User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 60

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55 ← Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 → Archive 65

Hello and a smile

Just came across your user page and wanted to say hello, although have never met you ... and all best wishes.(olive (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC))

Well hello and smile back at you! Thanks for visiting. -- Banjeboi 13:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have gone and put it in the wrong place

I, of course, refer to [1] which you have placed on the talkpage. If this matter remains unresolved perhaps you might want to move it? Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was hoping anyone else would weigh in and simply close it vectoring further accusations to the COIN board. The two editors there just can't seem to get enough of this. To me this suggests there has been others treated by DC's "attention" in the past. Frankly I have better things to do and they seem to just want to cause drama which IMHO is disruptive. What do you think would make sense to help direct their energies toward more constructive avenues? -- Banjeboi 11:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Chris Willis

source sexuality and add LGBT tag. -- Banjeboi

done. -- Banjeboi 21:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Roman Polanski

Thanks. I provided an edit summary and discussed on the article talk page.

Article flags serve to avoid, for instance, simply deleting massive amounts of unsourced content, or overflagging articles that are woefully undersourced. - Thanks. - Sinneed 20:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In this case the refimprove tag wasn't very intuitive when there is a remarkable amount of sources there. It seems like the real concern was BLP violations and clean-up tags really aren't intended for that. Let's see if we can build consensus on the talkpage, the reason i messaged you was to avoid adding, yet another, lengthy thread on a very jousty talkpage but oh well, we're there now. -- Banjeboi 20:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Attacking IP

My apologies, you are wholly correct. I looked at one of his blankings, but failed to go beyond to see the one you quote. But my promise to block remains valid, and I am on line all day. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 13:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, they are an obvious sock of someone so I just wanted to stop the nonsenses. Thank you for looking into it. -- Banjeboi 21:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Murder of Jesse Dirkhising#Categories and purpose of the article

I've started a discussion. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Banjeboi 10:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing
—Kww(talk) 19:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Not comment on the hell part but certainly good luck and given your noted patience with the process I imagine there will be a much more solid approval next round. -- Banjeboi 09:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Towleroad

Is this what you want?

Towle Road is a popular gay news blog founded in 2003 by Andy Towle. Its contents runs the gamut from political stories, current events and celebrity culture.

I'm afraid that's all there was. Deb (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol! Yes, thank you. I was of course hoping a bit more was there but that will have to suffice! -- Banjeboi 09:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: perineal tears

In response to your question at WT:MED, Perineal tear classification is definitely a legitimate topic, and the system described is correct. I wikified it a bit more, though I think it will always be a stub. Cheers - Draeco (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

thank you! I was more concerned it was accurate and not pushing something a bit off. -- Banjeboi 01:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Naledi Pandor

See Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop#Naledi Pandor BLP lede photo SpinningSpark 21:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much! -- Banjeboi 21:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Do not add hoaxes to Wikipedia articles

Please do not add hoaxes to Wikipedia, such as you did in the article Igor Kurchatov. Hoaxes are caught and marked for deletion shortly after they are created. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method is to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia – and then to correct them if possible. Please don't disrupt Wikipedia in an attempt to test our ability to detect and remove such material. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia policy to learn more about this project and how you can make a positive impact. Thank you. Pantherskin (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of bad faith. In previous deletions it was simply removed without explanation. No one suggested it was false or a hoax in any way, at all. So knock off the bad faith accusations and simply state this is disputed and you believe the source provided is non-existent. Then it is up to those who wish to refute your claims with sourcing. Removing sourced content about people's LGBT status is a common occurence on Wikipedia and I had no reason to believe this wasn't simply another case of that. -- Banjeboi 18:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

MSM article copy

Hi Benjiboi! I'm... a little unsure if you use this as a talk page, most of the posts are only signed by you so... yeah, sorry if I'm doing something wrong here, I don't know Wikipedia very well.

Anyways... you did a great rehaul on the MSM article awhile back removing a bunch of unverifiable information or unreliable information on the health section. However I recently found in the same-sex relationship article a "MSM section" that is basically a copy and paste of the old, biased version of MSM article.

It was like this for the WSW section as well, even trying to include information that I had proved was unreliable in WSW -- "Though [real statistics], it had been previously claimed that women with female sexual partners had an average of 10.1 partners, while women with only male partners had an average of 2.2 partners, over a lifetime. 'ref that I proved was unreliable already'" Worst part was that it was obviously edited to include "previously claimed" after the fact I removed it in WSW. They didn't add "but this is bullshit" after that or anything, they presented it pretty much as fact.

Ugh. I did a quick edit of the WSW section. It was smaller and easier to handle, particularly because I had already done this exact same editing to the WSW article. So that section is fine now.

