User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 13 |

Archive 14

| Archive 15 →

Ha!

http://www.queerty.com/jeff-gannon-talks-hillary-with-matt-sanchez-20080211/ - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 15:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's quite helpful isn't it? Thank gawd for qwerty! Benji boi 11:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the comments they linked to some of his reports in French, so I don't really know if they are noteworthy or not. Benji boi 12:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi

you go girl! (well boy)Alexoxo (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Benji boi 12:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ciesta Fiesta

Now that you're back (missed you!), feel free to contribute to WP:FUGLY, a new complement to WP:HOTTIE. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is informative but I'll have to back-burner it as I'm like a butcher who backed into a meat-grinder - I've gotten behind in things. Benji boi 05:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tea

☻ Someone has poured you tea ☺

Thank you! Cheers! Benji boi 12:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of male performers in gay porn films

Instead of reverting my edits, try taking it to the talk page and discussing it because all of the gay pornstar articles have been limited to 6 movies. Want a reason? Read this. Including a long list of unnoteworthy titles such as Meat the Fuckers & Best Of Thugporn.com is encyclopedic how? If someone wants to see a complete list of porn titles, then someone can access Van Darkholme's porn site that has a link in the WP article. Read this. Please don't think I'm somehow attacking these articles (some gays on WP think any kind of edit to a LGBT article is 'anti-gay' or some shit...and I'm not referring to you), I'm just trying to avoid making Wikipedia into Pornopedia. Having articles on these guys is fine (I love gay porn...alot...and have no problem with the guys...I'd be a hypocrite if I did have one), but adding nude pix, porn links, and listing a ton of unnoteable titles is pointless. We (me included) have to think with our heads instead of our...other heads. :) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

/me runs off to start WP:THINKWITHSWOLLENHEAD. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 06:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

/me is in a state of shock because you haven't created that already. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to decide if it should just be a redirect to WP:HOTTIE. lol - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 08:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent deletionist bent to remove titles is interesting but misplaced. And unless you are now claiming to be an expert on those gay porn films I doubt you or I are qualified to determine which ones are most notable and as has been pointed out to you elsewhere there is disagreement on the porn project's guideline about the six titles guide. They also admit it was made more to deal with hetero porn stars. We list absolutely every film most actors are in yet feel a diminished standard is acceptable for porn which I don't necessarily agree, especially as the caliber of those films has been raised over time. Especially since it's a newer art form that is yet to be fully understood as a window into alternative cultures. Making yourself judge and jury over content doesn't seem warranted in these cases and I don't think is helpful to improving those articles. Perhaps adding sources to add content and context to the article would make sense and within that framework which of those films most accurately conveys the arc of their careers will be revealed. Until then we are just hacking away at content for the purpose of enforcing a guideline whose consensus was shaky and was created for non-gay porn. I find all of that problematic. At the very least I invite you to return to all the articles that haven't been reverted and restore that content to the talk pages so the work that someone else has labored at isn't lost altogether. Benji boi 11:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So there should be a difference between formatting gay and hetero porn star articles? Why is that? Special treatment for gays? BTW, using the words "deletionist bent" is very cute. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting that first we consider not simply removing content because of one project's guidelines, which even they admit are problematic. And instead look to improving the articles by adding better content that will help reveal which films are more noteworthy than the rest. Until you have a good article which tells you about the performer and their career the range of films is one one the few items we have to understand what they did. And you're deleting it with little sense as to which content should be kept and which is deleted. And against consensus which is evident that the content was there prior to your deleting it and you and I disagreeing that deleting it was acceptable. If you look hard enough you can find a rule to support deleting almost anything you want. Personally I find that not helpful but there you go. Also I'm not looking for "special" treatment (wow, "very cute") instead I prefer equal treatment for porn actors as all actors and let's try to imagine that just maybe gay porn is unique from lesbian porn is unique from many other other sub-genres. Wikipedia is not censored and I see little urge to wipe out content from articles until the editor's on each article come to a consensus to do so. Benji boi 11:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said that it was "created for non-gay porn"...so basically you're suggesting that we shouldn't adhere to standards that the WP Porn Project thinks is appropriate for hetero porn. That's what I asked in the first place because it seems you were implying that the gay porn star articles shouldn't adhere to the same standards. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stating, again, that even the porn project had issues with that guideline and that guideline wasn't created with non-straight porn in mind. In short it's flawed and using it to do mass deletions is likewise flawed. I will also be a bit less subtle and suggest, again, that instead of using the guideline created to help guide those building articles that you have taken it as license to mass delete material. Against consensus, IMHO. Benji boi 12:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So because you think it's flawed, then it's flawed. Seems like most people agreed on the porn project page that 6 was a good number. You still have yet to give a reason why the guideline should be different for gays because you keep saying "non-straight porn in mind." You can be less subtle all you want, the Talk:Rick Pantera page I showed you already shows why the number was reduced. Aleta, SatyrTN, and I all said in that discussion that having a large number of movies wasn't right. So please cut the dramatics and suggesting that I "mass deleted material." AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Describing porns as "a newer art form that is yet to be fully understood as a window into alternative cultures" is a bit of a stretch. A movie that is made so guys can jack off is a newer art form? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disagree. A bit of a stretch is similar to the arguments that women can do "men's" work and that blacks (and now gays) deserve equal rights. Just because sex education in America is woefully Victorian-era influenced and women going topless remains illegal hardly means that pornography doesn't transcend into art realms despite the basic human needs it serves. LGBT and feminists studies on the collegiate level are quite new and comprehensive studies into pornographic films remains an emerging interest. Benji boi 11:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing in women and blacks as examples is the supreme example of stretching it to try to prove some non-existant point. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rephrase - Porn might be considered an "art form" but nothing about it is new and describing it as a "window into alternative cultures" sounds like P.C. fluff. So if a hetero watches Stick It In My Butt, that person now sees a glimpse of the gay lifestyle? Contrary to popular opinion, some gays do have a life that doesn't just exist around sex (as much as I joke about it, it's true), and your description makes it seem like that's what being gay is all about. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree here as well. Rules created to serve one dominant set of people are just about guaranteed not to respect the needs of minority communities. These are not new lessons as the struggles, that continue presently, reverberate systematically and institutionally. And for the record I think your idea of having straight people watch gay porn is great! Benji boi 12:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree with you that more heteros should watch gay porn...only for the reason that I would like to videotape their responses and put it on youtube. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent. It seems from your talkpage you've now retired from the talkpage which is unfortunate because you're feisty and have a great sense of humor. If you decide to return and want to revisit this issue please consider some sage advice from those wiser than I ... Benji boi 17:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

