Jump to content

User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 47

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50

New Zealand – Pakistan relations

Any interest in helping add references to New Zealand – Pakistan relations? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt I'll get to it but if you find sources and don't have time to add the to the article yourself then add them to the afd so others can. -- Banjeboi 23:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Minor political parties

See here for why I added the resuce tag to a number of AfDs for minor political parties. If you want to suggets those are no hopers and that the tag should be removed then please just do so. Artw (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to supply that comment on each of the AfDs as they are each indeed separate. I suggest revisitng all of them to ensure your opinion is noted. Closers will otherwise have no idea what you're thinking or even that you've looked at the issues. -- Banjeboi 23:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Eh? Closers should not be influenced one way or the other by the presence of a rescue tag. Artw (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
That's not the point. You go to article X and tag it for rescue but offer no information on the AfD on what or how it could be rescued. This is quite unhelpful. The closer may have no clue that anyone thinks the article could be encyclopedic if no one even suggests it on the AfD page. That's why we discuss them, if you don't even take part in the discussion it's less inspiring for anyone else to. -- Banjeboi 23:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for coming out

I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your support. Cheers and happy editing.--kelapstick (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I applaud you for trting and willikely support you again next time, keep up the good work. -- Banjeboi 01:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you like your topic ban lifted?

Hi, it's been long enough. If you'd like to have that topic ban lifted I'll file a motion to request it. Reply if you're interested. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 18:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course. I'd would also like to see Wikipedia:Banning policy cleared up a bit but feel being banned at the same time would be seen as conflicted in some way so have stayed clear to avoid the appearance of somehow gaming policies. -- Banjeboi 18:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, filing. DurovaCharge! 16:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FBluemarine. DurovaCharge! 16:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The arbs are asking for your input. DurovaCharge! 21:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for following up on this, it's brought up all the memories, :( sigh. -- Banjeboi 23:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Posting something cryptic and sexy oh you talk page stalkers, don't you wish you knew what this meant? DurovaCharge! 04:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the cats....

I continued working to take this article after it had been sent to AfD and brought it to this current state. Any further work you think it needs? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm woeful on films but you've done another aces job! -- Banjeboi 23:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
If only others thought so. Thanks for the good word. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

New trans guidelines

Would you be able to follow up on your prior comments on the project talk page? It seems to be stalled at the moment between your proposed standard and Mich's proposed standard, and I'd like to see some results on this before the discussion goes cold. Rebecca (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've boldly tweaked Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines, let's refine as needed and crosspost wikilinks to other relevant pages where folks may be looking for guidance in these issues. -- Banjeboi 10:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll give it a couple of days and then start picking off the affected BLPs. Rebecca (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Cheers! Let me know if you need support. -- Banjeboi 12:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

LYRIC (LGBTQ youth organization)

apparently first?, most predominent? LGBTQ youth group in California (world?). -- Banjeboi 11:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The topic ban placed on Benjiboi (talk · contribs) in relation to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine is rescinded.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 18:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)'

Discuss this

Yay. Put something else at the top of your user page, like kittens or fluffy bunnies. --Moni3 (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

How about an olive branch?

Olive branches look pretty this time of year. :) DurovaCharge! 20:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)



I have been page banned, seen here, unjustly and without due process - no warning, no dialog whatsoever - by an admin who has a history of such conduct.
 Efforts to clear my reputation (not all from me) are here, here, here and here. Hopefully this breach in practice will ultimately lead to a clearer and more just policy in how bans are to be enacted.

Hello Back from Salemmaman! (re: knowthyneighbor.org)

Boy I was sure glad to see your note saying hello, thank you! I've been having a very hard time maintaining an article on knowthyneighbor.org and was hoping you'd held me make it bullet-proof so that I won't keep getting nominated for deletion. This group founded the concept of posting petition signers online in a fully searchable database and it has created national attention because of that action. VoteOnMarriage.org is their rival group who has had their article up on Wikipedia.org unmolested for years now, it doesn't seem fair that one should have such a hard time with notability et al where the other has no problems.Salemmaman (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

it's looking much happier now, good work! -- Banjeboi 12:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Luxembourg relations

Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I left comments there, I suggest starting a list of all articles in the winds at the bilateral wikiproject if anyone finds new sourcing. -- Banjeboi 11:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Messages for you at WP:RFAR