Well anyways, to the point: I don't know the MSM article very well. And you're the one who edited out that crap. You've already edited this once before, so it will probably be easier for you to edit it again than it will be for me. So my request is can you do it again? I would do it, but I don't know MSM subject very well; I just know that what is in there was all proven untrue or biased or something else. I don't know what the actual facts are, you probably do?

So could ya? Sorry if this is too much to ask, but I'm hoping it will be a easy and enjoyable task for you: Same sex relationship#MSM Avalik (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I use my talkpage as a to-do list but it is really long now (sigh). I'll have a look in a bit to see what I can do. -- Banjeboi 22:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Adrian Schultheiss

Hello, Benjiboi. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Photography_workshop#Adrian_Schultheiss.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Let me know if there are any problems :). Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent - thank you very much! -- Banjeboi 22:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

WT:Sock_puppetry#Interview_for_Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 17:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the invite but likely you have the responses needed. If you feel something else will help let me know. -- Banjeboi 22:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure thing, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 22:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I forget to thank you? ..

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
You're very welcome and congrats! -- Banjeboi 20:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Chaz Bono

"Okay, Banjiboi, I finally took a further look into some of the links I was directed to read, and I ran across this in the first two paragraphs of the Chaz Bono article. I will post it here for you:

Chaz Bono (born Chastity Sun Bono; March 4, 1969) is an American LGBT rights advocate, writer, actor, and musician. Bono is the only child of American entertainers Sonny and Cher, though both of her parents have children from other marriages..[1][2]

Bono was outed by tabloid press in the early 1990s and publicly self-identified as lesbian in a 1995 cover interview in The Advocate. The process of coming out to oneself and others was a central topic in Bono's two books: Family Outing: A Guide to the Coming Out Process for Gays, Lesbians, and Their Families (1998) tells the story of his own coming out as well as stories of other gay and lesbian people; the memoir The End of Innocence (2003) discusses his outing, music career, and partner Joan’s death from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.[3]"

Do you see the disparity in the use of one pronoun over the other? As you have pointed out to me, per the MOS:IDENTITY, are you not to use ONE or the OTHER, for continuity purposes? Or am I missing a key point: refer to this persons gender as she BEFORE the transition was made to switching the preferred identifier, and to the preferred after?

Or was this a simple mistake that was overlooked?Tgox1 (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and PS, no I DID NOT change it.

When Chaz transitioned, the article on Chastity Bono was renamed, and a volunteer went through the article and changed the pronouns. Someone must have missed one. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what I assumed. I just wanted to point it out to you so you can fix it.Tgox1 (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Bono is one of the highest profile transmen in the world. the article is routinely targeted but the added attention has also prompted some improvements. Thanks for catching that. -- Banjeboi 21:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Tgox1 (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg
Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween indeed! -- Banjeboi 21:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Image requested

Hi. Those image requested tags have been deprecated (on the grounds that their ugliness outweighs any helpfullness; it can be seen that there is no image; also, I believe there is a way to indicate the request on the talk pg. Make sense?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually they haven't although those who feel they are indeed ugly sure wish they had. Instead there was clear consensus that many didn't like how they looked but also had no better alternative and there remained no support to remove them all as they do work for the intended purpose. -- Banjeboi 01:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll defer to you here. But I note that in 2008 in a centralized discussion two-thirds of editors didn't want image placeholders at all, and less than 5% of editors thought that they should stay as-is.[2] Best, --Epeefleche (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the salient statistic is that no solution found more than 14% of agreement. The two main points are that many don't like how they look but they do in fact work. A more thoughtful discussion would do a comprehensive study to show how well they actually work and make recommendations for alternatives, especially on articles where the person dies before photography was widely available. -- Banjeboi 02:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. I didn't parse it all, but my view would be that a tag on the talk page would be a good compromise. Since 2/3 don't like any tag on the front page, I imagine some portion of the remaining 1/3 would see that as a fair compromise between the two groups' concerns.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The problem with all talkpage bits is that most of our readers never see them. So the obvious absence of any visual identification of the subject is lost on the vast majority of readers who have found their way to the article. We want to recruit them not only to add good content but to donate an image if they have one. We'll of course make the process hard, but the image needed template is a step in a helpful direction. -- Banjeboi 02:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I hear you. It would be great if in a perfect world we could measure its utility, and also measure the degree to which it detracts. But in the absence of that, I guess we'll just have splits among editors' views as to whether it is more helpful or distracting. In any event, I've no problem leaving this as-is, as indicated before. Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

David Shankbone's talk page

Good move on collapsing the last discussion thread on David's talk page. Me jealous me didn't think of it. ☺ Peace. — Becksguy (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, lately everytime some wacky ideas accusing editors of various bad-sounding things with an absence of any evidence they have actually done anything wrong ... Wikipedia Review seems to be at play. Tis the season for the tin hats I suppose. -- Banjeboi 02:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Brandon Teena

If there was anything removed it was in error. All that was done was undoing, as it is important all information stays until the dispute is concluded.Tgox1 (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you are removing items that are already done and removing the links to our gender identity guidelines. aka edit warring to push your POV. Knock it off. -- Banjeboi 03:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


Actually, I wasn't taking anything off that article on purpose. Due to the rapid changes of people taking things off that I had submitted in good faith, I went to copy and pasting the whole code for the page, and apparently there were some additions that were made after I last saved. I understand your point, see where you are coming from, and apologize for that.

