User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 50

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Benjiboi. 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 45

←

Archive 48

→

I didn't know you were working on one. Thanks for getting that "out" to us! Ladyof Shalott 17:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It was really to push the DYK bits. The rest is gravy! I meant to prod it a while ago but vacillate between angst and mania with wikidrama so finally just did it to get it out. My hunch is a quarterly newsletter may make sense. -- Banjeboi 00:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Toothing

Can you peek at Toothing? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Will have a peek. -- Banjeboi 00:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Help

I need help. This is getting really insane. I'm so sorry but I need this to stop. I want to start editing articles again without being reported? [1] & [2] Swancookie (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going to reply here since you posted the same thing on my talk page.. technically, you are edit warring on the Jessicka article as shown by 1, 2 and 3. Ideally, as this is a content dispute over sources, you should have raised the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard instead of engaging in an edit war. Granted, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has also engaged in this edit war with you, he/she isn't an innocent bystander.. it takes 2 to war ~~and you should mention this at the AN3 thread, along with the diffs~~. (I've left a note at the AN3 report) - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 04:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you. I'm not saying I'm not in the wrong but I assure you all I'm not a vandal, a SPA, a sock, or a disruptive editor. I'm simply trying to better the article Jessicka. I have taken proper steps to involve other editors when I'm not sure of the correct answer. [3] Like I said previously Hullaballoo's bias and bad faith editing make me question his judgement about acceptable references. I have since found a suitable and hopefully acceptable reference below. I removed the unacceptable blog reference. I would truly appreciate it if somebody could really take what I'm saying here in good faith and please investigate the claims Doktor_Wilhelm made about user: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz here:[4] The L Word Episode Guide . Season 3, Episode 8 TV.com Latecomer Notes + Add Notes - Bummer by Scarling. Swancookie (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well done

Benjiboi, thanks for this edit -- it captures the essential parts of what I was saying in a much cleaner, tighter package. I have to admit I was a little skeptical when I saw all the deletions, but reading through it I can see it's a great improvement -- thanks =) -Pete (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol! Well by default I have to do a few things right! There was an American show West Wing that was quite stirring and the president character, Jed Bartlett (I think), once said something to the effect that if you say something in five words that could be said in fifty you simply aren't trying hard enough! I come from a short-attention span arena so we have to grab them and show them the idea so they can move on with their lives. It's a style that is frought with potholes and vipers but occasionally works. -- Banjeboi 10:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, I've actually been watching the West Wing obsessively on DVD lately, but I missed that quote. But, there's a Mark Twain one I like that says more or less, "I didn't have time to write you a short letter, so I've written you a long one." :) -Pete (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for this one -- it captures where I wanna be right now. lol ;] - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 14:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh you nasty, nasty boys ;)

You're very welcome. -- Banjeboi 22:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

To all editors dealing with article Jessicka/Hullballoo's aggressive edits

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Xtian1313#To_all_editors_dealing_with_article_Jessicka.2FHullballoo.27s_aggressive_edits Xtian1313 (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added a link to this on the 3rr thread. -- Banjeboi 22:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

TMM (Traditional marriage movement)

There's currently debate as to the suitability of the title of that article. As I had (apparently prematurely) moved it, (feeling the title was somewhat constructed by Wikipedia itself) I rephrased a few articles that were linking directly to it. I believe the spirit essentially remains after my edit, but rather than reverting it, I would ask that you keep an eye on the fate of TMM. I presume you watch the article you reverted, so if you see the TMM article get moved or merged, I'd appreciate it if you would edit the article to reflect that. - BalthCat (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(The reason I ask you is because I will most definitely forget.) - BalthCat (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The Traditional marriage movement article seems quite the mess. Personally it seems a POV fork of the history of marriage. I would say chillax a bit on it as that article and everything associated with it seem to be a current and ongoing battleground unlikely to be quickly resolved. For your sanity it may be wisest to ignore it and work on stable articles that need attention and won't be a source of drama. -- Banjeboi 10:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I keep asking them to just show me that it's a consistently used term, and that Wikipedia isn't creating/blessing a new one... even NOM's website doesn't use it. And the poster-child Prejean called it Opposite Marriage! D: The article didn't even seem bad, per se. Just ... badly named. - BalthCat (talk) 10:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the most constructive way forward would be a Request for comment (RFC) on the article talkpage asking - The title of the article may not be accurate or NPOV; based on the content what would be the most appropriate title? In this way the answer could be that the current title is fine or that a new title would be better. The key is to keep the initial queery itself NPOV. The discussion will go a month or less if concensus is reached earlier. Does that help? -- Banjeboi 00:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

