User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 28

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 27 |

Archive 28

| Archive 29 →

Homosexual orientation: demographics

You're right—my edit summary didn't go into details, and my simply saying the edit was "poorly worded" probably wasn't specific enough to be helpful. I confess to being extraordinarily leery of contributions containing errors in spelling, grammar, etc.; my experience is that they usually have deeper problems, as well. There certainly wasn't enough room in the edit summary box to list all the reasons I was about to revert, and I had neither the time nor the energy to start a new topic on the talk page. What I probably should have done was wait until I did have the time and energy. Sorry for communicating less than clearly. Further remarks on the page in question. Rivertorch (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem - our goals are the same. As a suggestion I would consider lifting the entire item to the talkpage - with "moved to talk". Post it in a new section and state - I'm concerned about the wording and how accurate this info is. For me that would have started the process that the edit has a good point - citing some demographics may be useful - while also acknowledging the other issues needed to be worked out. Banjeboi 18:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

ARS barnstar clean-up

create barnstar subpage and use Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Barnstar as a template after you create the all three barnstars. Banjeboi

done. Banjeboi 02:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Dycebot for helping on ARS talk?

Dycebot seems to be able to help stale and archive tagged threads! [1]. Banjeboi

unneeded. Banjeboi 02:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

talk:Rules of Acquisition

clean-up and archive. Banjeboi

Pass. Banjeboi 02:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bannerproject formatting

Hey! I'm upset with you. I follow your talk page, especially the misadventures with Guy, who is I have also had at least run in with. We seem to edit a number of similar articles, usually with the same or similar perspective. I had just updated the WP Sexuality rating on, and cleaned up nesting issues, as well as removing the ProjectBanner where it did not seem appropriate on a number of articles in the Sexology and Sexuality category, and then you followed behind and re-added the Bannerproject to places I had removed it, and added the project to places that it didn't really need to be, it was a bit frustrating for me. No one likes to have their work un-done, and I'm not an exception to that. You could have at least discussed it with me first. I'm sure you had the best of intentions, and thought you were fixing all of the articles. Well, I didn't see it that way, I don't know about anyone else.

I think the ProjectBanner is interesting, and useful in a few limited cases. But, as far as I know, there is no MOS that requires its use on Talk pages. Most talk pages are not that crowded, and (for me) having the Wikipeojects in nested mode (without the Projectbanner) is esthetically the best choice. It takes one line (not the 10 lines or more that most Non-nested Wikiprojects take) but still shows clearly the Wikiproject as well as the current classification. Three Wikiprojects takes three lines -- nice and compact. Adding the ProjectBanner to that makes it so that you can't tell which projects are associated with an article. For saving space -- well great if there are five or six wikiprojects and they are not nested. For most articles -- not a problem.

I think the Projectbanner should be used sparingly, and rarely in only a few places. I respect that other editors have other ideas. That can be discussed and worked out on a case by case basis on articles where there is interest in that.

I spent basically all day yesterday rating Sexuality articles, adding the ProjectBanner where it was appropriate, removing it where it was not appropriate (to or three wikiprojects) and nesting all of them so that no wikiproject took very much space. (except in a few cases where the WP Sexuality was the only WP). It was pretty frustrating to see you come behind me and undo alot of my work.

I'd prefer that those of us with similar perspectives about a number of things worked together on most things, and spent our time more constructively fending off homophobes and closed minded bigots rather than bickering with one another. Atom (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My bad in not messaging you, I was caught up in some other drama and I slipped in not messaging you. Sorry about that.

