User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 58

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 → Archive 65

Mass moving of biography articles

Hi. I was looking at the weekly changes to WP:ACTOR articles and came across an editor, Asarelah, who has been moving quite a number of articles from a more specific designation of the person to one that simply says "John Doe (person)". See here for examples. There seems to be some issue over the use of "actor" vs. "actress" and the use of "pornography" vs. "pornographic", but now it's also moved to changing qualifiers from "Cherokee chief" to "person" as well. This all seems quite counterproductive to me. What is wrong with the words in parentheses in the article title being specific? I'm not thrilled with this backstep and I thought I'd contact you, since you were involved in moving some of the actor bios not long ago. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well ... actor likely should be used instead of actress for all disambiguation but ... there may be some good reason to feminize. I think moving disambiguations from words not commonly thought of for people, Belladonna was the example we were working on, is okay but not a huge priority. I think "Cherokee chief" would also be okay but likely would be moved to the more generic "person" as being more helpful to the majority of our readers. If we have a second article on the same name then it could certainly be moved back. The issue with "pornography" was that it's a field or genre being used to disambiguate a person which seems like a really bad idea. "Actor", "director", "producer" was all the disambiguation needed for the moment. They could be moved to "Pornographic actor", etc. if a second person with the same name and profession existed. Does any of this help? -- Banjeboi 10:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Slut Night

I nominated this for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slut Night (2nd nomination) Prezbo (talk) 07:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I spotted this AfD, it looks like some editors are going through the articles you created and worked on. For this article, there's nothing I can do to rescue it; the main/only sources are primary sources, as Slut Night was an invention of Butch-Femme.com. On the other hand, if you can find enough reliable sources on Butch-Femme.com, e.g. [1], you could write an article about that website, and mention Slut Nights in a section. That's a mergist approach. Fences&Windows 16:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I can assure you that like jackals nipping at my heels absolutely everything I've ever done is being picked apart; hopefully the articles in question will actually be improved as part of this diligent attention. Slut Night is certainly salvagable and is not a product of ButchFemme.com. That website is a US-centric hub for butch/femme socializing and as such is an authority on the subject. There is a way to utilize the sources with NPOV, whether anyone is willing to do the actual work is another issue altogether. -- Banjeboi 10:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
According to what I read here Slut Night is a creation of Butch-Femme.com. I spent about half an hour looking for sources and all I could find giving any significant coverage was on Butch-Femme.com, i.e. not independent coverage. While I know that not all sources are available online, I doubt that Slut Night meets the notability criteria, and I'm very surprised that it passed a GA review. However, I think this witch-hunt against you needs to stop sharpish - and Peter Damian and the rest of the Wikipedia Review denizens need to get a life - and if editors continue to trawl through your old contributions and nominate articles you've worked on for deletion they should be blocked for Wikihounding. Fences&Windows 06:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Good call, however - We conduct Butch-Femme socials here in the San Francisco and Oakland area about once a month. Most of our members are from Butch-Femme.com. At one of our socials, - to me this suggests slut night were born out of butch femme social events, not started by but instead promoted by Butchfemme.com. Based on this I think merging to Butch and femme or even moving to Butch-Femme.com might make more sense and rework the material based on wherever it goes. Agree on the wikihounding but I've been harassed before and generally articles are greatly improved through the extra scutiny, no matter how painful it may be. -- Banjeboi 21:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI User_talk:Cool_Hand_Luke#WP:PAID Ikip (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC) More:

Yes, we can expect more of the same. Thanks for the heads up. -- Banjeboi 10:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
You've inspired me to create a userbox: User:Fences and windows/Paid. Fences&Windows 19:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand the signifigance of the photo, can you explain? Ikip (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a witch. What do you do with witches? Fences&Windows 20:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Depends whether they weigh the same as a duck.  pablohablo. 21:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't that a Saturday Night Live sketch? -- Banjeboi 21:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe, but I was thinking of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. pablohablo. 21:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Well I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition! 21:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Debate

Based on what I wrote to you, would you approve such venture? If michael oversaw it? Please let me know on my talk page or WT:ARS. Ikip (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I killed the idea. Ikip (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

edit war at Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P.

