User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 34

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35

John Berry (zoo director)

I have nothing against moving, but I made the effort to create the article and giving as a reason him being a zoo director is off base when this is his actual job does not make sense. Hekerui (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No insult was intended, it has to do with our naming protocols and there likely is a better one than either 'zoo director', which I think should be reserved for those whose career paths have centered on such, or 'administrator', which is vague but better than "executive". If they had only worked at the zoo fine but I think their career arch has been more about running companies/ organizations. -- Banjeboi 22:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I was just confused about the wording. Anyway, administrator works. Hekerui (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Cool, keep up the good work. -- Banjeboi 19:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Jeffree Star Proof.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Jeffree Star Proof.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Banjeboi 07:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm the person who originally tagged it, and I'm afraid the current information, while it at least gives a source, still doesn't give the appropriate permissions. If the original uploader is the said Cory M Privatera, then there's no problem, but otherwise the uploader, personally, does not have the rights to release. Thus we would need either an explicit statement that it is licenced under the GFDL by Privatera, either on the source website or via email to OTRS. Thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Cory M Privatera is the original uploader and gave the GNU license.[1] Unsure why I need to prove anything as I was only reverting to the original uploader's own work. If they've released their work is there something else that needs to be done? If so why wasn't that dealt with two years ago? -- Banjeboi 20:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
All evidence points that the original uploader is the photographer. See one of his webpages ; send him an email if it's that big an issue. They have been here for two years uploading their photos but have less than 100 edits over that time. 7 days to delete an imge that has been fine for two years is unjust. I think it's unreasonable for us to force them to reveal their identity on every image or even not to trust that they are the original photographer. Has anyone suggested they didn't take the photo or otherwise have claimed someone else's image? I'm unclear why we are making deletion of images easier and keeping them harder. Many of us who upoad images are genuinely trying to improve articles and not steal images. He's an accomplished photographer and should be encouraged to donate more. From what I see they did everything they were supposed to. -- Banjeboi 20:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


For the welcome back and the help on the health section at Mississippi. Only wished your hard work would have been taken into more consideration there. I know you, wikiwise anyway. Unfortunately, the others over there apparently do not. ;] - ALLST☆R echo 01:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes editing here is character-building! Happy ho-ho-ho and all that! -- Banjeboi 06:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Attempt at stress reducing satire

I have formulated a version of the BBL template that perhaps you will find more to your liking. It frames the issue in a clearer and more neutral way. Though getting various SPS's to back up what it says admitted here will be hard. Take a look. Template talk:BBL sidebar/(Template)Autogynephilia theory (Tounge in Cheek)  :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

--A NobodyMy talk 02:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! To you and yours also! -- Banjeboi 02:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!  :) Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Fred P. Hochberg

add and DYK asap. -- Banjeboi

Too late. -- Banjeboi 03:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

RS Notice board:Commentaries on a Peer reviewed Article.....Again


You are being informed of this topic on the reliable sources notice board because you, commented on the question the last time, or are editor of the article The Man Who Would Be Queen, or you edited a related article. This was originally raised in October 2008. This is a complex topic and hopefully you will remember what this was all about and be able to comment insightfully and help us reach a consensus. I have asked that the comments found in the archive of the original discussion be taken into account this time since I am sure those other editors will return at some point. It is my hope that these can be comprehensively settled this time. To see why This is being asked again check out Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen.

This link is to the new request for comment on the reliable sources notice board. (You may have to scroll down to see it)

Please please don't confuse up this discussion with things about other tangentially related discussions. Please please focus on just the question of sources. (Don't take anything in this message personally as it is being sent to everyone involved.)

Thankyou for your help. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. I see some others more up to the challenge ae working through that. -- Banjeboi 03:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Jeff Dunham

clean-up. -- Banjeboi

Done. -- Banjeboi 00:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, Benjiboi. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Topic Ban of User:Benjiboi. Thank you.— dαlus Contribs 09:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I very much appreciate the effort sadly it looks like Guy and Durova got it shut down already before I even commented. -- Banjeboi 00:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Shannon's Rainbow

Glad to have you helping out. I know I was a bit messy, but I wanted to address the nom's issues before anyone else chimed in a delete based upon the WP:ADVERT the original article was. Good job! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Julianne Michelle

And my quick-fix for Julianne is not perfect... but take a look at the before and after. The assertions of notability were all over the place and just need sources and cleanip. How could the nom not even looked for her awards and nominations?? Sheesh. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Just saw you're there. Damn, you're fast!! Thanks. I owe you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What the heck?