The banner shell is exactly for minimizing the footprint of the banners while still showing useful information. Ideally it's used on talkpages where there are three or more banners. I've never even heard or seen of using nested parameter without using one of the banner shells. The first round widely in use simply indicated that there were multiple banners but you had to click on the top to reveal any other information. I believe "nested" was created just to facilitate use with the first banner shell. The second main one which is generally replacing the first shows the title of each project and the article rating. I believe I'm using it just as intended where you were omitting or deleting the bannershell which, IMHO, was much worse looking. As I said I've never seen it's use without the banner shell template but I certainly can't say it doesn't happen. I didn't revert any of your other work accept to re-add the banner template and, in a few cases, removed the "nested" when there was only one or two banners and little else. I personally think its much more pleasing and better organized to have them bundled together but maybe this has been addressed already. Banjeboi 00:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• sighs* The purpose of proposing a standard at the WP Sexuality talk page was to avoid we in the project wasting one anothers time, and avoid stepping on one anothers toes. It is a discussion, not a mandate. I would have felt better about it if you had just participated in the discussion if you didn't agree so that we could get a consensus first. I've brought up the topic in the Wikiproject council talk page to try to work it out. The nested paramater is new, and was not a consideration in the WP:TPT guideline. The guideline is optional. We as a WP project can prefer to vary from the suggested guideline if we choose. Atom (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, WP:WikiProject Council is a more appropriate venue. One wikiprojects consensus does not override all other wikiprojects wishes and conventional practice. The point is valid that there are no set rules how to treat only 1 or 2 project tags so perhaps this will help inspire something to be etched into policy to clear up any ambiguities. Banjeboi 02:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

prostitution

in this edit you never gave a reason for removing the info. you could well have a valid reason, but clean up doesn't say why it has to go.

im also about to add something to the talk page on the external links. Lihaas (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved "The Prostitutes" to the disam page and see no reason the Loitering book should be linked there - maybe on loitering instead? Banjeboi 01:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not for me. For the talk page of the comments in the history section.

I also left the links for now, we can debate it through. Lihaas (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Now registered

Hi, I am not a sock puppet, and have removed that tag from my talk page. My IP range doesn't match what you you've indicated. I registered about two weeks ago, and am still learning, have made a few mistakes, but I certainly don't think anything I have done warrants that. Thanks, -- now_registered (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll let those who specialize in this area see what turns up. Your actions and username certainly suggest otherwise. Banjeboi 13:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

My user name is simply what I typed two weeks ago when I edited the article and saw that because I wasn't registered, an individual asked for semi-protection of the article. I registered in response to that so the user could see I was making a good faith effort at improving the article. I don't think that indicates what you are saying it does; can you please elaborate? -- now_registered (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:JIDF webpage screenshot.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:JIDF webpage screenshot.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Internet Defense Force is a drama zone so I have no intention of edit warring to return this image there. Banjeboi 09:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Top and bottom in sex and BDSM

Here's options. Let me know if these aren't quite right - I have hundreds (oy)

• Choice A
  Choice A
• Choice B
  Choice B

--David Shankbone 00:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent start. I think B is more helpful as we can reference "in the porn world ...". Banjeboi 01:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Added B and a few other images so it wasn't all gay porno. Banjeboi 19:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

EO Green

Would you like to formally comment on the talk page about the proposal to remove the neutrality tag? Exploding Boy (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Did and done although I expect this will be a protracted culture war in this case. Jesse Dirkhising - good clean-up BTW - was where I last encountered this style of consensus accusationing. Hopefully the intensity will dial down so we can look more objectively at better writing. Banjeboi 18:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:True Colors 2007 The Tour CD cover.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:True Colors 2007 The Tour CD cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia 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 under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I had already added the rights holder name, reference and link and I have now also bolded it so hopefully it pops more for those looking for it. If I'm simply putting the info in the wrong place please let me know. Banjeboi 18:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Asian film poster

From November 2007-was it deleted? It's redlinked in the article. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it was deleted but I've not the access to see why. I did find Image:Chen Yu-Rong,Wang Ping,on Asian Lesbian Film and Video Festival.jpg but would support reinstating the poster image as it was wonderful. Let me know if you want to try. Banjeboi 18:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Bluelight

That was very informative. Jeff had told much of that stuff when we last spoke, but the journal gave me much more context. So thankyou for that, thankyou. You are a very decent person, Benji. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 19:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome - and your damned decent yourself! It's going to take sometime for me to sort it all out - I don't do death very well. I'd like to do a wikipedia memorial of some sort that would promote improving articles. I want to tie it to one of his videos but still thinking how to best implement it and include his favorites as well. F*ck, I'm crying on my keyboard now. Banjeboi 19:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan revert

