User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 61

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

→

Archive 65

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

• Article contest: Durova wins 2009 WikiCup

• Conference report: WikiSym features research on Wikipedia

• Election report: 2009 ArbCom elections report

• Audit Subcommittee: Inaugural Audit Subcommittee elections underway

• Dispatches: Wikipedia remembers the Wall

• News and notes: Strategic planning, November conference, brief news and milestones

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• WikiProject report: Project banner meta-templates

• 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 · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Eurocremelogo.jpg

Thanks for the update on the image - but there's still two problems that I see; 1st, there are now contradicting licenses on the page (either its going to be the free one or non-free one, but not both). 2nd, following the article link, it appears that this isn't the one that they are using - close (gray scale) but they're using black & white now & a quick scan for that image didn't turn up anything. (also posted on PuF page) Skier Dude (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow up on File:Cockyboys=promo-1.jpg - you mentioned on the PuF page that you've updated it, but it still looks the same? :) This one does check out as currently being used on the website linked from the article page. Skier Dude (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

My hunch is the uploader means well but simply didn't know what licenses to use. I doubt they are freely giving away use of their logo so I think our standard fair use would be fine. Not sure what's up with the Cockyboys one but that can get the regualr logo treatment as well. -- Banjeboi 20:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thought you'd be interested to know...

Your doppelganger account is listed at User:Andrew Dalby/The World and Wikipedia/Editors whose work is mentioned in the book. So's my previous username. LadyofShalott 02:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ooooo, my ears are burning! What are they saying? Lol. -- Banjeboi 20:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm very curious, but the book seems to be on backorder everywhere. LadyofShalott 00:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOVD Talk: Roman Polanski collapsing

Understand your horror (see text saying it would be collapsed shortly). As you can see from the flood of text on the page (good that you archived that), there is a very strenuous contention—which must now be clarified to prevent point-by-point wasting of absurd amount of talk space and time.

ISSUE IS: [Exclusion] of Polanski/defense POV —which it is time to address now. EDIT: Corrected spelling "Exclusion"Proofreader77 (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

To frame that broad issue requires the initial comments (yes, in there unusual form). I have un-collapsed your unsigned habt collapsing, and re-collapsed the sonnet. I ask your cooperation in leaving this as it is ... at this time, while the issue is established. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what "Excusion of Polanski/defense POV" actually means but am increasingly alarmed by the volume of talkpage posts which seem to serve only to drive away other editors. I don't know if any dispute would be needed if yourself and those engaged would simply use clear and concise language. -- Banjeboi 01:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing that evades detection

Since attempting to improve the Halloween in the Castro article I have poked around a bit and I believe that I have observed the editor User:Benjiboi engaging in disruptive editing practices which exploit the open nature of Wikipedia to make it difficult for others to improve articles, including:

• Driving away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

• Tendentious editing / Filibustering / Refusing to get the point: Continuous editing of an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
• Edits occur over a long period of time; no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive.
• Edits often avoid gross breaches of civility, especially by refraining from personal attacks, even though they interfere with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve the article.
• Edits may be distributed over a wide range of articles that few people watch.

--Andy54321 21:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, seems like you are the one engaging in some odd battleground mentality to get your way while accusing me of various things. I'm happy to get more folks involved so we can best serve our readers. Meanwhile you may wish to dial back the blanket bad faith accusations. -- Banjeboi 20:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy54321,

I was on the opposing side of Banjiboi just recently, and while I found this user to be headstrong, annoyingly persistent and at times maybe a LITTLE condescending, I would have to honestly say that Banjiboi operated at all times within the boundaries of etiquette and I do have to say, totally within the confines of the rules set here on Wikipedia. While I do understand your frustrations as they pertain to your article not being what you think is right, I am fairly certain Banjiboi feels the same way. You always have a second opinion option, if you feel that you are right, to appeal to a neutral third party administrator. Why not go to that forum and ask someone to take a look at your and Banjiboi's respective edits and see if you can come to some sort of consensus? You can do that by going to WP:ANI and asking an Admin to investigate the matter for you.Chris Hawk (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