“

better impact on wikipedia if he went about these removals in a more consultative rather than combative fashion. Sudden removal can really annoys people (who otherwise might have been persuadable), entrenches positions in place of reason, and starts edit wars. If he made a clearer case for removal first, and brought people with him, he'd have more luck, create less agro, and improve wikipedia.

”

Talk:Jack Chick

add archive and clean-up talk page. Benji boi

I've done a bit of cleanup on the article so it looks less like OR. Any other items of interest in the article? Will ^(talk) 18:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think much of what you've done has been again reverted. If left some messages on the talk page about neutrality concerns. I'm concerned that we're labeling this guy without strong sourcing. Even if he's a bit overboard we should be neutral. Benji boi 02:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent efforts...

...in the ongoing discussions regarding transgender taxonomies based on sexual behavior. I'll work on sticking to article content. Jokestress (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. It's taken some learning on my part as well but deep down (somewhere in there) I know that this project needs different voices and opinions to more fully understand our world. Rabble rousers start countries and even Jesus was considered a whack job by people in his time and now he's practically worshiped! Dissent can feel crummy at times but it's good to evaluate and question our ideas and see if maybe we can improve things. Or maybe not, who knows! Benji boi 17:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jokestress talk comment.

If you saw the show "transamerican love story" ep1. You would see that thier was some dued on there who ran a porn site and had a mustache that and overall look that just wasn't right. (Probably why Calpernia Adams sent him away.) I chacacterize him as having a chester the molester stache as a way of describing his over all....depraved look. It's sort of a joke. I don't see how that is uncivil to Jokestress or anyone for that matter. It could be that you and I just have different senses of these things. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hoped it was just some stretch of humor and you've confirmed it. Humor doesn't always translate so there you go. Benji boi 18:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion for Category:Prima donnas

Hi, you recently participated in a discussion on the Category:Prima donnas talk page about the use of this category. [1] Category:Prima donnas has now been proposed for deletion. You might want to comment on the new discussion page [2]. Best wishes,Voceditenore (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know, I've commented there and I hope we find an elegant solution. Benji boi 00:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander James Adams

Hi :) The edits I made were in the Alexander James Adams discography. One, to get rid of a page of big "cite error"s. Also, the reference was to the old store page on heatherlands.com, not the old Heather Alexander discography([3]), so it was missing even more of the heather solo albums. (I suppose if we referenced both it would be accurate :)

Also I wanted to clarify which albums are released by Alec (currently listed on the http://www.heatherlands.com home page) and which are by Heather.

I also added info to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexander_James_Adams using my JenKilmer login. Hope this helps. I have stopped making updates since you seem to be on a roll.

Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.208.40.254 (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to show due respect to the subject who seems to want to downplay his gender transition and I see no reason not to do so. The career section is now early years-2006 and 2007-present. The discography needs work but doesn't need to re-emphasize gender change unduly. And yes all the WP:CITEs need to be properly formatted. Benji boi 02:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mallards (Re:Homosexuality in animals)

Resolved. content with ref added to support use of image

mallards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbz1 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Now we just need to add that content to the article so the image is also seen as valid content. Benji boi 10:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Benji boi 10:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Desperate Housewives characters

List of Desperate Housewives characters?? There are what, three minor characters on the show? It occasionally deals with gay themes, but is kinda rare? Why in the world would the list of characters be within the project's scope? Desperate Housewives isn't. Thoughts? I watch your page, so you can respond here :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desperate Housewives is a major primetime television dramedy that has newly added a gay couple as one of the neighbors. By default only the four women leads are the main characters of the large ensemble but in addition to the gay couple one of the leads, Brie (spelling?) also has a gay son. These LGBT issue are all through the filter of white gay men but the project would still seem to be interested in ensuring that as topics and issues are presented that they are accurate and that we are available as a resource. Come to think of it I think the show's creator/writer is gay so the main article should also have our tag. Benji boi 00:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - so that explains why the show itself belongs (though it seems a tad tenuous, IMO). But the list of characters? When only three of the list of 118 characters are gay? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again it was mainly because of the gay couple, had they their own article our tag would be there. This suggests that we are interested in the subject and can serve as a resource on this subject. I'm missing why this is a big deal? Benji boi 02:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but I thought there was some following in the gay community, partially because of the character Andrew Van de Kamp who is the gay son of Bree, and seems to be more developed than just a stereotypical sideline gay character. At least that character seemed to create more of whatever amount of homobuzz there was. His gay kisses caused some controversy amongst the fundies also. But I don't think it's a big deal, one way or the other, for this list. And yes, Benji is right, the creator of the show, Marc Cherry, is gay. — BTW, I happen to enjoy DH, because it's a very well done prime time soap opera. I wouldn't want to be known as a person that enjoyed daytime <gasp> soaps, but since it's broadcast evenings, that justifies it. ;-} — Becksguy (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing "research" Becksguy, ya that's it research! Benji boi 11:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big deal - I just follow our banner on articles and it seemed strange to me that we would be interested in the list of characters. I mean, when you think of LGBT lists, List of lesbian periodicals, Transgender in film and television, those are the things that come to mind. Desperate Housewives doesn't seem to fit. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say just rate it extra low on the importance scale then. For some people these very real characters may be their first and only introduction to the LGBT world. Benji boi 01:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I never thought of watching the boob tube as "research". Hmmmm... Mother to child: Are you doing your homework? Child: Yes, I'm researching. — Becksguy (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Benji boi 01:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I notice you've removed the tag, so much for consensus. Benji boi 19:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wall of shame.jpg

Apparently, you're being accused of meatpuppeting and I am letting you know so that you may respond. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 02:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, he should know better - huh? Benji boi 03:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He should. He's been right down adamant that Sanchez can do no wrong when it comes to images and has !voted to keep them from Commons to here, or if he didn't !vote he still argued to keep. I will however assume good faith that he's got a good reason behind it, which is what he should have done with you at Wall of shame. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 03:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I stated the talk page is at least moving along so we're making progress now that Sanchez is on hold. It's been a good learning experience if nothing else. Benji boi 03:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you have been subjected to a homophobic spray from Matt in the deletion discussion for this image. I have struck through his comments, and the IP used is now blocked for a month, but I thought I'd leave it to you to remove the comments. Btw, if you look at Swatjester's talk page, you'll find Matt has a new suggestion for his image - his Marine Corps photo in Dress Blues. Maybe we could get a sceen cap of him working his jaw in Jawbreaker to use - it'd be as consistent with NPOV! Jay*Jay (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLDTITLE

According to the guideline: "If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive — like Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers, Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans, or List of schools in Marlborough, New Zealand — the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does happen to appear, it need not be boldface." Articles with the title "_______ as gay icon" qualify as "simply descriptive". I'm fairly sure that the spirit of this rule is to keep titles from having lots of distracting and really spaced out bold.-Wafulz (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the answer is in that first sentence - "If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name" - this article does. I see the rest as having some odd aversion to bolding titles on these three articles but am unclear why. The spirit of MOS is clearly to do so. My hopes is that an easy resolution will be found but for now I'm chalking it up to just a misunderstanding or misinterpreting of the MOS. If those who felt this way were doing the same on dozens of articles I think they would find themselves reverted in much the same way. Banje boi 01:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I disagree that "Madonna as gay icon" is a common name. Next, I see several reasons why such titles shouldn't be bolded: key words are no longer linked in the most logical area (the first appearance); having split up bold titles is very distracting and puts an awkward emphasis on certain words; and it simply looks sloppy.-Wafulz (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well "____ as gay icon" seems to be the consensus for these articles although consensus can change. As for the rest it seem open to interpretation and style and for the Madonna article, at least, vast other improvements also need to take place. So I'm in no hurry to recruit a lede expert on something that's likely to change exponentially. If this is going to be a sticking point for some reason though it might be wise to do so. Banje boi 20:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]