Taking this here to avoid having a conversation in the page history. I tried to be careful. I checked and the word "paparazzo" is already wikilinked earlier in the same section, so I decided to do a simple revert. I'm sorry that it gave the impression that I carelessly reverted your good faith edit, that was not my intention at all. Siawase (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. That articles is too much of a battleground for my taste so I don't foresee my involvement without good reason. The entire "retarded" quote from Ronson should likely go - it adds confusion rather than clarity and makes her look a bit foolish for even using the word. Banjeboi 18:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There is a better statement from Ronson on the talk page but I think everyone are too burned out to get around to working it into the article. Siawase (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if you want help cleaning the talkpage - that may help. Banjeboi 21:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good idea. The talkpage right now gotta be pretty overwhelming to any newcomers. Siawase (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. I suggest start a new thread and state I think __ should be replaced by ____. Or just do it and see if anyone objects. Banjeboi 12:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Damn, you work fast! Thanks a lot, that's much better. However, I went to restore the last bit of discussion from the archive, but I couldn't find it, so either I'm missing something or you missed to paste the latest part? Siawase (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The clean-up filled a few archives I think I started with archive 8 so there are a couple. What was the subject? I'll hunt it down if you'd like. Banjeboi 23:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha, I see the archive back/forth arrows now, I only looked at the pages linked from the main talk page. Got the part I wanted restored, thanks again! Siawase (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added the missing archive links - sorry about that. ::Banjeboi 18:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pinoy

Passed GA. -- Banjeboi 05:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration

Concerning your topic ban, can be found here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 10:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added a statement although I rather doubt my reputation will be cleared. ::Banjeboi 19:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Should I withdraw?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 22:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) It seems so silly to me that this ever even got to be a ban in the first place and that similar mudslinging against me continues. From people who should apparently know better, no less. It's little surprise good editors simply give up and leave - what volunteer needs to treated in such a way? IMHO, a mature response would have been to first point out what was the problem and ask an editor "do you agree to adhere to our policies on BLPs and dial down remarks seen as sarcastic" I would have apologized, agreed and washed my hands at it. Instead it seems like an effort to punish when that's clearly not needed. I find so much f this quite distasteful and can only imagine what happens to other editors who even worse at wikilawyering than I. This has all taught me a lot but it's quite stressful. I also think it's outrageous to treat volunteers this way, what good is achieved by engendering mistrust? -- Banjeboi 23:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you please state again that you know how to improve your behavior as per this. Yes, we both know you've stated it numerous times that you are, but, just in case it might help. If it doesn't, I'm going to appeal to Jimbo.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 05:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Done here. I hope it helps. -- Banjeboi 10:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Benjiboi/Isis King

Ref, zhush and launch. -- Banjeboi

Done. -- Banjeboi 10:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Correction (Re:Feminists For Life)

I have resubmitted my corrections. I have provided reference from Republican Party literature. Please do not reverse my corrections. I have limited my correction to questions of current positions as the previous entry had statements contrary to current positions.Dstern1 (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

First off, please know that I am not seeing this as your content but simply as potential content to improve the article. I appreciate you are working to more fully source these statements, this is generally a good thing. I've had to revert these changes, however, as they aren't supported by reliable sources and putting "supposedly" in reference to Palin giving birth to a child widely confirmed as her own is blatantly against our WP:BLP policy. We don't infer someone isn't the parent of their child without very good references.

In addition, she is sourced as being pro-contraception and the Republican party document doesn't state she isn't. These are both issues that may be discussed better on the Sarah Palin article as there are folks there who may be able to find the references to support what you think is accurate. -- Banjeboi 23:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I carefully phrased my correction to show that she is now taking a position against contraception and included the limited context. I do not question that she took a pro-contraception position in the last Gubernatorial election; however her current position is anti-contraception and I sourced the correction from current campaign data. Further, rather than say her general position is anti-contraception, I have deleted a position statement which has ceased to be accurate. The Sarah Palin article is locked to further revision; thus, I cannot make an entry there. I shall leave out references to the parentage of her son / grandson until such time as I locate a more reliable reference.Dstern1 (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The GOP website isn't terribly helpful, I'm afraid, although the Sarah Palin article is locked the talkpage is quite active. I would put each subject in it's own section. 1. Anyone have a relaible source whether she is now anti-contraception 2. I've seen allegations that she might not be the birth mother of her youngest child - has anyone seen reliable sources to confirm or deny this, etc.

The current source says she is pro-contraception, if we get a new reliable source that she's not then we don't delete the first - we compare them. "Although Palin was pro-contraception, as of 2008 she now states ______". -- Banjeboi 00:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Pitch in

Thoughts? --Moni3

Replied there. -- Banjeboi 23:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)