First off my apologies if I was or even seemed to be condescending, that's unhelpful and I should be cautious about that. Secondly your advice seems sound. I don't feel the accusations are well founded but this user certainly could ask for even more eyes if they feel the situation needs attention. -- Banjeboi 01:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It is important to note that, as a principal to our discussion and not a neutral third party, what one perceives and what actually is, can be two totally different things. Condescending maybe isn't the best choice of words, but one that best describes the point I was trying to get across. I see myself as someone who is reasonably smart, and on the Brandon article I felt I was right. You, however, don't know me, nor anything about me, so in the way you were explaining a few things came across as condescending, like I was not as up to speed as I thought I was (And turned out to be true, I am NOT an authority on LGBT issues) so, to me, a possessor of ego, it smarted. Let me state this categorically: It has been my observation that Banjeboi does as best as humanly possible in upholding the values of fair play and proper, ethical and NPOV here on Wikipedia. It is my opinion that if more people operated within the same confines of the rules set forth here like Banjeboi, that Wikipedia would, no doubt, succeed even further in it's purpose of being everything it's capable of being. You're A-ok in my book.

And, yes, this user is probably just upset that their POV isn't being represented the way they see fit. Which smarts sometimes, but they'll get over it. I did. Chris Hawk (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol. I appreciate your insight. They make a good point that the article needs help - it's still missing some vital content that I wasn't able to source before. Once things are reworked a bit I think the article will be fine - and I've been called a lot worse so I'll just have to get over it. -- Banjeboi 02:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, yes, that pesky sourcing problem. Maybe sourcing is the reason that Wikipedia is considered a "work in progress" rather then a static finished project. Which, if it was finished, would not be open for any more article writing, and the continuous changing of articles as circumstances evolve. Just keep doing what your doing, it will all come out in the wash!  :-) Chris Hawk (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, sourcing is a pillar in that all content has to be verifiable. Even if I know something to be true it's much better to only write what is readily source-able. This does cause problems but long after I've come and gone I hope that the articles continue to improve so that future readers have the chance to understand a subject as fully as they wish. That I choose to work in what ends up being gender and sexuality-focussed issues only make it all that more exciting! lol! -- Banjeboi 21:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That I choose to work in what ends up being gender and sexuality-focussed issues only make it all that more exciting! lol!

Some people are just gluttons for punishment. LOL I have learned to pick my battles, I went through a whole bottle of Excedrin pills going 'round with you..HA! In all seriousness though, like Ric Flair, the greatest pro wrestler of ALL TIME say's, "Whether you like it or don't like it, LEARN to love it..Because I'M (Or it, for Wikipedia article writing purposes) the best thing going today...WHOOOooooooooo!" Chris Hawk (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Greek Love

Thanks for your contribution to the Talk Page of Greek Love. I've just now scanned your User Talk page and I think you are the sort of editor who could help make much needed improvements to that article. I think Gay Rights activists have a useful role in guarding against prejudice - but some articles seem to be written by Gays for Gays and they are better suited to Gay Magazines than to an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit: in other words, sometimes Gay Rights get too far ahead of Gay Responsibilities. Greek Love is currently that kind of article - it wanders far outside its proper scope and its conceptual limitations are simply ignored. However, I particularly take issue with pederasts who wrap themselves in the banner of Gay Rights (most pederasts are heterosexual misogynists, in my opinion, if not paedaphiles), and I notice that some editors have steered Greek Love towards an emphasis on idealized pederasty. Idealized pederasty is one of the meanings of Greek Love but that's no excuse for yet another infatuated detailing of the imaginary beauties of Boy Love - links would suffice. In short, I am concerned that I could be labelled a homophobe on account of my opposition to that article. I will press ahead with the rewrite it needs and I hope that the great majority of Gays will back me up. I will also listen to Gay advice on this issue as much as I can. In fact I probably need a Gay advisor to help me through this. If you are unwilling to take on this role, maybe you could direct me to somebody else who will act as my mentor. Anyhow, thanks for your help thus far. Amphitryoniades (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Been away for a few bits so apologies for not responding sooner. Setting aside all the other points raised ... I would recommend, since you have a full draft there, adding a note yourself to all the wikiprojects listed on the talkpage. Likely you'll get very little response but you never know. User:Haiduc would likely be the best person to contact. -- Banjeboi 20:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks for this. Unfortunately, Haiduc has previously denounced me as a homophobe on the basis of my opposition to his edits of Solon and I am disappointed that you have directed me to him. I am looking for advice/guidance from a Gay activist who clearly distinguishes homosexuality from pederasty. It's an important distinction. I think posting a note on all the listed wikiprojects will probably open old wounds again and I have no intention of starting an edit war. I'll leave my proposal on the Talk Page. Hopefully it will get something positive started. Amphitryoniades (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ooo, Ok. Well I'm sorry if you and that editor don't seem to connect well. I guess I would fall back on asking at each wikiproject for more eyes. I don't think you need, BTW, a "Gay activist" as much as someone who is knowledgeable on LGBT issues. Pedophilia issues are part of LGBT history but are also a distinct from LGBT people. Haiduc has been very helpful pointing out issues in the past so you might try contacting them - "I know we have had some issues but would appreciate your view on this proposed replacement draft". They may surprise you, who knows? -- Banjeboi 01:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't work with Haiduc since his edits are almost all pederasty based. One issue editors are the source of the problem at Greek Love. I'm sorry to hear that pedophiles have infiltrated LGBT ranks - that sort of confusion is going to cause lots of problems for Gays if it ever shapes public perceptions.Anyhow, thanks for your frank and co-operative replies. I'll continue waiting for someone of good faith to turn up at the Greek Love Talk Page. I'll try the project pages if that doesn't succeed. Amphitryoniades (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you recognize a difference in working styles, whatever they are but I do encourage you to also appreciate that we each bring to Wikipedia our expertise and evn enthusiasm in a number of areas. I have no idea if Haiduc uses alt accounts but it would not surprise me since they work in an area that is quite uncomfortable for many. Just because one editor may cause issues doesn't mean all who edit in that area share their beliefs or styles. The LGBT ranks include anyone who wishes to improve articles on LGBT subjects regardless of their personal beliefs or any other attributes. We generally are less keen on judging than simply supporting each other producing better articles. I have no clue of any of those who are members are or are not pedophiles and generally I don't care as long as nothing illegal is done and they follow Wikipedia policies like everyone else. Frankly an alcoholic may have a POV that would help an article about alcoholism so I'm open to at least hearing what they have to say that would actually improve the article itself - as that's what we're here to do. Also we are not here to shape public perception but to follow what reliable sources show is public perception. I've messaged all the projects in hope that someone interested may reply. -- Banjeboi 01:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Amidst extraordinary measures ...

