User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 52
 | 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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
Odd {{Rescue}} tag placement
Hi, I noticed that you placed a rescue tag on a redirect. This confused me. I realize that WP:ARS is not purely focused on articles, but the mission of the project is to prevent pages from deletion by improving them. But a redirect, almost by definition, doesn't have much room for improvement; it's only a few words. So how does the {{rescue}} tag belong on a redirect? Regards, --Aervanath (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's a great question, and just for the record I'm not trying to make a point but squarely felt we were doing more harm with this deletion than good - or likely would be. Behind a redirect are at least two things. The history of all the edits before the page was redirected (content) and the place-saving of the article title alone. List of minor characters in Xenosaga would certainly seem to be a child article of Xenosaga and maybe even a child article of List of characters in Xenosaga. Like many fictional series the article grew to a point that some editor felt the need for a split; and then others came along to remerge. By deleting the redirect we lose the history of any content changes - which may also be a GFDL issue - as well as the article name itself. Redirects are cheap so it doesn't seem to me the need to remove them unless they are causing some harm. Another aspect is that by having the redIirects in place those titles keep sending editors interested in creating those articles back to the parent articles instead. I feel this may help stem, at least a bit, the cycle of split and re-merge. IMHO, it's better to have the content fully develope before being split off preventing these cycles which seem to take energy away from simply building better articles. -- Banjeboi 23:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- You are perfectly correct about the GFDL concerns, and that is perfectly appropriate to bring up at an RFD. However, I'm not questioning your reasoning behind wanting to keep the redirect; I'm asking as to why you chose to place the {{rescue}} template. One of the criticisms that's been leveled at WP:ARS in the past is that the {{rescue}} tag is just used to attract inclusionists to an AFD to !vote "keep", without actually improving the article. I'm not saying that this is true, because I rarely participate at AFD, and thus have little experience with ARS. However, the WP:ARS page seems to say that the whole point of the squadron is to improve an article (or, rarely, an image or template) to the point where it meets the criteria for inclusion. However, placing {{rescue}} on a redirect is somewhat contrary to this, as there aren't many ways you can improve a redirect. So, while I apologize for putting you on the defensive here, I must put the question like this: how does placing {{resuce}} on a redirect not create the impression that it is just used for garnering "keep" !votes at XFDs?--Aervanath (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- We can only do so much about other people's perceptions and if they indeed follow assume good faith in principle and practice. The essence of all of Wikipedia is we are sharing knowledge which is content. It's not limited to just article text but everything that supports our articles like categories, disambiguation pages, templates and even redirects. In this case I felt it was a bad idea to delete redirects that had already been created once so, logically, would be recreated. I don't take any offence at being asked and I hope I've expressed my rambling thoughts sufficiently. -- Banjeboi 09:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- You are perfectly correct about the GFDL concerns, and that is perfectly appropriate to bring up at an RFD. However, I'm not questioning your reasoning behind wanting to keep the redirect; I'm asking as to why you chose to place the {{rescue}} template. One of the criticisms that's been leveled at WP:ARS in the past is that the {{rescue}} tag is just used to attract inclusionists to an AFD to !vote "keep", without actually improving the article. I'm not saying that this is true, because I rarely participate at AFD, and thus have little experience with ARS. However, the WP:ARS page seems to say that the whole point of the squadron is to improve an article (or, rarely, an image or template) to the point where it meets the criteria for inclusion. However, placing {{rescue}} on a redirect is somewhat contrary to this, as there aren't many ways you can improve a redirect. So, while I apologize for putting you on the defensive here, I must put the question like this: how does placing {{resuce}} on a redirect not create the impression that it is just used for garnering "keep" !votes at XFDs?--Aervanath (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Also pony play, if it needs one. -- Banjeboi
- Damn, he's all oily and hot. Whew. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 00:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's a quite a good photo - very fashion editorial. -- Banjeboi 01:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- One on Animal roleplay, the other on Folsom article. -- Banjeboi 09:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Request for comment regarding conduct of User:Frei Hans
I have requested comment on the conduct of User:Frei Hans. As you have been involved in this dispute to some extent, I would appreciate it if you could comment. Papa November (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up, I've commented there. -- Banjeboi 09:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
bilateral AfDs
