User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Chris Crocker DOB Edit

Regarding my edit to the Chris Crocker article: I did not provide unjustifiable or unreliable data. I simply changed the way his DOB is being shown (from hard code to template). If you have a problem with that, you should check up on the previously cited source, not my edit to the formatting. Again, his quoted DOB (12/8/1987) is from a previously noted reference...change or back that up. Sorry for any confusion.Shields020 (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually you did. No reliable source has published his DOB. The version you edited[1] had only December and you added the day, the 8th. If you have a relaibel source that he was born on the 8th then I'll be happy to restore the template which I would normally support. Likewise if the template can be used without the day of month that would be fine as well. -- Banjeboi 07:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:HITC.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:HITC.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

FUR added. -- Banjeboi 07:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Glory hole

possible image here. Banjeboi

Not as good as the one we have. -- Banjeboi 02:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Portal talk:LGBT

clean-up in aisle three. Banjeboi

done. -- Banjeboi 02:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Cyndi Lauper

add archive and clean. Banjeboi

done. -- Banjeboi 02:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Fantastic Easter Special

add archive and clean. Banjeboi

done. -- Banjeboi 02:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors

clean up talk, add auto-archiving. Banjeboi

done. -- Banjeboi 02:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Sadomasochism

Clean, also clean hatnotes to S&M disamb. Banjeboi

done and done. -- Banjeboi 02:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

talk:George Takei

clean up. -- Banjeboi

OK for now. -- Banjeboi 02:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Image:Glennhughes villagepeople.jpg

adding fair use and insert on leather subculture and Castro clone. -- Banjeboi

Deleted. -- Banjeboi 02:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

RuPaul's Drag Race

Add logo. -- Banjeboi

done. -- Banjeboi 02:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohm Phanphiroj

Our edits here crossed. I'm not going to bother to look up the times, but it's likely that I deleted the article before you said that somebody should hurry up and delete the article.

Your own closing statement at the foot of the discussion was good. And before it, less seriously:

Then you might do well to expand your horizons

was most amicably said, and accepted with a chuckle. I'm a little worried from comments by both CaveatLector and you that my comments came off as homophobic or similar. That was certainly not the intention and if it was the result then I regret this.

OP's work appears to be softcore porn. I have nothing against softcore porn. I also don't see a disjunction between art and porn: something can be both artistic and titillatory (whether or not I appreciate the art and whether or not I am titillated). However, for me, mere softcore porn (hetero or homo) doesn't of itself merit encyclopedic treatment. If OP has put out books of the stuff, fine. But it needs to get at least some critical attention before it becomes encyclopedic. Ditto for the hetero equivalent: see this nomination of mine.

However, I'm willing to believe that I'm in a minority here; certainly the "art photography" sections of bookshops that I frequent do have piles of books of what I consider to be entirely humdrum if highly competent photos of elegantly coiffed Beautiful People, male and/or female. -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries on my end! I think their work actually is about rough trade rather than softcore porn, even if technically it might be seen that way. LGBT communities, especially gay male ones, have a long history of pictorials and beefcake. The nearly-naked male form, and cult of youth is overwhelmingly apparent in LGBT media which is also somewhat dominated by gay male perspective. OP's seemed to be a bit edgier, and like many full-time photographers, they have to pay the bills so a bit of T & A goes a long way. I also assume good faith that his website is pretty accurate - it may not be - which suggests a good article could be built. I think the outcome was fine all around. -- Banjeboi 01:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, good. It felt pretty strange to zap the article and close the AfD after not only participating in the the AfD but even calling for deletion partly on the grounds that the article pissed me off (tongue firmly in cheek, as I think and hope you noticed). An officious Wikipedian might have come up with fifty rules I broke; thank the gods for "IAR" (which I very, very rarely invoke).

It seems to me that you'd do a good job of creating a new and legit article on this fellow, not that I want to push you or anything. Happy editing, wherever; meanwhile, "real life" beckons me. -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No prob. I have a huge backlog, starting with relaunching underground culture, o probably will leave this one for now. -- Banjeboi 02:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy. Thank you. Hfarmer (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, looks like it's been sorted already. -- Banjeboi 00:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sexual orientation profiling

You may be interested in this new article i started, Sexual orientation profiling. --cooljuno411 12:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well ... it is unique, but I don't think that alone cuts it. The closest subject is racial profiling which this ain't. I'll ask for other opinions on this but my hunch is it need a lot of work as a vastly under-used neologism. -- Banjeboi 00:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:The Suburbs Title card S2.jpg

Resolved

 – Added. -- Banjeboi 04:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:The Suburbs Title card S2.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

done. -- Banjeboi 04:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for your input

I'm cc: this here because you are active in the community. I just saw Milk the other night with my little sis and got inspired to stir things up. Thanks for listening and for your work. (See below)