Inspired by your use page ... a quick note of completely unconnected noise to say that I am so looking forward to seeing Ian McKellan in the AMC miniseries of The Prisoner next week here in America. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he's lovely in just everything I've seen! enjoy! -- Banjeboi 02:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Your quote

I have saved a quote of yours as a brilliant example of understanding the NOR policy. I have attempted to include it in NOR policy, but am in doubt, and others have commented here. Please participate. I would very much like to see you add the quote yourself. It would enhance the policy. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

lol! Yes, every once in a while - and despite my poor spelling - i drop a pearl of sense here and there. Feel free to use it however it may help. -- Banjeboi 02:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Help with dermatology-related content

Are you interested in dermatology-related content? I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our new Bolognia push 2009!, history of dermatology, or list of dermatologists pages? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? ---kilbad (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm overloaded presently however I have a few ideas that may help. Advertise on all the relevant articles and maybe post a note at Village Pump. You may also do well to look into the contributors and send individual notes as well. Good luck! -- Banjeboi

Long time no hear

Haven't seen you on WT:ARS for a while... last time you commented on the board is on September 10.[1]

You okay with creating a deletion sorting page for ARS? Please respond there.

Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Articles_currently_tagged_with_rescue_template

Ikip (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

take your name, I am just happy to hear from you again. Ikip (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

• Fundraiser: Controversial "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser to start 10 November

• New pages experiment: Wikipedians test the water at new page patrol

• German controversy: German Wikipedia under fire from inclusionists

• Multimedia usability: Multimedia usability meeting concludes in Paris

• Election report: Arbitration Committee candidate nominations open 10 November

• Book review: Review of Connected Minds, Emerging Cultures: Cybercultures in Online Learning

• News and notes: Ant images, public outreach, and more

• In the news: Beefeater vandalism, interview, and more

• Sister projects: Meta-wiki interview

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

buildings and ships comparisons image

very nice. Decora (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to? -- Banjeboi 00:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/userfication#Compromise

Would you mind clarifying if you still oppose the compromise at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/userfication#Compromise? thanks. Rd232 ^talk 16:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've amended my comments there although clearly there is wide support so my concerns likely remain a blip. -- Banjeboi 00:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Polanski stuff.

As I said on the ANI board, "I think Benjiboi's raising of his concerns here to be earnest, and well stated." Proofreader77's recommendation is stunning, truly ill-founded, and transparent.