To both parties: You appear to be engaged in an edit war at the subject article. Don't do that please... Take it to the talk page ( talk:Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. ) and work it out. Sterile edit wars are not a good approach. ++Lar: t/c 21:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, this floating anon IP showed every sign of wanting to bait and edit war and falsely claimed that the authors of two books and journalists for three different mainstream newspapers were both (i) my friends and (ii) their sources previously discussed. Neither is true. Anyone can check the sources to see if they indeed support the statements made. -- Banjeboi 01:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't edit war. Full stop. Just don't take the bait... one revert and then to the talk for other editors, uninvolved editors without apparent CoI, to deal with. If you edit war, regardless of how justified you think you might be, you may find yourself blocked. That's not really a debatable point. ++Lar: t/c 10:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
could this be crafty? Maybe a checkuser is in order? Ikip (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a set of IP range, two of the three seem to be here solely to disrupt and have been blocked for the same. There is likely more. They haven't just targeted me but someone more patient with digging through their edits would likely find a whole drawer of disruption. -- Banjeboi 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Conflict again re Jessicka

Could you please have a look at my progress. I'm hoping all is good so far. I have no interest in another battle with Hullaballoo. [2] Thanks so much. Swancookie (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an eye out, they do seem to be tenditious let's see if they start battling again and, sadly, we may have to lay out each sentence at the talkpage. -- Banjeboi 16:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


he has http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessicka&diff=313017388&oldid=313015998

I was under the impression that a person's actual website served as a reliable source.

Swancookie (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


Any help would be apprecaited. Hullaballo undid the change you and I made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessicka&diff=313122349&oldid=313031103

I added this thinking it was ok- per a prior discussion isn't somebody's own website a reliable source? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessicka&diff=313020044&oldid=313018134

It states this fact clearly in the article... Please please I'm so so so sorry to bother you but he will continue to bully me if nobody steps in. I leave - then come back and he follows me from article to article. This is begining to remind me of some gay bashing I dealt with in high school. Swancookie (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm being wikihounded so am taking a bit of time off, no worries; anything worth akeeping is still in the history of the article. -- Banjeboi 11:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


Clint Catalyst

Similarly, while I haven't edited the Clint Catalyst article itself in a while due to the mess going on, I have noticed that the "Other Works" section, among other information which seems to conform to WP:RS and which other editors/admins have expressed no problem with, is continually being removed. I feel that it is important and relevant information regarding the subject and should be in the article - what are your thoughts on the matter? Sorry to be bugging you with this again. Granny Bebeb (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Those should be reworked as "Bibliography" IMHO. -- Banjeboi 11:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Since you are one of the most awesome people on wiki, I'd like to ask if you have msn or yahoo? Zazaban (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a yahoo just for wiki purposes. -- Banjeboi 11:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Trojan and Bowery.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Trojan and Bowery.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Wasn't aware of the 3a rule, it can go as it only shows the evolution of their artistry. Hopefully someone will donate images that will help document their look. -- Banjeboi 11:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Mormons

Why leave that in the subjunctive?--Bhuck (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I messed up the language or the idea is flawed? -- Banjeboi 21:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I meant you said you "would" add it, but you didn't add it. I'm not sure if it would fit or not, and was curious to see an example of how you thought it would fit. (Conceptually it makes sense, but is it really doable?)--Bhuck (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, words fail me so often - or I fail them. I guess I should have said "If I were you I would ..." add the item into the protests article. Like "In September 2009 a same-sex kiss-in took place at Temple Square ... ." That's how I would do it. -- Banjeboi 11:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The problem is, I don't have a good set of sources handy to use as refs there. I was hoping to find them in Wikipedia, but when I didn't, I wondered why they weren't here. I thought it was strange that there was so much attention to this subject six months ago, and now it is being ignored. I hope it isn't because the Mormon side of things is more active here and only documents things that make LGBT people seem like dangerous radicals (powder scares, graffiti, etc), and not things that make Utah look like a police state.--Bhuck (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Heklina

I have stubbed this unsourced BLP in line with our BLP policies. please find reliable sources before restoring any material. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It had sources on it when you stubbed it and everything was easily verifiable - you just chose to delete which is disappointing. No worries, your mistakes can be be corrected easily enough. -- Banjeboi 13:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

LDS Church

Heya again, this is is probably not the correct way to go about it... But, could you help, if you have a good network, with "Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement"? I really need back up over there. Those guys keep taking Prop 8-related text down. Of an extensive page, there is only one mention of Prop 8 and it's a photo caption.

Right now we're trying to merge this article with another that would include a bunch of stuff on the Yes on 8 campaign. But this damn Mormon over there just keeps kicking, spewing his misinformation trying to block it.

My argument is that shameful or not, Prop 8 is pretty applicable. I would appreciate it if you can point me to the right place to put this on some kind of a list. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

@Gnarly: see above at #Mormons. I also made a few edits in what I presume was the article to which you were referring (you had linked to the suggested merge).--Bhuck (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The main content on this, as far as I can tell, should be at Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which in turn is summarized at Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Unless there is an article specifically addressing LDS and Prop 8 - which may be do-able - the related content likely should be split among the current articles on the proposition itself, the protests against supporters of same and general articles on the church. -- Banjeboi 10:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
There is not much Prop 8 content in the HS&LDS article.--Bhuck (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes that article needs work as well. A well-written paragraph under Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Critics section would seem appropriate; how invested they were and how they were criticized. -- Banjeboi 14:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping on this you guys... To Benjiboi, there actually isn't anything in the Criticism article. I think that at least having a paragraph there about Prop 8 would be helpful. I understand the thinking about inserting Prop 8 into the Homosexuality article, but if there's any recent criticism of the church in general it's on Prop 8. Just my two cents. I do agree with that proposed merge. Thanks again for your input, you guys are far out. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh hey guys just a heads up, I think we kind of got lost in the sauce on what article we were talking about. I was talking about the "Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement" article.... sorry. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence

Collapsed for space
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

operation Spanner link

refs date of benefit event Benjiboi

Kellan

Kellan event in 2007[3]Benjiboi

Sisters controversy section ideas

...because Catholicism and American politics has a vast influence on American culture or history of (discrimination, ?,?) or even the more unique and universal appearance of dress the Sisters ...