An editor was making a good effort and actually merging many of these the last few weeks...however this editor has been told by many others to stop merging. so it seems merging is not on. yes it means they have to go to AfD now. LibStar (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- (sigh) - fair enough. I'm sure we'll all learn something from this, what that is I'm unsure. -- Banjeboi 09:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
MJ
I know this isn't within the LGBT project scope, but I guess you will be aware of J.Michael Bailey, and might be interested in what he has written about MJ on 'Scientific Blogging' since he died:- [1] & [2]
- Lordy lord, if Bailey actually developed a good fringe theory on researchers who dwell in sexual and gender identity fringe theories to compensate for their own foibles and wrote an autobiography on such he'd likely do much better. -- Banjeboi 06:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see above discussion, any comments you have would be appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- You have no idea how happy I am about this AfD! -- Banjeboi 09:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Can you demonstrate how this article is more than one event. I am open to any and all discussion/changes - I just feel that there needs to be some demonstration of how this article is beyond one event. Please know, I am more than willing to change my vote/perspective if this subject is shown to be beyond one event. I appreciate your hard work on Wikipedia, and respect your opinions, perspectives, and edits. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- One event is BLP guideline which was to protect - the example that sticks - for instance, the identity of an obese kid who slips and falls and the video is a hit on YouTube. This incident, like most, needs to be seen through the WP:GNG filter as well as the bigger scheme of if the content really can't expand much and should therefore be in a parent article, which would be a merge. In this case it was borderline lean to keep because of the poor timing and the strong reactions from the LGBT community there. It went over the line when a seperate group formed just to respond to the raid; three people were seriously injured by the police, one with brain damage thus guaranteeing follow-up press, and a quick and national media reporting. Combined there is a good article in there too big for a parent article. -- Banjeboi 03:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Can you demonstrate how this article is more than one event. I am open to any and all discussion/changes - I just feel that there needs to be some demonstration of how this article is beyond one event. Please know, I am more than willing to change my vote/perspective if this subject is shown to be beyond one event. I appreciate your hard work on Wikipedia, and respect your opinions, perspectives, and edits. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
: 6 July 2009
- News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
clean archives, clean talk. -- Banjeboi
List of male performers
What the hell was this edit all about? The links I removed were not redlinks; they were links to irrelevant articles—to articles about unrelated fictional characters and unrelated real people. If you think that calling, through these links, the director Mike Nichols, along with various cricket players and other random folk, gay-porn performers isn't a BLP violation, I'd suggest you rethink your position. I'm going back now to remove the links again, and I hope they stay removed this time. Deor (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- That is not how to handle this sitution but I undrstand why you did it. Instead send a Mike Nichols to Mike Nichols (porn star) instead. In some cases it may make sense to build disambiguation pages. People with the same names are a common occurence so we try to hep our readers find the right article quickly. -- Banjeboi 23:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, well, you may want to take a look at where the Cliff Parker link you just added leads. Perhaps you should actually check what you're linking to before you click "Save page." Linking to irrelevant pages does not "hep our readers find the right article quickly." (And, by the way, who, exactly, alphabetizes a list of people by their first names?) Deor (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also Jim Bentley. Deor (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Again those are clean-up issues - that is, a reason to fix something - as opposed to a reason to remove. I understand your point but I think you may be missing the bigger picture here. The majority of our readers and newby editor may never realize that Mike Nichols (porn star) and Mike Nichols are different people. In this case it's better to have a redlink so they can see no article exists than to have them simply add a link to the wrong article. This is a preventative measure. I have been working to source this list for quite a few days now. During this process I'm also looking at other clean-up issues including to verify links go where they should. Sourcing, however, is a bit of a more pressing concerns so that is where my energy is focused. Feel free to add (porn star) or (pronagraphic actor) to those entries that need to be disambiguated as such. Until I have added all the major porn awards and sought sources for all entries needing them still that level of clean-up is a bit further down on my to-do pile. The alphabetizing was not my decision but as long as the lede spells it out I'm not terribly bothered either way. -- Banjeboi 00:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Tom Cruise incognito? -- Banjeboi
- Meh, not very helpful. -- Banjeboi 08:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Saving a page- Hullaballoo again
He nominated a page I am working on for deletion. This was an experiment as I knew the minute I made an edit he'd wikihound me.
