User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 57

Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

September 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Violence against LGBT people. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. as for the anon editor in this matter - whom I have now blocked for a different breach - please do not place any administrator in a position where blocking for 3RR is inevitable --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 13:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I was only reverting vandalism. The now-blocked anon seemed to miss the part that it was rewritten to avoid being either copyvio or plagarized. They seemed more interested in accusing me - and others, according to their editing history - of really bad sounding things rather than simply suggesting a better way to write something. They also are apparently a sock of someone although it may be a legitimate alt account. They may have been working to make some point but it only seems to be alienating others, that actually could be the point I suppose. -- Banjeboi 13:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand the difficulty that you are having. My warning is meant (and hopefully taken) to support you, insofar that you also should be alerted before any potential blocking. Further I trust you will also note that after I blocked the anon I also protected the current version of the article in question. Hopefully some time can be spent on further legitimizing the reasons for content to be one way or the other, and towards that intention I have fully protected the page beyond the time of the anon's current blocking - so that they too can attend to the discussion upon their return.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 14:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Having spent the last hour reviewing this mess, I cannot help but feel that you were successfully baited by the IP. If I might make a suggestion, next time rather than get into a revert war pissing match with the IP, just re-rephrase the content in question. When it comes to copyvios, I only get suspicious when 6 or more words in a row are the same. Had the "family and friends" been switched to "friends and family," I suspect that most Wikipedia editors would have rolled their eyes and totally dismissed the copyvio claim. Likewise, removing the IP's talk page comments just lend those comments some hint of credibility ("oooh, maybe he is trying to hide something!"), whereas if you had left them, people could read them, see how you had re-rephrased the sentence in question, and then immediately recognize that the IP has -at best- an axe to grind. Keeping cool when someone is out to get you can be a pretty tough thing to do, however most of us recognize that you honestly have the project's best interests at heart. Thanks for all of your hard work! — Kralizec! (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I thank you both for your comments. To me this whole thing smells like a duck and baiting seemed to be the name of the game. Thank you for the advice in handling it. Each time I kept looking to see if I was missing something and tried to further rephrase. If I had looked through their history a bit it would have been apparent their MO. I too feel like a lot of energy has been wasted but at least I've learned something. -- Banjeboi 14:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Jessicka

Hi, I took your advice and took a break from wikipedia. I've decided to return and ignore those whom try to exacerbate situations by wiki lawyering, false accusations, and try to bait me because of their own stuffy close minded beliefs. In saying this, I was curious if you'd still like to help me. I'm going to add some information to the article Jessicka. Her website has been updated and there's plenty of reference there. http://www.jessicka.com/faq.html. I was hoping once I made the changes you would look them over and see if my work was solid?

I'd appreciate any help. Thanks in advance. Swan Swancookie (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's looking pretty good. If I were you ... change "Music career" to just "Career" and move "Between bands" ... between those sections. Find a way to integrate the bisexual bit to the rest of that personal life paragraph and move the whole thing to where it seems most relevant to her career. If it had no impact or profound impact n her artistry try to explain it briefly so our readers understand the significance. -- Banjeboi 23:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah good suggestions. I am going to make a few more additions. I'll hit you up when they are made. Thank you so much! Swancookie (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual agenda

There is this hair-brained scheme I started the ball rolling on to get this article to GA/FA status. Never done this before. If you feel like dropping by, and can give any hints/advice, please do. I'm hoping we can keep Betty Bowers in there somehow, as I am a big fan, but I don't know if it would pass muster as WP:RS - although it has to be the best example of satire on the topic out there. Mish (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't sweat Betty Bowers. I suggest do a separate push to get Bowers to GA on its own. GA is a cakewalk compared to FA. FA is a thesis that every word, source, inference, image, etc. is gone over by folks looking to ensure it's presented to the highest standard. The level of discussion spent on a single sentence is gobsmacking. If there is a sincere effort for FA your write the FA article and simply do GA along the way. -- Banjeboi 01:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Archived pages

Okay, I can respect that. But, there was an issue brought up in ANI a while ago that included me and I was never notified as is policy. I think that it was only fair, regardless of the time frame. Thanks. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems logical but it's not. First off it's highly encouraged to notify when you're discussing someone on a board, but not required. Secondly we want an archived real-time discussion, not a revised what we wish we knew in hindsight version or a follow-up, told-you-so or "this later turned out to be..." Wikipedia is often unfair. Take a breather, think about what Wikipedia aims to do and how you want to be involved. From there try to simply work out disagreements civilly. Your goal is not to be right or simply get your way but to build the best articles for our readers. If someone is a dick, so be it, try to rise above it. -- Banjeboi 01:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well alrightie then. I should have been able to take an example from the many editors on Wikipedia who never respond to attacks and/or accusations. In any case, I had months to cool off, I was writing a friendly reminder to him that I wasn't who he said I was. Also, thanks but no thanks on the welcome template, you administrators like to post those on peoples' pages to discount their experience on this site. I have been on here for three years. Thanks. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Sorry, I was going by the talkpage history which suggested you hadn't been welcomed. I do it not only to show off my fab template but also because it has links for newbies that can be quite helpful. I'm not an admin BTW but agree it's hard not to rise to harassment, I still get sucked into drama and it can be a challenge to step back. Just remember you're better than that and if someone falsely accuses you it says more about them than you - I've been accused of a lot of things and the best I can say to it is learn that some grain of it may be true and take that to heart - ignore the rest. Good luck! -- Banjeboi 17:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

