Jump to content

User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 51

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45 ← Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 → Archive 55

Good source

For politicos on a variety of issues Ontheissues.org. -- Banjeboi

moved? -- Banjeboi 11:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article

User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article -- Banjeboi

moved. -- Banjeboi 11:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Trans March

Updated DYK query On June 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trans March, 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.

Backslash Forwardslash 20:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea! Thank you! -- Banjeboi 09:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD on List of male performers in gay porn films

Ha! You caught me just as I was saving my referencing List of male performers in gay porn films. Take a look, it's simple, and crude, but it is a valid reference site. More to come... Guy M (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

IMDB is helpful but not likely considewred reliable enough to reference gay porn; I thiink it's borderline in this case. -- Banjeboi 16:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture

That picture needs to be taken down. Alexacclaimed (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What picture? -- Banjeboi 16:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:TransMarchlogo.png

A tag has been placed on File:TransMarchlogo.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image which is not under a free license or in the public domain and it has not been used in any article for more than seven days.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ZooFari 18:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not the right tag as it certainly hasn't been in the orphaned category for seven days. I'll see if an admin can help delete it once the history is merged to File:Trans March logo.svg? -- Banjeboi 18:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I've seen many admins delete rasters immediately, but I'm not sure under what criterion they put it under... ZooFari 19:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I've changed the license and summary to the appropriate ones, to both versions (File:Trans March logo.svg and File:TransMarchlogo.png). - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 19:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
AGF, the logo is most certainly not PD ineligible, as it includes multiple geometric elements (if it was text-based only, then it would not be FU). ZooFari 20:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. Thank you both for all the help on this! OK the good news in all this is that within six months or so, moving an image should be possible so much of these issues will melt away as the new logo would instead replace the old. As a suggestion, until then, instead of nomming an item for deletion it may make sense to leave a note saying here is where you can go to delete the old (and now unused) image and let them delete it. If they don't someone else is bound to come along and start the process eventually and Wikipedia is legally covered until than happens. -- Banjeboi 10:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing question

Hello, I was wondering if it's acceptable to link to a primary source of a company announcing their own spokesmodel (the article is on the model's page, not one about the company). I just noticed a recent edit to the Clint Catalyst article removing one, and while primary sources generally are frowned upon, it does seem pretty notable, especially as he was their first male spokesmodel. Granny Bebeb (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It probably is, what's the link and article? -- Banjeboi 11:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

First ever on network TV

This may be of some use to you.. first ever same-sex kiss on network TV in the USA. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 04:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an article waiting to happen! Not sure what it would be called? -- Banjeboi 11:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
First male same-sex kiss, first female was eight years earlier.[1] Siawase (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Excellent! Those might not be the first per se but likely the most notable. The Celluloid Closet has plenty of same-sex action but showing they homo subtexts and overt displays might be do-able. -- Banjeboi 11:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
They were the first to be shown on network TV (which is apparently a big. deal. in the US. It was almost as big of a deal with the Roseanne kiss in 1994 because it was a comedy show with an earlier timeslot...) but definitely not first ever captured on film. ;) Siawase (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Death of Michael Jackson

Benji, would you mind not reducing the images to thumb size? I know it's what the MoS says, but that's just a guideline, and that particular section of it has little support. The article looks very odd with the thumbs, which end up tiny on some browsers and enormous on others. Most readers don't have their image sizes fixed, and we need to cater to them. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It's in the MOS for a reason. Users who have it too small or large should adjust their preferences. Forcing the size is deprecated for various reason including, I believe, an accesibility issue(s) of some sort. Is someone in particular worked up over this? A smart compromise would be to add "upright" which brings the size down a bit, no one seems to object when we do that. -- Banjeboi 02:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It was forced into the MoS by a small number of editors, but it's widely ignored, and the MoS itself says people shouldn't force style changes on articles. The problem is that the overwhelming majority of readers don't even know they can reset their preferences, so the thumbs alone can end up looking ridiculously small or over-large. We have to cater to those readers. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Meh, I'll defer to whatever on that article. It looks like it will be quite busy for the next few years so go for it. -- Banjeboi 03:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the emotional rescue (Re: Grief porn)

