User talk:Benjiboi: Difference between revisions
Epeefleche (talk | contribs) |
→Close: c |
||
| Line 893: | Line 893: | ||
:::Umm, not to be flip ... but that's a bit nutty. There is little difference at the end of it all between ''keep'' and ''no consensus'', in less than a year it can be re-nommed either way and likewise if she was notable once she is presumed to remain notable. IMHO, DRV should be reserved for getting a page restored when consensus did not seem to support deletion and vice versa. If you took this to DRV it likely would not only be quickly upheld as a valid close, it wouldn't change anything. I would leave it and work on improving the article itself or some other article instead, a much better use of energies. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:11px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 06:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC) |
:::Umm, not to be flip ... but that's a bit nutty. There is little difference at the end of it all between ''keep'' and ''no consensus'', in less than a year it can be re-nommed either way and likewise if she was notable once she is presumed to remain notable. IMHO, DRV should be reserved for getting a page restored when consensus did not seem to support deletion and vice versa. If you took this to DRV it likely would not only be quickly upheld as a valid close, it wouldn't change anything. I would leave it and work on improving the article itself or some other article instead, a much better use of energies. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:11px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 06:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::Hahaha. In this context, you calling me nutty is funny, somehow. Perhaps I misunderstood. I had thought that a keep resulted in greater protection from a new AfD than did a no consensus default to keep. If that's wrong, why, then surely you are correct that energies are better spent elsewhere. Tx!--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 06:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC) |
::::Hahaha. In this context, you calling me nutty is funny, somehow. Perhaps I misunderstood. I had thought that a keep resulted in greater protection from a new AfD than did a no consensus default to keep. If that's wrong, why, then surely you are correct that energies are better spent elsewhere. Tx!--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 06:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::Yes, I used to think it made a huge difference. It makes a little difference but it's all in context. If someone is determined to re-nom something they'll do it regardless of common sense. Also even if something is snow kept several times new information may emerge that a new XfD ''may'' make sense. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:11px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 07:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|AfD]] nomination of [[Elizabeth Kucinich]] == |
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|AfD]] nomination of [[Elizabeth Kucinich]] == |
||
Revision as of 07:14, 24 March 2010
| “ | You don't have to be straight to shoot straight. | ” |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
|
|---|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
| Contents |
|---|
Various to-do items
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Formatting refsclick edit to see... [1] Note - access date format 2008-06-16 Living Memory LGBT History Timeline from Trans perspective
Starting draft pageUser:Benjiboi/LGBT image quest for current pile. LGBT Random Picture for user pagesUse {{Portal:LGBT/Pics}} or alternatively <center>{{Portal:LGBT/Pics}}</center> if you want it centered on userspace.Benjiboi
"Chicken and Bulls" Extortion ScamSee this. Seems worthy of an article but loads of research, possibly userfy and build. Benjiboi Compare to current and clean-off what is used already. Benjiboi Maybe you can do something with this. I looked at it and tried to figure out how to incorporate it but it was too confusing for me. Of note is that the line is manufactured by American Apparel. ALLSTARecho
Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) - Gays and YouTube
Closeted homophobe or severely misunderstood?
Possible ref for transgender history in the PolkThe original queer district: A brief history of the Polk's queer cred by J. PLASTER; August 29, 2007 Bay Guardian]. Banjeboi
About 12-15 refs needed to address OR concerns. Banjeboi for ball culture and Willi Ninja
transgendered --> trangenderAll WP (portals, categories, etc. ) done except 100-250 links in articles. Start here. Banjeboi add infobox. Banjeboi GA quest - look at rewrites, barnstars and DYKs for possible GA candidatessemi-protected articles have to wait until protection and vandalism ebbs. -- Banjeboi Research and write. -- Banjeboi Duly notedThis could possibly be helpful toward explaining on-wiki trans and homo -phobias. -- Banjeboi
review edits on Judicial system of Iran. -- Banjeboi Nom for GA. -- Banjeboi Nom for GA. -- Banjeboi ARS - add to rescued list?Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precambrian rabbit. -- Banjeboi Bear template?Stubbyfy, ref and relaunch. User:Benjiboi/Underground culture. -- Banjeboi Category:LGBT studies articles needing expert attention is always entertaining. -- Banjeboi LGBT DYK for portalPortal:LGBT/Did you know; convert past DYKs to the randomizer archive. -- Banjeboi sorting out shemale, 2nd roundButterfly metaphor [6],[7], [8], [9], [10], [11] -- Banjeboi Create project banner? -- Banjeboi for ARS
restore usable content. -- Banjeboi possible ARS pic  add infobox and possibly album covers. -- Banjeboi For paid notesBullypedia, A Wikipedian Who’s Tired of Getting Beat Up noted at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-09/New pages experiment. -- Banjeboi Arbcom COI explanation
Danny Rhymes merge/move/refthis adds in the baseball college stuff, a prior version from Matt Bixel? Also brief article down to use in List of male performers in gay porn films. -- Banjeboi Lesbian kiss episode for newletterdo we also need "coming out episode", the "AIDS episode", the "gay wedding episode"? -- Banjeboi refix lede to reflect criticism, yet another version seems to be at odds with reality. -- Banjeboi Sort out updating records. -- Banjeboi OMG, another old gay porn award ... the Gay Entertainment Award 2002 onlyadd to list of gay porn awards[38] and glean for list of porn stars. 2002 nominees, 2002 winners. -- Banjeboi Hunt and integrate into list of porn stars, etc. -- Banjeboi started in 2006, see if there is full listings for other years and integrate into list of porn stars. -- Banjeboi Aaron Lawrence (entrepreneur) next steps
Potential banner makerproded. -- Banjeboi that figure skating is scene as gay[40] -- Banjeboi gay porn resourcesConvert all to Google
a couple in there. -- Banjeboi list clean-up
Johnny Weir, maybe post-Feb Olympics
for next newsletter?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Unsourced BLP 500 challenge
User:The Wordsmith/BLP sourcing/Five a day (start 25 Jan.)
Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Unreferenced BLPs current pile
- Dayo Ade, Lars Gunnar Bodin, Talmage Cooley, Ignacio de Loyola Brandao, Catherine Chidgey, Ian Harvie, Kylie Bax, Beny Alagem, Peter Cunnah, David Holman
Prodded
re-proded. -- Banjeboi
clean-up. -- Banjeboi
Overhaul, ref and relaunch. -- Banjeboi
Gay bomb 5x?
may be possible and it's highly hysterical. -- Banjeboi
In this case it may make sense to start with each current subsection usage entry and see how each can be presented as if we were summarizing like the drag queen section. By picking the less used terms we might see which can be eliminated or bundled. There's a reasonable chance we'll also find many other terms which can be noted on the talkpage or added temporarily. I suggest each entry include basic definition, first known usage and anything else that seems notable. -- Banjeboi
Naive and Wishful thinking.
RE Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ash/analysis (2nd nomination).
Perhaps you are right. I don't know. A very common opinion is that wikipedia does DR very poorly. I think I see that between you and Ash, there are grounds to mount an RFC/U. I'm not sure what the benefit in waiting is. My favourite approach to recommend is Meatball:DefendEachOther, and this can't work with the complaint in the complainers userspace. My real life experience with these things is that grievances are best dealt with quickly, and that extracting formal statements of complaint is actually a very successful way to move forward. If User:Delicious carbuncle is playing us, he is winning.
More and more often this sort of thing is turning up at MfD. If you have any advice for me, I'd be pleased to hear it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delicious carbuncle has been wikiharassing quite a few editors and plays the system. As the harassment continues even after being topic banned from another user it looks like an RFCU is needed. As far as I can tell those currently dealing with Delicious carbuncle have all stated they wish to be left alone by them and wish Delicious carbuncle would stop. As Delicious carbuncle has not, an RFCU is likely the next step. My advice is determine which are the issues the community is currently willing to deal with and what is the over-arching patterns of abuse. Wikipedia:WQA#Delicious_carbuncle also seems relevant. -- Banjeboi 09:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is the "playing the system" and using a constant passive/aggressive approach that causes me the greatest concern. In our DR processes (I helped improve the 3 process), the opinion-expressing community tends to default to supporting the perceived underdog. I think that's a great approach and genuinely helpful when new-ish contributors behave badly as some may become useful contributors once they get the hang of how to collaborate (and how to enjoy it rather than the transient pleasures of vandalism or abuse). The case of DC saddens me as I believe this is a person with good intentions, however, a bias towards over-policing and then aggressively using process to "prosecute" percived miscreants rather than relying on collaborative techniques can only create an unwelcoming and stressful environment. I remain open to criticism and have always been happy to discuss improvement of my editing (see the review notice on my user page and the introduction to my user talk page), repeatedly escalating to ANI without solid grounds is an abuse of process when so many alternatives exist. By claiming the role of "underdog", DC gets a great deal of good faith, and explaining concisely the problematic pattern of aggressive editing / making thinly supported accusations / ongoing poor civility is not only difficult but most of the commuity is uninterested in wading through the evidence.
- Consequently I have grave doubts about using RFC/U but would be happy to collaborate even if the outcome is only that DC has second thoughts about rushing to full-scale "prosecution" and considers giving more opportunity for frank article talk page discussion and collaborative consensus. You will note that I have not raised any DR procedure for DC as I have been giving your (Joe) approach of DefendEachOther a chance to work. If I do go to RFC/U in the coming weeks, it would be with great regret and on the basis of review and discussion of how such an RFC should be phrased, sourced and summarized so that the community has no reason to get side-lined and that we can be confident that our good intentions are not misinterpreted as partisan gaming or personal attack.
