User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

DYK for Halloween in the Castro

On 31 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Halloween in the Castro, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Banjeboi 15:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Animal sexual behaviour

add archive and clean. Banjeboi

done. -- Banjeboi 22:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Xavin

add archive and clean. Banjeboi

done. -- Banjeboi 23:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Fag stag

Nom for GA. -- Banjeboi

In process. -- Banjeboi 20:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Louise Brooks

Thanks for your feedback on this. The editor in question who posted about this has been an issue on several fronts. The article didn't discuss Brooks and her sexuality at first, only briefly covering that she'd been married. I have done some searching and hopefully cleared this up in this paragraph. Apparently this person thinks that if the subject of an article isn't specifically lesbian or gay, then the LGBT project has no business putting the article until its umbrella. I'm not sure what attitude that reflects, but we've tried to address it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Good work - seems fine to me - let me know if you need support on this. -- Banjeboi 18:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

David Archuleta

FYI, I noticed that no one else lifted a finger to help you with the GA cleanup, despite supporting the article in theory. Your hard work is noticed and appreciated. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol! Thank you. I think there were a few assists there but I'm the wanker that nommed and felt I should see it through - pain and pleasure - all in a day's work! -- Banjeboi 21:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Your removal of merge discussion on Zeituni Onyango and Family of Barack Obama

I considered it inappropriate and I've reverted it. The only reason we have an AfD is that the original author of the Zeituni Onyango WP:CFORK decided to restore the fork against consensus at that time. Also, his initial version had clear signs of WP:OWN: no wiki-links, but 6 redirects, presumably for the purpose of enhancing google hits for his version; see my talk page for details. Since the AfD seems to be the catch-all for failed merge discussions (especially so on politics and fiction articles), the link from the merge box on Family of Barack Obama properly points to the AfD. VG ☎ 03:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We really shouldn't have two discussions at once. Frankly if the AfD doesn't result in a merge or delete then the article should be left alone. I support a merge tag on the families article pointing to the AfD only to keep those interested in the loop of pending relevant discussion but having both a merge and AfD tag seems pointy. If I get inspired i may add a bunch of content that I've been finding as I've tried to vet the current content. -- Banjeboi 03:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't have two discussions at once. Like wrote above, the link in the merge template (at Family of Barack Obama) points to the AfD, not to the talk page like it usually does; someone was clever enough to do that. VG ☎ 04:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's fine. -- Banjeboi 19:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinks

One wikilink per article is enough. Please do not wikilink character names in the cast list for Milk that already were wikilinked in the plot synopsis. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A well written article actually may have many more than one link. This article is growing and the accepted practice is one link to a particular page per section not article. Instead of deleting material you may wish to contribute to articles instead - it likely will help the project in the long run. -- Banjeboi 16:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: References

I did? Where? EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

My bad. You moved the refs and some IP removed them , my apologies. -- Banjeboi 22:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

On David Archuleta? Yeah, I moved them. It's okay, you don't need to apologize. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, sorry for the muck-up. -- Banjeboi 22:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Zeituni Onyango

Hello, Benjiboi. You have new messages at Tvoz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied there. -- Banjeboi 00:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Tvoz/talk 00:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK nom

Your DYK Nom needs a reply from you. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 19:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Zeituni Onyango

On 10 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zeituni Onyango, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your nomination! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Banjeboi 22:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter

This newsletter was sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC) by the request of Moni3 (talk)

Clarify tag on homosexual transsexual

Hello,again. I have reviewed your blocking case and it looks specious to me. In my dealings with you you have been reasonable and fair. I don't see the wrong in what you have done to warrant that. I hope it all pans out.

You placed a clarify tag by "The term homosexual is controversial because these transsexual people identify as heterosexual based on their gender identity." Just what is unclear? Perhaps I am so into the TS/TG thought pattern that I can't see how this phrase confuses. I originally had it read. The term homosexual is controversial because these transsexual people identify as heterosexual based on their subconcious sex."

Would it be clearer to you if I wrote. " The term homosexual is controversial because these transsexual people identify as heterosexual based their mental gender identity as opposed to their birth sex,"  ?