I have a question for the community. My younger sister, a freshman at Syracuse University, recently tried to add some material to the wikipedia article about the school. She is a novice, and admittedly some of her edits were questionable, but I think her wanting to add something on the LGBT student center there I think is valid. She said it was to honor me, which I really appreciated. The problem is, there is an editor there who apparently feels he has an ownership stake in that page who has reversed essentially everything she wanted to add. Is this a precedence we want to establish, disallowing LGBT student activities to be mentioned on a University's Wikipedia entry? Please provide some feedback. And I'm sorry to put this as an anonymous edit, but I am (sheepishly) not fully out...yet. I don't think using my usual Username would advance my cause on other pages I have a stake in. (I know, I know...) Thanks alot. 170.170.59.138 (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this addition didn't likely cut the smell test in a broad sense. It's a bit undue and if we imagine what that article would look like at an featured article state - which is a good frame of reference for many editing issues - the LGBT content would likely not be caged in this way. This doesn't mean it is important or invalid just not contextualized in a way that works for the article as is. Even if we "get by" one or two editors who begrudingly "allow" inclusion now ... we need to write for the long term, for our readers and editors years from now. Will the information flow enough, does it make sense, etc. I can envision a few scenarios that may help. A section devoted to minority development inclusion; traditionally the chain follows something like those discriminated due to caste/social class; nationalism/foreign-born (communism/socialism overlaps here), women; people of color; special needs/disabilities; sexuality and gender minorities. You'll notice LGBT folks are usually last in these contexts which largely remains true today. Also some would argue that all discrimination is based on class/socio-economic status with new-money vs old-money as one litmus test. Another scenario would be showing notable event(s) that concern LGBT people and how it fits into the subject's history. Both these require a bit of research and thoughtful writing to weave into the present article. If LGBT presence on campus of the centre itself is quite notable, as evident, of course, by secondary reliable sources, another option is to do an article solely about that and after it's been developed a bit figure out how it fits into the "parent" article. -- Banjeboi 00:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Smile

travb (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you! One of Mo Gaffney's characters wisened that if you smile the whole world will sleep with you! -- Banjeboi 04:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

sorting out shemale

Butterfly metaphor [2],[3], [4], [5], [6], [7] -- Banjeboi

While I agree with the butterfly metaphor for transgender or transsexual, I don't really see it as applicable to shemale. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not? In my looking so far it seems the sex industries are where shemale is most used but there is no set definition. I agree with Jokestress (sp?), however, that the whole article needs a bit reshuffling again. The use of teh word exploded with online use related to pornography and personal ads/escorts. Once it's all reworked again maybe it will flow better. -- Banjeboi 03:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs work, if it's going to exist at all. I assume that you're aware that it was deleted and then was taken to deletion review by a person who was subsequently blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry to avoid blocks for abusive and disruptive behaviour, largely centred around that article and its talk page. Clearly there isn't a clearly defined meaning, but the current blurry meaning is positive only within the porn industry and very negative everywhere else.

Anyway, getting back to the butterfly. I believe that the article needs to concentrate on the word and its various definitions, how it fits with other trans terminology, use in the sex industry, etc. If you broaden the scope of the article too far, it ends up overlapping other articles such as transgender. I think that bringing in a transgender metaphor such as that butterfly is a blurring of the subject towards overlapping transgender, and is not really relevant to the core purpose of the shemale article. The only really relevant image for this article would be an illustration of a shemale sufficiently naked to see the breasts and (preferrably flacid) male genitals, whether that be in the form of a drawing, a photo of a sculpture or a photo of a person. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really connect that editor with reviving the article but I'm glad we have it and think it could be improved more. I'm still dragging around so not getting a lot done but will keep plugging away at it.

I disagree on the overlapping part as I feel all articles should do that a bit. My high hopes are that those who visit that page will not get sensationalized bits but instead accidentally learn something and maybe even go onto other articles. I've done this with other slang terms and I think this one holds promise as well. Shemale seems to be tied and popularized to the sex industries so I don't see escaping that - and yet I hear the concerns that we shouldn't shame those who use the term in a non-derogatory context. I think we can contrast who says what and why. Already the whole thing has improved considerably. -- Banjeboi 06:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, had to take a break again, I'm still looking into it. -- Banjeboi 04:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Feminists for Life potential material

This can go to archive. -- Banjeboi 15:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Transgeneration source

8 page interview; 2 other interviews linked on same page.

Linked on article talkpage. -- Banjeboi 15:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Build stub for Michael A. Gilbert per Transexual article edit request from 89.182.0.102

The term 'cross-dresser' is not exactly defined in the relevant literature. Michael A. Gilbert, professor at the Department of Philosophy, York University, Toronto, and an avowed cross-dresser himself, offers this definition Benjiboi

Another[8]. -- Banjeboi

Added to Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Biographies#Canada. -- Banjeboi 15:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)