God I hate it when people kill with kindness.... it works. I've had two accounts, the last one I don't remember the user name and password as I used it before I deployed. When I got back I forgot and created a new one. Thanks bro for the pointers, take care. By the way, love the quotes and pictures. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Lol! To find the old account you could do some detective work by targeting the edit changes on articles you worked on during the time, especially if you used any talk pages as those are less traveled.

Haha, I totally could. Maybe I will.GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

• Flagged protection and patrolled revisions: Misleading media storm over flagged revisions
• Flagged protection background: An extended look at how we got to flagged protection and patrolled revisions
• Wikimania: Report on Wikimania 2009
• News and notes: $2 million grant, new board members
• Wikipedia in the news: WikiTrust, Azerbaijan-Armenia edit wars
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 15:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Page renames

I'm afraid that I don't understand why moving people from "John Doe (director)" to "John Doe (pornography)" is a bad idea. The naming convention page states: It is generally preferred to use a noun that describes the person, rather than an activity, genre, or affiliation (chemist, not chemistry). However, this can sometimes lead to awkward or overly-long disambiguations, in which case a shorter but still clear term should be used (baseball, not baseball player and coach). If writing "John Doe (baseball)" rather than "John Doe (baseball player and coach)" is preferred, then why not "John Doe (pornography)" if John Doe has both acted in and directed pornography? Also, I don't see any mention of the entry on the admin incident page. Asarelah (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The admin incident page auto-archives threads stale more than 24 hours; that thread resolved days ago but all agreed you weren't doing anything maliciously. And I agree that the MOS could be more clear.

I think the porn star disambiguation is where it all started and the cultural taboo of pornography in general and in conjunction with BLPs in particular are the concerns. If we have articles on three people, all named Johnny Foo, we only have to disambiguate enough from each other, not all conceivable Johnny Foo's. The cultural taboos are enough that we avoid, right or wrong, using "pornography" unless we have to and instead find the profession within that genre so writer, director, actor, illustrator instead of pornography is preferred. In part to avoid BLP concerns of the title of someone's article. Pornography remains a subset of film-making so the first level of disambiguation generally is just from other professions and if there are two actors then adding "pornographic" is acceptable if that's what someone is known for. FWIW I wouldn't use "medicine" if someone was both a doctor and researcher, I'd go with the one they were best known for, etc. for other fields. -- Banjeboi 18:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

But how do we determine which one the person is best known for? Also, what about changing the names of articles such as Belladonna (actress) to Belladonna (person), as there are no other people named Belladonna? Would that be better? Asarelah (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

To determine which they are better known for is usually a judgment call based on the article as it currently is written. With some articles it will be fairly obvious. On the ones where it isn't obvious I would go towards their present career focus. For Belladonna I think "person" would be an excellent choice, great idea! -- Banjeboi 17:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still kind of puzzled as to why the use of the word "pornography" in the title should avoided. I mean, why is it a BLP concern when most of the biographies are about people who did virtually nothing else BESIDES pornography? Also, doesn't this idea of picking a profession (such as actor or director) clash with the standards already set by the naming convention page used in the baseball player and coach example? Asarelah (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think using "baseball" as a disambiguation is also a bad idea but we pick our battles, "baseball player" or "coach", IMHO, would be more helpful. We should go for unambiguous article titles and pornography is a genre so it's not terribly clear or intuitive why that would be used. It tells us only that a person is associated with a traditionally disreputable subject. For instance, a researcher and author should never be put at Jane Foo (pedophilia) as it incorrectly implies something that the article should do instead. -- Banjeboi 14:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, then perhaps we should put "film" instead of "pornography" in as the disambig. Also, if a porn actor has a common first name, like "Celeste" or "Dee", should I make the qualifier "person" instead of "actor"? There are lot of people named Celeste or Dee, but generally only one actor. Asarelah (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"Film" is probably a bad idea as we use that for actual film article disambiguation so it would imply the article is a film rather than a person. For Belladonna we only had one article named "Belladonna" about a person so that made sense. In the same situation on other names I think that would also be fine although actor or director might be better. -- Banjeboi 17:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Heads-up