Hello, Benjiboi; just so you know, some responses to you have been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine in regards to your request for courtesy blanking. Your response would be appreciated. Thanks! For the Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I sent an email as suggest by FloNight and got a response that the email moderator will either approve the message being posted or let me know some other decision. Do I need to do something else? -- Banjeboi 01:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Dawn Langley Simmons

An amazingly fascinating woman. Would you be interested in helping to get the article up to good article status? Born to servants at Sissinghurst Castle, adopted by Margaret Rutherford, transgender, and one of the first interracial marriages in South Carolina of all places?!? This is exactly the kind of article that needs to be promoted. Care to help? AniMatedraw 08:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

my plate over-floweth but I can pop in and offer eyes. I've taken a quick pass at it and if Mish is willing seems quite a good match. -- Banjeboi 11:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I was literally going to bed as I saw your edits and your note here. It would be great if there was an article improvement drive at the LGBT WikiProject for articles like this. I'm stunned this is the first I've heard of her. Thanks for helping, and I'll continue to help as well. --AniMatedraw 11:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with this - I will try and dig out what hard-copy I have on her next week. She was an object of pillory at one time, in part because of her claim to be intersex, and the prejudice about her seems to have informed this biography. It is a remarkable life - even though she was shown to have lied about having a baby. That does not foreclose her being intersex, neither does her transition, the book would be good to get hold of, and I can see if I can source it because I should have it alongside the bios of others like Dillon, Cowell & Somerset (somebody who definitely needs a BLP here while she is still alive). It could be a great article - Sackville-West, Virginia Woolfe, Margaret Rutherford, sex reassignment, the gay quarter in Charleston, the first mixed marriage in North Carolina - it reads like a novel! Needs some more/better sources though. I will see what I can dig out from the UK, you dig out what you can from the USA. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Glory hole (sexual slang)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:Sources which clearly states that sources must be reliable with a reputation for fact checking. Personal websites, trailers for pornography websites, and fictional novels are clearly not acceptable as sources per policy. I understand your desire to preserve gay culture on Wikipedia but removing these sources is not a removal of gay culture, it is an attempt to make the page compliant with article sourcing standards; much of the article content is preserved even after the removal of invalid sources, aside from very dubious claims from unreliable sources. Please do not continue to blanket reinsert these sources without examination of policy and the sources themselves. Thank you. 69.105.109.37 (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Found detailed in NUMEROUS book sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
This anon seems to just discount all the previous sources and mass deletes them, no worries. There are a few borderline ones but the vast majority are fine and I'll just have to review and restore appropriately. Thank you for the lead! -- Banjeboi 23:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I placed some academic sources on the talk page earlier, with relevant quotes, you can use - let me know if you need any more, and I can search GLQ & Sexualities, which ususally covers most things. In them the significance of anonymity, gay and eroticism is made consistently. Mish (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not discount all previous sources; I have removed the unacceptable ones, as they include personal websites and other self-published material, "autopornographic' books, a fictional novel, and a trailer for a pornography website. These are clearly not acceptable as sources. You have never justified the inclusion of any of these sources individually, you have simply attacked my motives as an editor. The vast majority were absolutely not acceptable. 69.105.109.37 (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
That is your opinion and I simply disagree. Off the top of my head you removed one or two from Scott O'Hara who has written extensively and been published on the subject. One was simply confirming a variant spelling. No worries, I'll work through them for a third or fourth time and re-add the ones that seem to be reliable and we can discuss the ones you still dispute. We also have a rleiable source board which is there specificly to help on these issues. -- Banjeboi 12:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I have extensively justified the removal of all removed sources on the article's talk page; you may view the reasoning there. 69.105.109.37 (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the generalized these are bad messages and am not in the mood presently. No rush i'll recheck, refix and restore as time allows. -- Banjeboi 12:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe it is appropriate to trivialize detailed explanations as "these are bad". 69.105.109.37 (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Your concerns are duly noted, I suggest further discussion on the article take place at that articles talk page where they will be most useful. -- Banjeboi 23:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Robert Hillsborough

Check out The Mayor of Castro Street. I also have this story: "Police Press Hunt for Slayers of Gay", The San Francisco Examiner, (June 23, 1977), p. 3 in a pdf form that I scanned from the newspaper. I can email it to you if you wish. --Moni3 (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