With apologies to Mick Jagger and the rest of the Stones, i appreciate the rescue template. The article has gotten bogged down in a tendentious bout of lameness, which slowed its development and made it ripe for an AfD. Maybe it can get squared away now. Again, my thanks for the help. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you like the idea of moving to Media portrayals of tragedy? Or have a better title? -- Banjeboi 11:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, as I created the article, i am naturally reticent to it being merged into something else. That aside, if that's what's best, I am not going to let my ego get in the way. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The mourning sickness article seems a good match. It can grow and be rebirthed from there. Maybe research for sourcing every few months until you have enough. -- Banjeboi 22:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Faggot (slang)

I think there was a documentary about this car. -- Banjeboi

Indeed, but I haven't seen it. I remember reading that article several months ago. APK is your own Personal Jesus 03:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules! Lol! -- Banjeboi 03:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
And look at the available sources. APK coffee talk 06:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow. That's a smart website! -- Banjeboi 22:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
So, is this vehicle the source of the term "Buggery"? Never mind, I don't want to know. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Favour

Can you take a look at this first stab at reorganising and slimming this, and offer any suggestions on my talk page (or make changes as appropriate) please:

User:MishMich/CV history

I'm avoiding doing anything significant with the US stuff, as there's plenty of people here who are interested in US stuff already.

Oy vey, I'm only so good with lengthy content but will have a look. -- Banjeboi
OK, first thoughts are that flipping back n forth from Europe to US causes more confusion I would consider breaking it all chronologically and explaining how information was shared - newspaper accounts, film news reels, etc. Also I would consider not using Century is the titles as many readers don't know 21st Century equals 2000s; when it comes to WW2 you may need to spel it out and clarify the dynamic shift of all culture justifying a before and after. -- Banjeboi 03:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence

That caught my attention because it sounds like it's either deliberately or coincidentally the opposite of Garrison Keillor's fictitious Lake Wobegon Catholic church, "Our Lady of Perpetual Responsibility". I just wonder which one was invented first. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol! An etymology could be fun to find out - Keillor was filling the airwaves before the group even started so - hmmmm. -- Banjeboi 03:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hullaballo saga continues/ Any word whether he is a blocked editor?

User talk:Doktor Wilhelm#I still need help with this. He just going to continue harassing if he is not reprimanded. Swancookie (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Might be LGBT bias??? [2]

Swancookie (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid this might be the long complicated road on this. My quacker gaydar suspects we are but proving it may take some time and remain inconclusive. A user RfC, as worthless as they can be, may be the only next step betond a Wikiquette alert which may make sense as a good step towards that. The veiled hostility is terribly uncivil and abusive IMHO. -- Banjeboi 10:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
RFC wording here may help. -- Banjeboi

RE:RfC, I think that's what (hopefully) Doktor_Wilhelm will do. If he can't figure it out would you mind starting one? I've asked others to start that thread as I don't know how and am afraid I might do it totally wrong and blow the whole case. I'm curious how said user figured out I was gay? Is it that obvious? = P

Also, any word on the blocked user check?

I moved this whole section- less confusing? Swancookie (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, more confusing, I had put it with the prior thread to keep it all together; now that thread has been archived so I have to go dig for information I needed. -- Banjeboi 23:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Last annoying question.

What about this. If a user takes something off ones talk page (something they wrote) because an issue has been resolved... can the person (who's talk page it is) revert just to be a jerk? He's trying to discredit user:Xtian1313 because he's for lack of a better description "gay friendly". Ugh, this is so annoying. I'm sorry. Swancookie (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

To all editors/ Hullaballoo situation

User talk:Swancookie#To all editors.2F Hullaballoo situation. Swancookie (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Some responses