List of minor characters in Xenosaga

Er...List of minor characters in Xenosaga. This redirect can't be improved by editing, so there's nothing for members of the ARS to do. Could you remove the tag, please? Fences&Windows 00:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather leave it and see if anyone else can add to the situation. This is similar to discussing if content should be merged, listified, is redundant, etc. In this case I am troubled that by deleting the redirect we are adding to a cycle of split/AfD/re-merge. I'm not saying this is a test case but the issues can certainly be talked about and ARS does indeed do that. There is also GFDL issues which suggest that we move cautiously at least. -- Banjeboi 00:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Swancookie

Your comments directed at me on User:Swancookie's talk page are extremely unhelpful. User:Swancookie is one of a string of SPAs that have been materializing over the last three months in disputes over editing articles over minor-league Los Angeles celebrities. Several of them are obvious sockpuppets, and all maintain the same approach -- complete disregard for the requirements of WP:RS and WP:NPOV, an enthusiasm for groundless personal attacks on editors they disagree with, and an insistence on maintaining the articles as shrines to their friends and colleagues. There have been repeated threads on administrative noticeboards on these disputes, with no support found there for the SPAs. User:Swancookie materialized a few days ago after a long absence, and has done essentially nothing except reinserting text that fails WP:RS and directing personal attacks at other editors (mostly me). I suggest you review the full dispute, and I commend to you User:Bali_ultimate's comment about the disruptive activities. I also note that, under WP:RS, it is not acceptable to uncritically cite unsourced quotations found on an artist's website praising the artist in glowing terms. That fails WP:RS by a wide margin, which requires that"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It is particularly unacceptable to do what Swancookie does repeatedly: writing quotation links which disguise the actual source. I would also note that I have myself googled several of the quotations involved, and discovered no sources for them independent of Wikimedia, Wikimedia mirrors, the band's own site, and fansites republishing text from the band's site. That is a strong signal to me that the quotations cannot be reliably sourced. It is also a clear sign that, under WP:BLP, the quotations cannot be used in Wikipedia articles, since BLP strictly prohibits the use of such dubiously sourced material, both promotional and derogatory (and Swancookie is inserting both types.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, first off you can dial down a bit as I had suggested that things were getting heated and perhaps a neutral party would help. I still do. Usually in these cases there's some middle ground. Personally i don't know all the players involved just replying to Swancookie who - nicely - asked for help and has taken on my criticism wholeheartedly. I do agree with you that reliable sourcing and accurately representing those sources is important. However had Swancookie offered a newspaper cite without any weblink we would generally accept it at face value; if there were doubts that next step would be to ask for a direct quote to verify what we have is accurate. I don't have the sources in front of me and haven't a clue about the SPA bits except what I saw on your talkpage which seemed to suggest - inconclusive. My gut on this is that your perhpas fed up with the pattern but that may be clouding the good faith clause that all those folks are the same or are related - they might be but let's stay on target on the bigger goal here. Is it likely the articles will be deleted? Probably not. Therefore it's in all our best interests to improve whatever article remains. Deleting piles of content and refs, and simply reverting isn't helpful in this case. It may serve, what smells like your sourcing concerns, to pull a few at a time to talkpage there and explain ____ blog is being used to make an exceptional claim but there seems no evidence of it being a RS. Just as we're in no rush to write the perfect article we don't have to be ina rush to destroy what someone else has built. Some blogs are accepted after all so you may be over-reaching a bit. In any case, even if you're frustrated, your retain control over your actions and I think you're being antagonistic whether you intend to or not. -- Banjeboi 20:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