Please help!
http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Tara_McPherson&action=history Swancookie (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I had to delete this. It was a direct copyright violation from her website. Feel free to recreate though, as I left the talk page and think she's likely notable enough to survive an AfD. AniMatedraw 20:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll get some proper refs/sources together and start a new one.
Swancookie (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Article Name Correction
I am starting to clean up the article India Pentecostal Church of God. I am somewhat qualified to attempt this, having lectured at 12 of their annual conventions in India. However, the correct name is Indian Pentecostal Church of God. How can this be changed? Rak-Tai (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've put in a request to move it as there was already a redirect in place, this should either be resolved or an explanation why it shouldn't move within a few hours. -- Banjeboi 08:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- This should be done now. -- Banjeboi 09:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
TB
Talk-back notice from User:Allstarecho
| Hello, Benjiboi. You have new messages at ALLST✰R▼echo 's talk page. |
| You can remove this notice at any time by removing this template. |
TB2
Talk-back notice from User:Allstarecho
| Hello, Benjiboi. You have new messages at ALLST✰R▼echo 's talk page. |
| You can remove this notice at any time by removing this template. |
Happy Bastille Day!
Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not! :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Lol. Thank you, best wishes to you and yours as well. -- Banjeboi 21:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
From my reading, I can see we share some concerns
Your Rescue tagged template demonstrates we're both concerned that pagespace be the focus of rescue activity. I can see that discussion has been conducted. My primary concern is what is actually happening, not what established practice suggests is happening. I'm not satisfied I understand the situation well enough. I'll read some more. Appreciate any guidance or sage info you're willing to dispense. I have some experience, but don't do deletion processes every day. I'm not trying to stir up trouble. I'd like to better understand the wikiworld as it is (before me or it squashes somebody accidentally). BusterD (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- We have two main abusers of the rescue tag, those who add it to articles to "test" ARS and flood the project with extra work and those who use the tag poorly, for whatever reasons. At the end of the day we can't prevent either from using the tag unless they are cearly abusing it, and frankly we'd rather have a few time-wasters in there than not have anyone use the tag at all. My hope is to auto-notice folks who use the tag with {{rescue tagged}} so they know that we are watching. Despite any drama the project still works rather well. -- Banjeboi 03:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Got milk? -- Banjeboi
- Just one more reason I avoid "pride" parades. They have lost their way and meaning... - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 04:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- <Blink blink> Huh? This is at the world's largest kink festival, it could be a leather pride festival but it's no pride parade that I can tell. Are you joking and I'm missing it? The queen is decorated in fruit loops - this is brilliant post-modern drag; if she makes people eat the outfit it becomes performance art as well. -- Banjeboi 04:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I still feel it's funny, not the milk part - too hot - but the rest? a scream. -- Banjeboi 13:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
10:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there - I replied to your comment on this at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#The_Claret_Run. I don't see that article's subject as notable and am inclined to take it to AfD. It needs an awful lot of cleanup, and I want to establish whether it's worth keeping before putting the work in. Any thoughts? Gonzonoir (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- lol. I've commented there without detailing why drinking is York is needed! -- Banjeboi 09:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Please stop personal attacks and please AGF
On your comments at AfD you have said I didn't do research or legwork prior to nomming and that is a boldface LIE and I insist that you AGF and stop your personal attacks. Stop personalizing AfDs. We have have guidelines and standards of notability. If you don't like them change them but STOP ATTACKING ME. This is a formal warning and I will ask for formal intervention if your personal attacks continue. I won't insult you, an experienced editor, by pointing you to the guidelines you are violating. If you don't want articles deleted, source them, but stop attacking me. I am very serious about this. Your comments are unacceptable. Drawn Some (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Just for the record in case further action is needed or in case you don't know exactly what I'm talking about, your personal attacks are at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Pumyea_II and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Addis. I see someone has already called you out on your bad behavior at one of those discussions.Drawn Some (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Your behaviours speak for themselves, I welcome any and all attention to this situation and have asked for others to review your wikistalking of another user. On two of your string of deletion nominations of their contributions it took me less than a minute to find that sources did indeed exist. Why you even