This makes no sense. It is perfectly legitimate to respond to comments as I did, and your movement of my response isn't supported. I'm confused why you did it, as my response no longer appears in relation to the comment I addressed. I restored my comments which you refactored without asking me. Please ask an administrator to review this issue before acting unilaterally again. I see nothing wrong with how my comments addressed and replied to your comments, and your refactoring isn't supported. It is perfectly acceptable to respond in the way that I did. Viriditas (talk) 07:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Viriditas, I have again moved your comments out of the middle of mine and it should be quite clear that I don't appreciate you inserting your rebuttals between my responses as if a conversation had occurred which didn't; as if you commented then I completely ignored what you stated. These actions, IMHO, seem like the edit-warring behaviours you accuse me of doing so I want to state clearly I don't appreciate it, I find it uncivil and unhelpful. Wikipedia isn't a battleground and discussions aren't won or lost. I disagree with your stance but am unwilling to mount a defense for what I see as a rather silly argument. A BBC health reporter noted the state is humid most the year round and the residents find outdoor exercise uncomfortable, in part due to that climate condition. In an article discussing overall health issues and relating to an obesity crisis in the state this seemed completely relevant. I'm sure some scientist can be found who can verify these rather obvious facts but no bother. I'm sure the needed content will eventually be worked out. By the way, that isn't refactoring although inserting your comments between mine misrepresents the discussion both in spirit and context. -- Banjeboi 02:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you are engaging in purposefully disruptive behaviour in order to accuse me of edit warring when I restore my replies which were made in accordance with policy and guidelines. Benjiboi, I had no idea you had serious issues that it made it difficult, if not impossible to communicate with you like a normal person. Therefore, now that you have made me aware of this, I will no longer be communicating with you here, or anywhere else. Good bye and good luck. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, cutting off communication is one solution although it seems rather counter-productive. My main concern was interupting my comments with yours which changes the context of what I wrote. Other folks, admins, as far as I know, did the same to me when I was newer so it was clear who said what and when. To me that is the spirit of communication in this forum. I'm sorry if you don't see it that way or agree. I guess i could have amended my comments by simply adding onto the prior one but that seemed somewhat deceptive so I wouldn't advise it being done without good reason. In any case I wish you well. -- Banjeboi 10:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
After seeing the edits to the article talkpage I've asked for other eyes on this here. -- Banjeboi 11:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Viriditas's style of commenting is acceptable. In fact, it's the same as mine. If you want your comments to be treated as one long comment, place your signature at the end of that comment. It isn't deceptive at all, unless you use it to deceive people. If you want your comment to be treated as a response to your previous comment, use one more asterisk/colon than the previous comment. - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

So when adding a second comment in a row I can delete the first time stamp so the two comments are bundled together? -- Banjeboi 15:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess that's what I should do then, I still feel deleting someone's comments and insulting them isn't helpful but appreciate the feedback! -- Banjeboi 00:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Didn't see deletes, just comments moving back and forth ... in the future I would just append a new note to the discussion expressing your viewpoint. And yeah, User:Viriditas is a bit strident but I wouldn't make a big deal out of it. Gerardw (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The deletes were in the last edits of theirs - I didn't revert it. I very much appreciate the ideas and feedback, since the other editor has been unwilling or unable to respond I guess we'll have to accept their last statement as their take on this.

Pages you created tool

[2]. Genius. -- Banjeboi 16:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
I am honored to have you working with me to rescue articles. The Shannon's Rainbow, Frank E. Johnson, and Julianne Michelle articles are better for your efforts. I appreciate it big time. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I've very happy to work with you anytime I'm able, you are credit to stranded articles everywhere! -- Banjeboi 00:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A photo has been dedicated in your honor

This portrait of Larry Kramer was dedicated to User:Benjiboi on December 30, 2008.
David Shankbone.

The inscription is in the description. --David Shankbone 00:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well you sir have completely made my year start off on the good foot. I still have a bit of a hangover but this has me completely tickled and brimming with joy. I too can't imagine the project without your images and hope that you continue, in the words of an esoteric poem, planting the seeds in your own garden and decorating your own soul. -- Banjeboi 00:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Leigh Bowery Multi glasses from Taboo art showing .jpg

Resolved: Thank you Allstarecho! -- Banjeboi 00:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading Image:Leigh Bowery Multi glasses from Taboo art showing .jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


add auto-archiving and clean. Banjeboi

done. -- Banjeboi 11:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

talk:Sex education

add archive and clean. Banjeboi

done. -- Banjeboi 11:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OMG! RuPaul's Drag Race

Must build. -- Banjeboi

Already started. -- Banjeboi 11:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


Per GLAA's website they are the same organization, with the L added as so many organizations did to placate the lesbians. ;-) I will put together the information in the next day or so; at the moment I'm a bit shall we say under the weather. Otto4711 (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Coolio! Remember to hydrate and swish before you swallow! -- Banjeboi 02:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Buttock augmentation

refs and EL's deleted; research and restore article in case of notability strike. Benjiboi

and again here. Benjiboi
Resolved, editor has also added sources. -- Banjeboi 03:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

ref help on Swish (slang)

convert Harvards into cite. Benjiboi

done. -- Banjeboi 03:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Leigh Bowery

Yikes, what a mess. Do a proper read and sort out sections. Banjeboi

  • Early life
  • Move to London
  • Career
    • Club kids, three queens?
    • Fashion designer
    • Club promoter
    • Modeling
    • Minty
  • Taboo musical

Also need section, maybe in London part, about lover/roomate. Banjeboi

Sections introduced, clean-up bit by bit. -- Banjeboi 03:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

work up fair use for photo of Leigh & Trogan

former lovers, roomates, collaborators, etc Banjeboi

done. -- Banjeboi 04:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Category proposal relating to the "L" and the "G" in LGBT

HI Benjeboi. I see that you're interested in a lot of the same topics as me. I've been working on defining a problem I see in the LGBT category structure and working on a few proposals. Would you take a look and give me some feedback? User:Scarykitty/LGBT Categories. Scarykitty (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I've offered a few bits and am happy to help. -- Banjeboi 07:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 45 24 November 2008 About the Signpost

From the editor: 200th issue 
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones 
Wikipedia in the news Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 

Volume 4, Issue 46 1 December 2008 About the Signpost

ArbCom elections: Elections open Wikipedia in the news 
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System Features and admins 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 5, Issue 1 3 January 2009 About the Signpost

From the editor: Getting back on track 
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK 
Editing statistics show decline in participation Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting 
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments Dispatches: Featured list writers 
Wikipedia in the news WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)