FWIW its TBD on "grouped topic edits" vs. rational offerings for specific inclusions. I can either make a convincing case or not. This area was co-opted for an other's purpose at this time, which is why I think your "request for more eyes" was proper.

Did you take a look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation/Vulnerability_of_short_pages_to_attack,_UD_overflow,_and_other_issues_of_Boke

Amazing Deja vu, ehhh?

Best Regards --Tombaker321 (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it illuminates the case of a fettered brilliance which is aching to be channeled productively. I'm at a loss as to where but the building blocks certainly are lacking dust. -- Banjeboi 00:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Paul Lynde, COI, and Yesterday Was a Lie

Heh, heh. Reading the title, you might hope I've managed to roll all three into a single topic. Something like "Paul Lynde is involved in COI doing astrotyping from the great beyond editing "Yesterday was a Lie", because he now knows the answer to everything, because he's romantically involved with the star in his sleep."

No such luck! But I'll take any excuse to mention that Lynde is one of my models of an exceptional comedian. A world of "Lynde"s? No war! Just lots of laughter.

The COI tag on "Yesterday was a Lie" is part of a long struggle by User:H Debussy-Jones (Sach), which is described by Sach on the discussion page, as you saw. I don't know many details, except that one of the vandals tried to delete the whole discussion as Sach, User:Wildhartlivie and I were actively confronting them. Hopefully, now that the article is protected Sach will address the issues they see as COI! Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 07:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Why does Paul Lynde have no-no external links to fan sites, but lacks a Wikiquote page? (Hint.) Piano non troppo (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was definitely smelling like a sock war or something!?! The Lynde-meister certainly should have a wikiquote page. I'm not that inspired myself but will prod the talkpage to add or build it as there are those interested in such. -- Banjeboi 21:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I broke down a put a quickie page together. -- Banjeboi 22:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Benjiboi, re: Alan Grayson

I am looking for a favor, how busy are you? It is not a big favor, it is a similar work to what you did on the Polanski article, a section is in need of a rewrite by a neutral editor, there are opposing editors, perhaps politically opposed, I have not bothered with that and occasionally someone else joins in. The section is here it is constantly being altered to a more concise version and then reverted and so on, I think the section could be trimmed a fair bit, the section has it's own article just like the section at Polanski. imo it is presently unreadable and could be easily cut to about a half, one editor wants to keep all these rude comments the guy has made and another want to trim to the important insults, if you get chance have a look for me as the constant reverting is silly. The section is here on the [[ ]] Alan Grayson article, there is a discussion regarding the issue on the talk page, let me know what you think, no worries, no pressure. Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You caught me in a feisty mood so I took a weed whacker to it! Hope it helps. -- Banjeboi 22:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice, I really like it, it is there till now. As another independent, I'll join the discussion (when it starts) and try to convince them it is a big improvement, thanks to you for your effort there. Off2riorob (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday Was a Lie

Hi. I thought that when you said you had "archived" the COI discussion on this article's talk page, you meant that you had moved it an archive page, not that you had left it visible on the talk page. Obviously, I would have seen that if I had gone there, but I didn't until just now. My apologies for my comment on COIN, and I'll post a retraction there as well. Sach (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all, thanks for checking back! -- Banjeboi 18:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Dignity (re:Roman Polanski ANI thread)

I saw you handling that. Nicely put.

By the way, I once placed and erased this on your page. Seeing it, it seemed to be too many words unless you asked. Perhaps you did implicitly, but if so, it would have surely been for fewer words. :) And for the record: I had never seen a cycle like the one between Tom and I that didn't burn itself out long before that. That truly was extraordinary. Tomorrow: The Prisoner. (skim and erase) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, if there is a need for someone or something to change we also have to allow space for that to happen. Or job is to share knowledge and I'm afraid your methods may have been getting in your own way. I'm confident everyone means well and I hope a good article emerges from all of it. My hunch is that all the Polanski-related articles will improve a bit as that is also part of the problem. If you are willing, interested and able please add to the Wanted and Desired article as it's extremely unbalanced. Beefing up the lede to explain generally what the film is about would be very helpful to those who have never seen it. -- Banjeboi 23:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

re: Wanted and Desired article - Yes, it is in horrible shape. I have not attempted change there due to general contention which might have extended to there. Note: Also the "meta-issue" of what the article should be is somewhat complicated. :) Will stop there for now. But yes. Good idea. (Aside: Just a few hours until "The Prisoner" ...) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)