bothered to dig through that user's work to find thse stubs and then to nom them is for you to know and live with. I can only base my opinions on the behaviours I witness and I am deeply disappointed in how you are conducting yourself. -- Banjeboi 14:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Then raise the matter of his behaviours in the appropriate forum rather than AfD. Your comments in those AfDs serve only to disrupt legitimate processes and you do yourself a disservice by drowning various AfD's with criticisms of Drawn Some's motives. Those motives are, for the purposes of AfD, irrelevant. The subjects of those articles are not notable and the articles should be deleted and the consensus building there reflects that. Please note that my comments here refer only to the AfDs and should not be construed my supporting Drawn Some's alleged misbehaviour in other places. Crafty (talk) 09:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Actually. Afd is the perfect forum to raise a flag about someone's, anyone's, motives. We've seen it time and time again when people have an axe to grind, so to speak and use Afd to make a point. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 12:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- No love, AfD is the perfect forum for discussing whether or not an article should be deleted. None of us are disputing that Drawn Some has a problem with the fella who created those articles, but when it comes to arguing for their deletion he's on the shilling. They should be shitcanned. Other forums are provided for resolving disputes between editors. The pair of you know this, and frankly it's high time you both either shat or got off the pot. So to speak. :) Take your kvetching to the appropriate venue and stop polluting AfD with dwama. Crafty (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Um, yea, thanks for the AGF there. I did take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Drawn Some seems to be wikistalking User:Richard Arthur Norton .281958- .29 a bit ago to get some neutral eyes on it. AfD generally is not the best place to raise these issues accept we have a series of what seems to me to be bad faith noms, the nom didn't seem interested in improving the article or finding ways to work with the article author to resolve issues, instead they are digging through another editor's contributions and targeting items to delete - we call that wp:Wikihounding, it's a form of harassment and violates civility policy. I'm trying to stop the drama that is bringing these items to XfD in the first place, Wikipedia is not a battleground. -- Banjeboi 18:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- No love, AfD is the perfect forum for discussing whether or not an article should be deleted. None of us are disputing that Drawn Some has a problem with the fella who created those articles, but when it comes to arguing for their deletion he's on the shilling. They should be shitcanned. Other forums are provided for resolving disputes between editors. The pair of you know this, and frankly it's high time you both either shat or got off the pot. So to speak. :) Take your kvetching to the appropriate venue and stop polluting AfD with dwama. Crafty (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Actually. Afd is the perfect forum to raise a flag about someone's, anyone's, motives. We've seen it time and time again when people have an axe to grind, so to speak and use Afd to make a point. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 12:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Then raise the matter of his behaviours in the appropriate forum rather than AfD. Your comments in those AfDs serve only to disrupt legitimate processes and you do yourself a disservice by drowning various AfD's with criticisms of Drawn Some's motives. Those motives are, for the purposes of AfD, irrelevant. The subjects of those articles are not notable and the articles should be deleted and the consensus building there reflects that. Please note that my comments here refer only to the AfDs and should not be construed my supporting Drawn Some's alleged misbehaviour in other places. Crafty (talk) 09:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Queer Liberaction
|
On July 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Queer Liberaction, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. Text was Did you know ... that the direct action group Queer Liberaction staged same-sex kiss-ins and a marriage ceremony to draw attention to same-sex marriage issues? |
BorgQueen (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yea! Thank you! -- Banjeboi 18:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I notice you re-formatted the note, without discussion, again. I don't want an edit war, especially over a formatting issue. Please address on the article's talk page?TVC 15 (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is how footnotes are to be formatted on this encyclopedia, we generally do not shove an undue amount into a single ref note and instead use these footnotes 0 that's what they are there for. Thi has been discussed many times before and the use of these has not changed. Many users are not familiar then and I myself was unfamiliar until seeing more featured articles employing them. See Harvey Milk and Stonewall Riots for examples. -- Banjeboi 04:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Umm, neither of those examples supports your statement. Each note in those articles includes mostly text, basically a digression from the narrative of the article with one source. In contrast, the AC reference that you converted to a note contained almost entirely source references with hardly any text, and even those few words of text could simply be deleted. Can you cite any other examples, or a policy statement? Where has it "been discussed many times before?"TVC 15 (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)