NOW onto the archiving. I read what you wanted me to read, and you're right, at that too. HOWEVER there was also something in there I will post below that illustrates my reason to NOT archive just yet. However, it isn't worth constantly going back and forth over, so I will leave whether it is archived, or not, up to the auspices of your good judgment.

These concerns should be considered when refactoring:

  • Refactoring may cause confusion if improperly applied to an ongoing discussion; an editor should take great care to preserve all such discussion and all relevant details to its context.
  • Editors should be conscious of the newcomer's perspective; one should not remove content that would benefit an editor who had not yet read the page.Tgox1 (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


I have been contacted by the Admin you had take a look at the Teena brandon article. This was my answer to her/him (Gotta be gender specific you know)


"I have received and reviewed your message in regards to the gender issues concerning the Brandon Teena article. I want you to know I was not trying to push my personal views on the masses of the Wiki-world, but rather was trying to stay as true to the facts as they were/are, and my views have not changed. I was not trying to "edit war" anybody, I made what I honestly feel is good faith edits that were reversed in such a constant fashion that I just took to cutting and pasting the code of the page to re-do what I had already done, and for which people were undoing. I am fairly confident in believing what happened in that somewhere along the lines someone else added edits of whatever, and I missed adding them to the code I had saved. The only other thing I did was clean up an area that was redundant with the same information and links. However which way it played out, there was not the intention of sabotaging any links, edits or what have you.

With all that said, obviously this is a matter that some people feel very strongly about. I was trying to help Wikipedia be a credible online resource of information, and get away from issues such as what was happening on the Brandon article; issues that have unfortunately tarnished the image of Wikipedia to most of the public who see Wikipedia as nothing more then a hodgepodge of misinformation, and EXTREMELY biased. Sadly, I must now count myself among them.

You want the article to be unfair and inaccurate? Fine by me. Just know that when good people spend their time to try and help and get bullied for it, don't wonder when and why the resource YOU stand up for is and always will be considered second rate and a joke." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgox1 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your views. -- Banjeboi

Banjeboi,

There was the possibility brought up to me that I appear to be a bigot. As you read the discussions posted EVERYWHERE I seemed to have left a foot print, I can not argue that one may get that sense about me and at least wonder. PLEASE know that my interest in the editing of the article to reflect one gender over the other was based solely on the fact that Brandon was born and died biologically female, and not for any bias towards transgendered, gay, lesbian or bisexual peoples. I want to state that although we do not agree on the point of what we have been debating, I do respect you, your POV and there is no ill will on my part.  :-) Tgox1 (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe you meant well. You may have to accept, however, that some people very much believe they were born or assigned-at-birth the "wrong" gender. Logically I hope you would agree that choosing to live as a different gender identity is bound to be very difficult and most likely not rewarding in just "fooling" other people. In fact there's every chance that instead they will face ongoing problems as well, unfortunately, the likelyhood of violence and death. In Teena's case there is little doubt that if given the option he would have elected to get surgery. Thus become physically male. Instead he was murdered so we'll never know. Our job here is simply to report dispassionately what the reliable sources state despite our personal beliefs. FWIW, if you feel really strongly about gender identity issues it may make sense to avoid those articles for now and instead work on articles on subjects you really like. Learn how to add sourcing, clean-up errors and otherwise help and article that needs attention. in this way you'll get some experience and some well deserving articles will get needed attention. -- Banjeboi 21:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have learned a lot during the past few weeks, and I am starting to get used to the rules here, as they pertain to consensus, POV, NPOV and the biggest lesson of all...avoiding wars at all costs! One good thing that has come out of this is I did a fair amount of research concerning transgendered, gay, lesbian and bisexual peoples, and learned just what you indicated..I didn't know much. I am not sorry that I tried to improve that article, but I am telling you that I am sorry I wasn't qualified to. A pronoun isn't just a word when it comes to identity, it is how someone see's themselves, how they feel, think and interact, and who is anyone to say otherwise? MAN, I hate capitulation...Ha! But I mean it. Thanks for understanding.Chris Hawk (talk) 08:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Benjiboi/Archive_60&oldid=1190229287"