sigh: here we go again. There was a source for the Independent reference but it's been taken down for 48 hours. I'm not a SPA. I have not attacked you Hullaballo, merely engaged you to help improve these articles rather then aggressively rip them apart. Hullaballo has threatened to have me blocked for not agreeing with him and also told three editors that insinuated that they had a LBGT bias, which was a complete lie. I am so tired of this. I am doing my best to strengthen these articles to the best of my ability. Middle ground? Yes, Please!
Your constant referral to the people in these articles as " c- list celebrities", buzznet celebs, and minor-league Los Angeles celebrities leads me to believe that you have a definite bias against them. Why edit their articles so aggressively? Why edit every article attached to these folks? Like I've stated 101 times now, this couple Jessicka & Christian Hejnal are not celebrities, c rate or otherwise. I dare you to show me an article anywhere that states that they are. They are musicians, artists, and produces, whom are notable and I truly believe that because you've had a disagreement with Christian Hejnal= user:Xtian1313 you've done everything in your power while spouting wiki policy to try to discredit Christian and his wife's article in order to nominate them for deletion because you are on some weird revenge trip.
I hate dragging others into this but I have no recourse. I'm really trying. Any help would be appreciated.
Swancookie (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, it takes two to tango so the best response is twofold. Civilly disengage from them and simply set about about using the best sources and presenting them accurately and neutrally. If you use reliable sourcing accurately and they continue a pattern of removing them without good reason then they are in the wrong. It's unfortunate the use of such descriptors as c-list et al are used, thankfully with Kathy Griffin those walls are rather meaningless. The second bit of advice that I too fall short of is too long didn't read. Concisely make your case avoiding commenting on the contributor - just the contributions and let your work speak for itself. If any of those gets close to deleted I can help. I do recall Clint Catalyst from working on Jeffree Star which I pulled from the ashes after it was being deleted for the th time or so. -- Banjeboi 22:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you review WP:BLP. The policy regarding the use of blog sources in BLPs is quite clear. "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." (There is a very very limited exception for certain blogs published by newspapers, but none of the sources here even approach that exception.) WP:BLP is also quite clear as to what to do when blog-sourced claims are found in a BLP. "Remove any unsourced material to which a good faith editor objects; or which is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP)." Your position is not an unreasonable one, and it is often followed for articles that are not BLPs. But the Wikipedia community has rejected it for BLPs, and has agreed on the much stricter policy, quoted above, that I have been following. If you're not willing to accept the well-accepted, settled, explicit policy on BLPs that the Wikipedia community has established, then you should not edit BLPs, and you certainly should not criticize those of us who take pains to keep BLP articles in compliance with that policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

First off please don't interupt other users comments like that, it pulls comments out of context and can cause more confusion. I'm quite familiar with BLP issues but appreciate your interest in pointing them out. I don't think the policy is quite as clear as you think but I'm not too concerned as there seems plenty of RS's to satisfy our needs until some of the issues are sorted out. Thank you for inviting me to not edit BLPs - I'll decline your offer. And my constructive criticism was more along the lines of encouraging you to follow another set of policies on WP:Civility. You likely mean well but you're coming off pretty harsh for a concensus environment. I would be more swayed if I actually saw negative information being used vindictively here but until then I think a gentle approach to get Swancookie up to speed on wikifying things is much more effective. In short we don't swack someone on the head with a newspaper and call them a jerk as it's not needed and builds resentment. We act cordially to win them over to be a better Wikipedian. -- Banjeboi 04:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I had been editing the Clint Catalyst article for a while myself against this editor, whose contributions follow a pattern of removing multiple sources (over 200 since early April), then using those removals to subsequently justify removing mass information on the subject due to lack of citations. I too have been accused of being an SPA, as well as being accused of being a friend of the subject (when I had been working on some other articles as well, and plan to edit more, if I can remember my login). Whenever I or other editors would ask policy-related questions on the article's Talk page in the hopes of constructive editing, they would go ignored or be rudely dismissed.
Several other editors of the page who were also hoping to contribute information left Wikipedia over this - I myself took a long break, but returned today after noticing on the Talk page that there are now plans to remove Catalyst's spoken word credits, on the basis that the editor isn't sure what spoken word is. This situation has become a major source of frustration, and the article in question is now lacking considerable amounts of information which was cited with RS-approved sources. Now, I see that this problem is also ongoing on the Scarling-related articles - is there anything that can be done to help? It seems any attempt at adding information to the page, no matter how well-cited, gets removed. Thanks in advance... -Granny Bebeb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.36.46 (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

