, and when you do it twice, it's getting very close to edit warring. Regular or not, I want to be sure you understand 3RR because it is very serious. Ward3001 (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please dial down the heat Ward3001. If I made a mistake, which it looks like I might have, you don't need to act so hostile about it. From what i saw you were the only one opposing it's inclusion so I felt it was the right action to take. I still feel the content is fine and that you're over re-acting. Your fending off vandals on the article and elsewhere is admirable but neither myself nor Dev920 deserve such brashness nor could be considered in the same manner as all the vandals you seem to deal with. i'll save the rest of my comments when I'm up for dealing with it. best Banjeboi 02:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no heat. I simply wanted to be sure you understood 3RR and its consequences. I have no problem with you making a mistake about how many opposed the edits about Ronson. What I had a problem with was your reverting in the midst of an RfC, twice. That's serious business and suggested strongly to me that at the very least you did not understand the RfC process or fully understand how consensus is determined, and possibly that you were headed toward an edit war (yes, even the regulars edit war sometimes). Now that I am more confident that you understand 3RR, there's no problem with that, although I continue to be puzzled as to why you reverted twice in the midst of an RfC. I'm not accusing you of anything, I just don't understand why you did it if you understand the RfC process.

I am no more guilty of brashness than others are of POV-pushing. I posted an RfC to get the response of the Wikipedia community so that just a few people (myself included) would not be the deciders on this issue. Then the reverts started, and I was accused (not by you) of making false claims about an editor, which was not true. I responded. There is no brashness and there is no heat, particularly in the RfC.

Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well let's move forward as this episode has undeniably served the article better and the RfC is in process. I'm no RfC or even content dispute expert so if adding content under dispute while in RfC is wrong I do apologize. I'm dealing with another RfC where quite problematic material sits there until we can get it off the article. Frankly, I'm more invested into saving articles headed for the chopping block so am less interested in working through all the workings of RfC, it seems the process is working so I'll let it be for the time. Banjeboi 21:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And thanks for your willingness to discuss this matter. I also have a number of irons in the fire and have had a tough time keeping up with it all. Best wishes. Ward3001 (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair to Ward, he is also dealing with a similar situation with Sam Ronson's article. Wikimancer though is relying heavily on tabloids and pictures (from whence I assume Ward's comments about photos came) and is being a bit more aggressive. I guess that where Ward's coming from. Presumably once we have a working version thrashed out on Lohan's article we can just swap the names around and add it to Ronson's as well. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - that explains it all a bit more. Banjeboi 22:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll help

Sure can do! By the way can you help with the Tuareg article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by YVNP (talk • contribs) 06:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have an overfull plate but if it's something specific I'll lend a hand as I'm able. Banjeboi 21:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you very much for the barnstar! I appreciate it when other editors see my work. It often gets buried in edit histories...:D Hope you're having a great day! - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You're so welcome! Saving articles has become a bit of a passion for me and I hope you continue to see the hope in little stubby and/or messed up articles. Your work is very much needed! Banjeboi 09:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have responded...

...at my talk page. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

appreciated, thank you! Banjeboi 09:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

ARS tag for AFD

Hey, I left a question on the ARS project talk page about the ARS tag on WT:AFD and I was informed you placed it there. I'm not sure it is appropriate there and I'm just curious if there was a particular reason behind the decision. You may respond here or my talk page but I would prefer it if you would join the discussion at WT:ARS. Thanks! Protonk (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've replied at WT:ARS. Banjeboi 21:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-heterosexuals

[1] There's about 50-80 more to work through as possible sources. Banjeboi 01:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The Queen

My tribute to the Queen of country, and another way of working through my grief. Hope you like it. Jeffpw (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Loverly! Just the nice pause that refreshes I needed! Banjeboi 19:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, honey! I hope you read the summary on the right side of the screen. It says everything I think about our dear, departed Queen of Country Music. Jeffpw (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you heard of Sordid Lives and Sordid Lives: The Series, she's a major plotline in this twisted dramedy. The movie, Sordid Lives, is fab and the series is on cable but I'm sure will be leaked - probably to YouTube as well. Banjeboi 19:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OMG! I just saw a clip/remix of the movie, and can't wait to find it! It was never released in Holland (typically), so I'll check on Amazon or Pirate to get it. Thank you for brightening my day, Benji. Now it's off to star in my own little version of Valley Of The Dolls, so cheers, and my your day be as delightful as you've made mine! Jeffpw (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Was it this one? If not that'll make you simply pee! Banjeboi 20:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Princess Kim