Thanyou for your cooperation. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, first it's not a blocking tag - it's just a clarify template - labeling it or me as "specious" is a leap of bad faith. To cut to the chase though, I think you might find language like "labeling transsexual people as homosexual is seen as controversial because homosexuality is traditionally contextualized as attraction to one's own gender; transsexual people are generally considered to be changing gender in some way." Frankly the whole article needs work but that statement was jarring for the confusion it engendered. If it's cleaned up it would explain that some transsexual people change gender and mainstream understanding of their sexuality would follow that their sexuality would change with that transition. ie. One's attraction to males while identifying as a man is seen as homosexual whereas attraction to males while identifying as a female is seen as heterosexual. To most readers, in my opinion, it's moving way too fast and with emotionally charged material. -- Banjeboi 23:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Note. Moved from my talkpage to article talkpage. -- Banjeboi 23:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the Clarify tag. I was talking about you being topic blocked. :-| --Hfarmer (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol! I had no idea - thank you for pointing it out. -- Banjeboi 00:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist

Caught up through Oct. -- Banjeboi 03:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Ugh. What a piece of work that "guy" is. As you can see the article wasn't in a great place when I got started on it, and after the election the last thing I want to do is edit an article about a homophobe. Glad there are more eyes on it. AniMate 11:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, I do feel a bit dirty in the wrong ways. The good thing about stubs is that they're easy to overhaul. -- Banjeboi 12:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Rent: Filmed Live on Broadway

Inre this diff... I removed the rescue tag 7-1/2 hours after the AfD closed. Per the in-tag instructions, I had waited. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In this case it worked out but this diff is to what I referred. The AfD, at that point hadn't yet closed. It worked out though and you did a great job cleaning it up - good work! -- Banjeboi 11:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No... with respects, I was careful... and I paid very close attention to the AfD notice caveat: "this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." The AfD discussion closed as keep on November 11 at 2:35 diff. I removed the rescue tag November 11 at 10:05 (7-1/2 hours later) diff. And I removed the AfD notice from the article when realizing no one else was doing so... on November 11 at 10:38 diff... 33 minutes after I had done the rescue tag. So you see, the AfD discussion was closed when I removed the rescue tag, though at that time the article was itself still (but now incorrectly) tagged. So I removed THAT notice too. Trust that I made darn sure I was not doing a naughty (grin). And thank you for the "attaboy" on my cleanup job. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean - I was only referring to it being removed while the AfD tag was still in place. The whole AfD world is a source of eye-rolling angst so I'm glad you're helping rescue articles! -- Banjeboi 12:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Amanda Milan

Great job on this article - the rewrite of the lead solves all of the problems there. Rebecca (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's just a start as there so much more to do. I actually hadn't seen the article but had just posted to the talkpage. When I looked at the article, well, it needed help. -- Banjeboi 23:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Fix it

Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries should be Street Trans Activist Revolutionaries or it was reformed with a changed name. -- Banjeboi

The historical organisation is the former - I'd never heard of any reformed organisation. If there was one, it's probably a good idea to either write a new article (if notability could be made out) or add it as a footnote to the existing article, but at the old title. Rebecca (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sylvia Rivera reformed it because of the Amanda Milan murder. It's not clear - because I haven't looked it yet - if it was renamed or the name on the present article is a mistake. No worries - we'll get it fixed soon enough. -- Banjeboi 00:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like both names are correct. The lede should be fixed and if the group still active it could be moved to reflect that. -- Banjeboi 01:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist

Caught up through 5 Nov - start at 6 Nov. -- Banjeboi 02:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Murder of Amanda Milan

very nice re-write !

I have added pre-op to the article, as you may or may not be aware this is something that has been constantly reverted by rebecca - her comments on this are bordering on the absurd, I really would appreciate some reasonable comments either for or against the use of this term. Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Pre-op and the statement that she was earning money for sex re-assignment surgery both need reliable sourcing. Not all transwomen are looking to fully transition for a variety of reasons. If we have a source(s) that states definitively then great - if not we may have to qualify it. -- Banjeboi 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)