First off, yes, there are plenty of things to be done. If Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is actually being disruptive that can be addressed. More likely they are being harsh and although unpleasant are just within guidelines. You find some users like to delete material and target articles. The only - really - and best response is more and better sourcing. If any article gets to the deletion stage please let me know and I'll look into a rewrite. If I may also suggest don't take anything personally here, I've pulled quite a few articles from deleteion and lost a few as well. Just do the best you can and if someone is being a jerk look to working on something else and come back to it later. We're in no rush here and articles are always changing. -- Banjeboi 04:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, there does seem to be some tenditiousness going on and a leap to assume bad faith which is harmful to editing; accusing editors fof being SPA's is generally unhelpful and they are welcome to try it with me. I've taken a quick clean-up to Clint Catalyst, it's reasonable and should certainly be looked at for improving. Some of the editors involved do seem to have a unique approach to collegially working with others but don't take it personally - it will pass eventually. -- Banjeboi 05:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have sought the help of other Wikipedians as I am a relatively new editor and am not always sure of the best approach - especially in difficult situations such as this. I appreciate your efforts. Granny Bebeb (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"Granny Bebeb" is a not a relatively new editor, but a sockpuppet of User:Alcy, who has been editing Wikipedia intermittently since 2005. She adopted her current identity a few months ago so she could pretend to be a new user, and admitted as much in an earlier discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Diff? -- Banjeboi 22:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's from this discussion Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_32#Clint_Catalyst, where "Granny" admits to posting as "Alcy" on another site (not coincidentally, involving vote stacking elsewhere). Given User:Alcy's editing of the article involved in that dispute, the sockpuppetry should be clear. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, that discussion shows that other editors have issue with your conduct. And Granny Bebeb doesn't admit to anything although you apparently try to out them or someone based on evidence from other websites - I don't think that's encouraged, at all. -- Banjeboi 09:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping my name again, but an abandoned account is hardly sockpuppetry. Wikipedians are permitted to move to new accounts. Though the old account may have been created in 2005, I still fully consider myself to be a new user - edits made under that account were amateur at best, and I'd never dealt with a serious situation such as this one or had much familiarity with Wiki policy until now. "Vote stacking"? Come on. Catalyst himself posted bulletins on social networking sites promoting said contest entry (which has nothing to do with Wikipedia, but whatever). It was not against the rules of the contest to distribute the entry link, and I wasn't the only fan who also chose to promote it. Granny Bebeb (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why but Hullaballoo claims everybody (including myself) involved is a sock or a SPA. (a thought) Can't some of these editors be taken at face value? It's frustrating dealing with a user whom is not forthcoming with reasons why they are making such aggressive edits. It's difficult to communicate with somebody who threatens you with policy and collapses/ removes sections rather then discussing changes. I'm not saying either side is right, I'm saying that Hullaballoo's actions and tone make it very difficult to learn from one's mistakes. Swancookie (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Stress not, we'll get this sorted out but we may have to dig a bit deeper first. Just continue to find the best sources and keep improving the articles. -- Banjeboi 09:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet another editor states a strong opinion about Hullaballoo. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Dogtownclown#I_Quit.2C_Yeah.2C_So.2C_The_Assholes_Have_Won Swancookie (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

On shooting yourself in the foot

I see on your user page you whine about confronting supposed "homophobia and transphobia". Consider the possibility that what you're actually confronting is the consequences of your own jerkish behavior. It's nice that you decided to initiate a discussion thread about an important, substantive matter, but when you needlessly title it with an accusation about another user, you bring discredit only to yourself. If you had cared to look at the article's Talk archives as I'd suggested, you would have found that I am one of the editors who has made sure--against some dedicated opposition--that the article has contained more than a single, brief sentence on same-sex marriage. In other words, you might have figured out that that I was your potential ally in the current debate. But, you decided to pursue things in a fashion which I gather is customary for you. Very well then. Piss off, jerk. Whine about that. DocKino (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me I should be careful about seeing you as an ally, I consider that valuable information indeed. FWIW, I have little interest in quibbling on this when a FAC is underway. I trust that those interested will find a way forward and when they reach consensus I'm happy to them find sourcing. -- Banjeboi 18:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)