- PS, yes, as per your section heading, my views are probably a bit naive and wishful but it would be a terrible pity to disabuse Pollyanna of her vision of the world just because we felt she should recognize the truth. Ash (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Images
I started a discussion on these at Teabagging. Also, File:Gay Pheleps.JPG is one of the best pictures I have ever seen on the internet.Cptnono (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Great, I'll be there! -- Banjeboi 12:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
For list
Casting Aspertions
For the benefit of leaving no doubt whatsoever I would like to draw you attention to the following principle from a recent arbitration case concerning casting aspersions. The relevant text is "It is unacceptable for an editor to repeatedly make false or unsupported accusations against others. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all." By continuing to repeat allegations against Delicious Carbuncle without seeking to exercise dispute resolution options you are failing to abide by the principle which was central to a user being banned from Wikipedia. I am sure that I am not the only bystander who is sick and tired of seeing this circus continuing unabated so I am asking you nicely to stop this now. The appropriate forums in this case are RFC/U and RFAR. AN, ANI, talk pages and MFDs are not the appropriate forums. I suggest you file that RFC. Until you do so, I think silence on this point is the best policy. I'm going to leave Benjiboi the same message. If you choose to ignore this warning there will be consequences and you will not be able to say that you were not warned. Spartaz Humbug! 18:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for linking that. The whole statement reads It is unacceptable for an editor to repeatedly make false or unsupported accusations against others. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all. And I think it's a perfectly valid one. There are a couple of points here in this case. The statement is true even though Delicious carbuncle has yet to be more formally put to task for these frequent and consistently poor interactions with other editors. The accusations have been at least partially supported in the past and this process is to determine if the community at large feels a pattern has indeed emerged and should be addressed. Ash and myself and the anon ip are but three of the latest editors to experience prolonged and negative attention from Delicious carbuncle, all three have asked for Delicious carbuncle to desist but apparently Delicious carbuncle isn't WP:Hearing that their actions are problematic and other editors find their wikihounding unwelcome at best. Think of it this way, if three separate editors each complained that you were wikihounding them, my hope is that you would take that as serious criticism of your interactions.You'll note the rest of the Arbcom statement explains Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, which I've just explained has been tried, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all. Each of us has better things to do but Delicious carbuncle insists on wikibadgering and otherwise causing WP:Grief. Thus a more structured effort to build an RFCU is underway. Frankly I don't want to rush it as that won't serve anyone's interest. As you seem familiar with Arbcom you no doubt are ware that a conscious effort to gather evidence precedes final judgement. There is the additional likelihood of offsite campaigning against the process on Wikipedia Review, how that is expressed and handled is also an issue. To be fair if I was an outside observer and not another of Delicious carbuncle's targets I may feel similar to what you express. The situation is not simple, it seems quite calculated and deliberate and is entirely disruptive. No one but Delicious carbuncle seems to be pushing for more attention as they seem unwilling or unable to disengage. -- Banjeboi 04:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Close
Am I the only one, or did you find the close here as peculiar, in that it was not closed as a keep?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Not at all, it clearly was split and the delete and keep views were valid and those that !voted early didn't seem to be swayed en masse to other positions, so a no consensus would seem perfectly valid. -- Banjeboi 04:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- If you open a DRV, pls let me know. I've asked BKite about it, and he has not problem with that process being followed, but I've never opened one... Though if it is not worth your time, I could always try, I guess, to start it myself.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Umm, not to be flip ... but that's a bit nutty. There is little difference at the end of it all between keep and no consensus, in less than a year it can be re-nommed either way and likewise if she was notable once she is presumed to remain notable. IMHO, DRV should be reserved for getting a page restored when consensus did not seem to support deletion and vice versa. If you took this to DRV it likely would not only be quickly upheld as a valid close, it wouldn't change anything. I would leave it and work on improving the article itself or some other article instead, a much better use of energies. -- Banjeboi 06:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hahaha. In this context, you calling me nutty is funny, somehow. Perhaps I misunderstood. I had thought that a keep resulted in greater protection from a new AfD than did a no consensus default to keep. If that's wrong, why, then surely you are correct that energies are better spent elsewhere. Tx!--Epeefleche (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I used to think it made a huge difference. It makes a little difference but it's all in context. If someone is determined to re-nom something they'll do it regardless of common sense. Also even if something is snow kept several times new information may emerge that a new XfD may make sense. -- Banjeboi 07:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hahaha. In this context, you calling me nutty is funny, somehow. Perhaps I misunderstood. I had thought that a keep resulted in greater protection from a new AfD than did a no consensus default to keep. If that's wrong, why, then surely you are correct that energies are better spent elsewhere. Tx!--Epeefleche (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Umm, not to be flip ... but that's a bit nutty. There is little difference at the end of it all between keep and no consensus, in less than a year it can be re-nommed either way and likewise if she was notable once she is presumed to remain notable. IMHO, DRV should be reserved for getting a page restored when consensus did not seem to support deletion and vice versa. If you took this to DRV it likely would not only be quickly upheld as a valid close, it wouldn't change anything. I would leave it and work on improving the article itself or some other article instead, a much better use of energies. -- Banjeboi 06:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- If you open a DRV, pls let me know. I've asked BKite about it, and he has not problem with that process being followed, but I've never opened one... Though if it is not worth your time, I could always try, I guess, to start it myself.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Elizabeth Kucinich
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Kucinich (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- ^ Vos, Sarah (10 June 2007, page 13). "Barker says O'Donnell could replace him". Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-06-16.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help); Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help)