Please see the talk page. I have six solid refs saying 1961, he has 2 tabloids, one WP:OR, and only the Chigago Tribune saying otherwise. Do you really think it's fair to say there's controversy? And yes, THAT was the video that made me pee. Jeffpw (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just cleaning up the first part before I got to the talk page. I would say, since you are more familiar, try to suss out why it was misrepresented but go ahead and start fixing the article using NYTimes and a second good ref to support year of birth. Banjeboi 20:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As you see in talk, I have six RS saying 1961. I'll look tomorrow for more info about this tempest in a teapot. Now it's off to Dusty and chemically induced sleep. Thank CHRIST for a three day weekend. Jeffpw (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I looked through and did revert off the whole controversy bit and put onto the talk page with response. Unless you're interested or this actually is a controversy I wouldn't invest too much into it. Like so many weirdnesses the article did get a little better! Banjeboi 21:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You obviously didn't lived through the Jenny Gardner Nelson tragedy. Otherwise you'd see that this article must be kept pristine. Thanks for all your efforts with this vandal. Jeffpw (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol! Why would I watch AMC when there's so much wikidrama! Banjeboi 21:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I could give you 10,000 reasons why you should watch AMC, though I no longer have access to it. It was the first Dattime Drama to actually include social activism (protesting against the Vietnam war, AIDS storylines, first gay couple, first Daytime Drama with major Afro-American characters, etc). But the bottom line is, it gave me a family when I had none, so it will always gave a place in my heart. I actually took off work and gave a champagne brunch when Jenny and Greg finally married, and called the network to lodge an official protest when she died. I stopped watching after that, even though on an intellectual level I realize that killing off a character so she cannot ever be recast is the ultimate compliment a Daytime Drama can give to an actress and character. Jenny was like a sister to me, and I have loved Miss Delaney ever since. That's why I feel the sourcing is so important in her bio. (and on an related note: 7.5 mg of Nitrazepam, 40 mg of Valium, 10 mg of Morphine and a half a bottle of wine and I still can't sleep through the night. Sometimes I hate God--if I believed in him, anyway). Jeffpw (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Too true, my schedule isn't complimentary enough to watch but, presumably, DVDs would be compelling so I wouldn't shun the idea! For sleeping maybe a walk or something several hours ahead can help calm the system? Sleep disturbance is rough! Hope you get it sorted soon. Banjeboi 04:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sweetiepie, you're a breath of normalcy in my chaotic, hate-filled life. I'd say "God bless you" if I wasn't too busy swearing at him until I was blue in the face. Jeffpw (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Madam! I demand that you retract the slur of normalcy immediately! I have never been so plucked, plotzed or otherwise perturbed! Banjeboi 05:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

We're talking the "new normal", honeybunch: post 9/11, post Diana, post all the horrors of the last month. Anything less than outright schizophrenia counts as normal in my book now....and even that could be classified as a normal response to a dreadful world that tries to kill us off in a psychological war of attrition. As I see it, even Britney counts as normal...and I mean her behavior before she was forcibly locked up and drugged into compliance. Definitely no offense was intended. But if an apology is needed. You're not Dick Cheney normal, if that's any consolation.Jeffpw (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol! Apology accepted, I was chalking it up to the nurse's outfit anyway! There's a new book out, "The Dark Side (book)”, by Jane Mayer that gives a good chain of evidence to finally apply war crimes charges to both Cheney and Rumsfeld. If you're into such bits it looks simply chilling. (review here)Banjeboi 06:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Right now I'm only reading self-help grief books and Joan Didion's The Year of Magical Thinking. But I'll check it out if I ever straighten up and fly eight. BTW, you might enjoy my latest post at Talk:Glory hole (sexual)

Lol! Swish before you swallow! Banjeboi 06:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)