You are now making yourself the problem by overly aggressive pursuing this. Anything anyone removes from the article(s) can still be found in the history. It's annoying but can be done even years later. We're not in a rush here and your goal should not be to stop Hullabaloo but to improve the encyclopedia. Again, if any othe articles in question are sent to deletion let me know as that is a diffeerent situation. Until then the article can be edited by anyone, and it will be. Keep looking for solid sourcing and don't allow Hullabaloo or anyone else to push your buttons. You can't control what they do but you do control how you react. Remain civil and let them do themselves in.
I control my talk page just as other users control theirs. If, for whatever reasons, they remove something from their talkpage, that is generally their right - we assume they read it. If it's really a dire situation - most are not - you can ask for someone else to look at it. I've had several users remove my replies making it look like I never responded to their concerns or questions. Personally I find that despicable and revisionistic but it remains their right to rewrite history - on their talkpage. It shows who they are not who you are.
An RfC is premature, IMHO, a Wikiquette alert would make sense. It has to be written neutral and the diffs need to be accurate and obvious. Sorry, but Wikilawyering is labour-intensive and drugery. The good news is that in compiling through their work we will fill-in any evidence that will be a part of a future RfC. I was hoping we had confirmation of them being a formerly blocked user so we didn't have to do all this. So far it's not a slam dunk just a strong hunch. Having stated that there are other editors who specialize in those investigations. -- Banjeboi 23:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Here's the problem, the minute I start editing again he will revert my edits. Per your advice: I'm going to start editing again next week, let's see what happens. I understand about controlling your own talk page, but is it OK for an editor (user:Godblessyrblackheart) to remove something they wrote (on Hullaballoo's talk page) because the issue has been resolved (off wiki) and for Hullballoo to put it back even if said editor has removed it twice?

Can we get the other editors involved who specialize in those investigations, on the blocked user issue? Doing so may save me (and others) involved a lot of aggravation? Anyway, enjoy your 4th of July weekend. I'm sorry I'm such a pain. I get this way when I feel strongly about something. Swancookie (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If Hullabaloo is WP:Wikihounding you - following you from article to article - that is a serious civility issue and a serious charge. My suggestion is to start editing other articles and see if they do follow you around. Once something is posted on my talkpage, even if the issue is resolved, it's my "right" to keep it there and revert someone who deletes it - within reason of course but Hullaboo in effect does control their talkpage. -- Banjeboi 02:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It is not only highly likely that he is a sock for a perma-blocked editor, but I am now virtually certain that "Hullaballoo" is actually several users operating simultaneously. A look at his edit history makes this particularly obvious. "He" is on Wikipedia non-stop, virtually all day every day, and during that entire time, he makes edits at the rate of approximately once per minute. Any edits made on or by editors or articles on his "hit list" are almost instantaneously reverted by him, at all hours. The guy would have to literally never sleep, eat, go to the bathroom, or do ANYTHING in life other than constantly patrol Wikipedia. His history reveals that he also has the super-human ability to edit multiple articles simultaneously at a rate that would be physically impossible for a single user. For example, he will remove a particular phrase that he dislikes in the middle of, say, "Jodie Foster"; then within one minute, he will be making an unrelated deletion of an uncited sentence on "Clint Eastwood"; a minute later he will be removing an unsourced phrase deep within another celebrity article, etc. He would have to be speed-reading at an ungodly rate to be able to find, identify, and edit these sentences buried deep within lengthy articles at such a super-human rate. All the while, continually monitoring the pages edited by his "enemies" and reverting their edits; while also continually monitoring his user talk page and deleting discussions there within seconds after they are posted. This has GOT to be multiple individuals. Any suggestions on where such a thing can be reported? Is there a Wiki rule against this? Cubert (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Answered my own question: WP:NOSHARE Cubert (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Queer Liberaction

Thanks for helping to clean up the Queer Liberaction page. I'm very new to Wikipedia. If you have time, and don't mind, can you please help with references? If you go to the external website for Queer Liberaction, there is a lot of information there, plus pictures, but I suppose this would not be a 3rd party. Also the latest issue of the Dallas Voice has information and pictures about it. Here is the PDF for it: http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/archive/07-03-2009.pdf The Dallas Voice, and the local mainstream papers, Fort Worth Star Telegram and the Dallas Morning News have had numerous article over the last few months. As well, local TV news (all local stations) have covered the events. BTW, are you local or just stumbled on the page? Thanks again for you help! Markg65 (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, that should help. I don't really deal well with PDF. I was cleaning up transgendered --> transgender so just found it by chance. -- Banjeboi 15:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Queer Liberaction

add infobox. -- Banjeboi

Done. -- Banjeboi 12:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I wish

I wish I could upload this image to Commons and use it all over AN, AN/I and in most RFAs and RFCs - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 06:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Indeed. I so wish he would come out already. -- Banjeboi 12:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Rainbow flag (LGBT movement)

Great under the large flag image. -- Banjeboi

Added. -- Banjeboi 14:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Benjiboi/Archive_51&oldid=1190229785"