Ciao, Benji. Two articles you've edited concerning San Francisco LGBT figures are being discussed in a certain off-wiki forum. You might want to check it out. Regards,  Skomorokh  02:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, wha? Did I do something wrong? What articles and what forum? -- Banjeboi 14:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review. Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence-related articles. Do you want a direct link?  Skomorokh  14:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. -- Banjeboi 14:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's blocked from outsiders looking in. Could I impose on you to share anything worthwhile? Maybe send me an email? I have three users harassing me on an RfC about paid editing guideline page so sadly it may be related to that. -- Banjeboi 14:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by outsiders; I'm not registered there and the link works fine. It's not about the RfC. Will Emailuser you.  Skomorokh  14:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't know, all I get is an error message in a loop, I'm technically challenged but that almost never happens to me. -- Banjeboi 14:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've sent you an email summarizing the contents. If you want to reply.  Skomorokh  14:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied and thank you again. -- Banjeboi 14:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I don't think there's much you can do, just thought you ought to know. Probably a good idea to keep a close watch on the articles in question in case anyone tries any thing underhanded. Ciao,  Skomorokh  14:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem administrator

So yeah, my question about the problem administrator disappeared. What was that about? --98.232.181.201 (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I answered you here and my auto-archiving bot filed it away after two days. -- Banjeboi 14:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so that's why it disappeared. That was fast. This "antonio" person telling me to "go read my playgirl magazine". Hyper-macho homophobic latino (italian?) syndrome, or something. He posted it twice -- once on my talk page and then again on his. Again, I find it interesting people on here give administrators a free pass when they're doing something wrong/hateful. And this "Gupton" person trying to talk to me about it must have the wrong scenario because he's going on about somebody whose "edit was 5 years old". Call him off. --98.232.181.201 (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC) ( Here's my new user name, for future reference. --RyanTee82 (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC) )

Did the playgirl magazine thing happen recently? You need to link to it (see WP:Diff for how). -- Banjeboi 20:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

File:SisKittysml.jpg

Hi, the above picture has been tagged as needing permission on the Commons. I think you need the photographer, Kwai Lam, to email OTRS, or email them a scan of a written permission you have. Otherwise the picture might get deleted. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Sorry, which sourced were you talking about? - Schrandit (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello again

I just noticed in your archive a reply I never got around to from a while back re:a first-party source of a jewelry company announcing Clint Catalyst as their first male spokesmodel. You asked what the source/link were...the company is Bang Bang Baby, and the URL is here, I believe it is the one that had previously been in the article: http://bangbangbabydesigns.com/CLINT.html Thanks again for your help regarding this page, I look forward to your opinion on the matter. Love your rain quote, by the way! Granny Bebeb (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Archiving Karl Rove talk page

You've archived all of my thoughtful and well researched posts on the Karl Rove discussion page. I'd like to know who/what gives you the right to selectively edit my hard work. The Rove article is negative and slanted and violates Wikipedia rules. I'm going to put back all of my posts.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P.

I have nominated Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P., an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P.. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cameron Scott (talk) 08:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you editing your own articles

You realise that COI right? --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I thought I'd put this under this category instead of starting a new header.

There was concern raised by an arbitrator over whether you were editing a biography that was your own. Although you neither confirmed nor denied -- for good reason, I can imagine -- it might be something to consider writing to the arb-com mailing list about, given the potential heat this could cause. This way things would stay (relatively) quiet. The committee has already set a precedent (here) to keep these kinds of communications private. In light of your comment that you're in a catch-22 in regards to any revelations of your identity, this might be a wise choice.

I also realize you're possibly in a catch-22 to consider this option, since it was an arbitrator who brought this in the first place. If need be, I'm willing to act as an intermediary if this whole thing is acceptable to you. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I can understand that, but I wonder whether it would be a better strategy to simply let go of anything that might lead back to your identity—perhaps even this account. At any rate, if further dispute resolution occurs on this matter, you should know that I'll certainly be recused from it. Cool Hand Luke 15:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• this says a lot without actually saying anything. Can you confirm that you are not DJ Pusspuss/Kitty Catalyst? Ironholds (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Something funny going on

You clearly know Sister Kitty (and should have said so a long time ago when you were asked). But have you any idea what is going on here? Starting with sock puppetry, then simultaneous AFDs for articles. Then a line of editors voting delete, (in spite of the article being based on references). I just went and googled and found 3 more good references for Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. only it doesn't seem to have produced much joy and community singing. I find I'm anonymously accused (on my talk page, but nonetheless) of faking a reference: total tripe (!!!) and I suspect it's on my talk page so as to avoid drawing attention to the new references, but it does compound the plain weirdness. (Nobody ever wants to talk to me on my talk page :-) ) I've seen enough of normal Wikipedia disputes to know that this doesn't quite fit. Something funny is going on. Have you any light to shed on it? SF gay mafia conspiracy? --Simon Speed (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There is indeed something quite peculiar going on and I will try to concisely overview at the ANI thread. -- Banjeboi 09:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

...for the welcoming message. :) Eipnvn (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I'm going through a dramatic period right now but if I can help please let me know. -- Banjeboi 10:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)