How many pages is the PDF? -- Banjeboi 12:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Ummmmm. One, maybe? I got it from microfilm. Depending on the length of the story, I may have taken several scans of the same page in order to read all the print in a story. Major headline front page stories took at least 4 scans at times. Minor stories, which this one was, took at least 2 if it was spread across 4 columns or such. --Moni3 (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Would love it then, bring it on! -- Banjeboi 12:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok. You have to email me so I can attach the files. They're on my laptop at home, so it won't be til tonight that I can send them. --Moni3 (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Done. -- Banjeboi 23:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Feminine essence concept of transsexuality

I'm not even game to dig into this particular trainwreck. The concept for the article is dubious at best, the language is comical - it's like an article on transness written by Maury Povich. Don't suppose you'd be game to take a look? Rebecca (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Good lord! Another one. Do I smell a Blanchard reference? Why yes, it's in the third paragraph. And the editors there, well it's the same ones who helped propagate other minefields. I don't even know where to start on this. Maybe we need a template of all the dubious gender-related articles that pro- and anti-Blanchard folks have managed to create and muck-up so they are generally incomprehensible and confuse more than comply. After a year of these things I do wonder what path forward makes sense. Each time we get rid of one mangled article some other POV mess pops up. I'm not sure what to do here. -- Banjeboi 23:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not have one page (not sure what it would be called) to house most of the information.

Start here: Ray Blanchard, follow the link under 'see other' to here: Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory, Follow the link in the relevant sections to here: Homosexual transsexual and Autogynephilia

Or start here: J. Michael Bailey and follow the link under the relevant sub-section to here: The Man Who Would Be Queen - which although the book is about the two categories 'homosexual transsexual' and 'autogynephilic transsexual', the article only mentions the taxonomy and has in-text link to autogynephilia and not homosexual transsexual

Feminine essence concept of transsexuality is poorly titled. The word 'transsexualism' would be preferable, and what Dreger relates to is not the 'concept' but 'narrative', so if it were to be a viable article it ought to be called 'Feminine essence narrative in transsexualism. It links to all the above under 'see other', as well as Classification of transsexuals, which under section Ray Blanchard takes you to Autogynephilia.

Transsexualism seems to have managed to survive pretty well unaffected by this - and looks fairly neutral. Some of the content of these other articles is significant, and there needs to be inclusion of some of the material on Bailey/Blanchard and autogynephilia and transsexualism as well as homosexual transsexualism - but this circular web seems to promote a prominence that is undeserved, especially as most people working in this field contest this classification. Much of the historical detail lending credibility to Blanchard's taxonomy is both synthetic and original research - but I'm not trying to explain that to the editors. I don't see whay most of this cannot be wrapped up in one article that simply deals with it in the context of this new formulation of the taxonomy of transsexuals, and reduced substantially. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be the sensible way to go here, but good luck getting all of these random articles merged in along the way. The problem with the "feminine essence" one is that it essentially doesn't exist as an actual concept - the whole article as articulated there is just one long trainwreck of cis-people's misunderstandings about what trans people actually think about themselves. The fact that entire thing is total original research might get rid of it, but the fact that it survived AfD doesn't give me hope there. Rebecca (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Cryptic message

I have sent you an e-mail Fritzpoll (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have replied, thank you. -- Banjeboi 23:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversy tag (re: Sam Blacketer controversy) - AfD

Thank you for the improvements you have made to the Sam Blacketer controversy article. I was thinking that the controversy tag you added may not be needed; the tag tends to be used for sections on biographical articles that deal with criticisms and/or controversies alone, as these sections may compromise the NPOV quality of the article as a whole. For an article on a controversy itself, I think it isn't necessary. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, obviously a now redundant post above. Thank you. :) Keep up the great work. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, on another note, there is something of a heated debate about the use of Wikipedia edits as references for the article, as you can see on the discussion page. I must confess I am worried some editors may not take kindly to your removal of these references, and could start an edit war. I recommend you raise your removal on the discussion page to try and preempt such an act. Thanks for reading. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Yikes, what a mess! Thanks for the heads-up! Hopefully it'll be deleted as just a big ol mess not worth the ink and we can all just move on, if not it will be a long road of verifying sources, and yes we certainly don't use internal links on articles the fur would fly if we did. -- Banjeboi 23:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Benjiboi/Archive_47&oldid=1166514864"