Need to find refs of criticism from within LGBT community. Benjiboi

verbiage

James Martin, S.J. the U.S. entertainment industry is of "two minds" about the Catholic Church. He argues that,

On the one hand, film and television producers seem to find Catholicism irresistible. There are a number of reasons for this. First, more than any other Christian denomination, the Catholic Church is supremely visual, and therefore attractive to producers and directors concerned with the visual image. Vestments, monstrances, statues, crucifixes - to say nothing of the symbols of the sacraments - are all things that more "word oriented" Christian denominations have foregone. The Catholic Church, therefore, lends itself perfectly to the visual media of film and television. You can be sure that any movie about the Second Coming or Satan or demonic possession or, for that matter, any sort of irruption of the transcendent into everyday life, will choose the Catholic Church as its venue.Benjiboi

Meh. -- Banjeboi 21:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The IP

I've warned the IP that he should not follow you around any more. If he does, you should request a short block from an administrator, and I'd be willing impose it if it happens again. At the same time, you should disengage from this user as well. Don't follow him to other topics. Thank you. Cool Hand Luke 22:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort. In general I mainly work on LGBT articles and I think that is the only place I've encountered them. -- Banjeboi 21:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for your comments

Hello! You commented on the last discussion about whether to include a Category:Fictional LGBT characters on the Stewie Griffin article. We have a new discussion going for an updated consensus. Your comments here would be appreciated. Thank you, CTJF83Talk 03:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Banjeboi 21:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's get this straight

  • I don't know anyone called Peter Damin
  • If there is an organised effort to "get you" I have never been contacted by it.
  • Nobody at wikipedian review has their hand up my ass.

The only contact about you I have ever had off-site was during the AFD of the two articles you created where I contacted an Admin on IRC and asked if they were watching it because it was getting out of control and might need to be stopped or edits removed. The next time you make statements claiming that any of the first three statements are untrue, I will be heading over to AN/I and asking for you to be blocked. I'm not even going to say "unless you can provide diffs" because you cannot not, because there are not any. Whatever else I am, I don't weasel, I don't give half-truth answers. A lot of people here don't like me, they think I am rude, they think I am too blunt, they think I am too rigid on sourcing - that's fine. What people do not think I am is a liar. I am not a liar. So the next time you a) say I know this Peter Damin b) are working with a gang c) am being organised by wikipedian review, we are off to AN/I and I'll do my best to get you blocked. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Your rpeated threats to get me blocked are rather telling. Whatever your issues are its clear they are personalized and hostile. It would likely be best for you to relax a bit and see if others who are less emotionally involved don't address whatever concerns you have. I would feel the same regardless of any two editors involved. Your language belies your intent which seems more invested in provoking than anything else. -- Banjeboi 21:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
What is straight? A line can be straight, or a street, but the human heart, oh, no, it's curved like a road through mountains.

—Tennessee Williams (1911–1983), in A Streetcar Named Desire --Bhuck (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

What's with the threads about (presumably) what you're editing? Seems interesting, but I haven't seen that done before. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which threads you mean, example? -- Banjeboi 00:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I mean on your talk page where you have section where an article is noted in the title and is says what you're doing on it. Like the "Lim Poon Lee: ref search next. -- Banjeboi" and "LGBT rights by country or territory: format refs. -- Banjeboi" threads. Just curious. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a to-do list of sorts. -- Banjeboi 08:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

GLSEN

Is your intent to work with another editor to improve the section on controversy, or to just scrub it clean of any mention of controversy? Otherwise, I'd like you to make some edits to address your concerns and replace it with the improved version. Bachcell (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're not convinced that some organizations oppose the work of these folks, you might look at this

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/search.php?search=glsen

There are many, many more incidents, unfortunately WP editors interpret WP:RS as excluding any source with a Christian, Libertarian, or Conservative viewpoint, no matter how large the audience. That you dismiss Education Week as a reliable source is quite remarkable. Bachcell (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with well-written content that is sourced reliably providing due criticism. We didn't have that as of yet. TVC, BTW, is also not a reliable source, I think you'll find they complain about all sorts of things. I'll meet you on the article talkpage. -- Banjeboi 08:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Benjiboi/Archive_58&oldid=1190229574"