User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 18

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 17 |

Archive 18

| Archive 19 →

my RFA

Thank you!

Thank you for your support in my RFA. The passed with a final count of (73/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! :) Aleta ^Sing 19:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! I'm sure you'll be great. Benji boi 22:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, bud...

The comment didn't really bother me so much, but hey, I guess it does violate WP:NPA, so I appreciate the clean up. CiTrusD (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. This user seems a bit experienced so should know better, and no volunteer deserves abuse for their efforts at cleaning vandalism. Benji boi 23:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women on the Web asap, intl women's day

per this Create Women on the Web. Benji boi

Uh, maybe not, looks awfully chatlike. Benji boi 10:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bear

Lol! Classic, I remember something he said at a lecture to prisoners that was along the lines that he was just as nuts as they but made movies about it! Gotta love him and his wallpaper. Benji boi 19:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Stonewall riots

add archives, clean-up talk page. Benji boi

Done. Banji boi 18:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Jordan Arobateau

start author article. Benji boi

Added to todo. Banji boi 18:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Gold

I'm not sure why you restored inaccurate and possibly anti-gay information, but the guy is wearing a Puma hat, not a "Chelsea-style kippah". Sometimes your behavior confuses me on this site. --David Shankbone 06:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake, please AGF, and sorry if my actions confuse. I was unaware that that was inaccurate or possibly anti-gay, in hindsight I should have followed those wikilinks to verify what they stated rather than assuming an anon with only one edit wasn't simply removing content for whatever reason. I should have been more thorough even if I thought it was vandalism. Benji boi 19:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the lack of good faith, and thanks for your help. --David Shankbone 16:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Benjiboi, David Shankbone has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

No prob. I've requested semi-protection on the article as well. Banji boi 16:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stub template deletion

I saw this and though you might want to look at it. Fosnez (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not good at using stubs myself but I know they help the project as a whole. Banji boi 14:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Archuleta

Why did you revert that last edit(removal)? The editor's first point about iTunes not ranking the songs may or may not be true, but the second point about it having no source was more than valid. Why revert when there is still no source? Gwynand (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arg! Yes, they did have a valid point that the statement seemed unsourced but I felt their follow-up point was questionable; that Itunes wasn't ranking for some reason, which didn't ring true. I was in the process of sourcing the content when my computer crashed - twice (arg!). iTunes does rank, I believe solely by sales and am trying to sort out how best to source those statements not knowing how to extrapolate what I can see on itunes so that other non-itune users can also verify the information. Banji boi 16:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but, it should be from a independant source. We shouldn't be reporting ourselves David's success on iTunes. If there is a news source that reports this success and rankings, then it should be added and sourced in the article. We shouldnt be going directly to the source of iTunes rankings and including this stuff in the article. Doing this clearly violates wp:or. I've researched news outlets over the past month and haven't found anyone reporting his iTunes rankings, so I really don't think it belongs in the article. Gwynand (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an OR expert, however i have my doubts that reporting a ranking is OR although it would certainly be better to have a verifiable and reliable source instead. That's what I was working on. We know the content is likely true but we still need a source. I've found a good pop blogger who has screenshots from iTunes but I'm still looking for something better. Banji boi 17:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My major point is that I'm really not sure he was ever ranked #1 in iTunes overall. I know he was probably ranked 1 for AI releases. However, my opinion doesn't matter. If he was ranked #1 a few weeks ago with "Imagine", then we should be able to find at least 1 reliable source stating so. I've searched and searched and haven't seen a single source confirming it. For now, I'm going to remove the rankings. If you find a source (even a bordeline one I guess) go ahead and add it back. Until then I don't feel comfortable leaving that info up there. Gwynand (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your sourced addition, but I'm still not sure we are on the same page here, nor am I sure the info is accurate. Of one concern is the 2nd source you gave is a blocked website where I am, which is a first for me when looking at a cited source on wikipedia. In terms of "Idol Season 7" only, Archuleta actually had the #1 and #2 spot for Imagine and Shop Around. I'm glad that you clarified that it was for Idol releases only, not all of Itunes, but I still think the info is wrong -- you say Shop Around reached 8th-- (but where? all of itunes, or idol only, or what??). This of course isn't due to a lack of effort on your part, but rather to somewhat dated and unreliable sources that are using "screen shots". I won't revert now, but I would rather suggest to you that the info isn't entirely accurate still. I would take out mention of ranking still and later I will see if I can get to a pc that doesnt block your source and take a look.Gwynand (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've made it more vague, likely those rankings change week to week anyway. Once more sources cover this information we can change it accordingly. Banji boi 18:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing my concerns. The article is definitely improved and doesn't contain any innacuracies. Nice work. Gwynand (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You as well! Lol! Banji boi 18:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kraft_Nabisco_Championship#Winners

Put in chronological order from oldest to newest. no hurry. Benji boi

Done. Banji boi 00:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Sanchez

Per [1], I advise you that you should consider yourself topic-banned from the article Matt Sanchez and its talk page, per the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine. This is in order to minimise disruption to the article and to enable OTRS volunteers to successfully negotiate with the article subject. You are also not permitted to post to the user or talk page of the subject, under any account he may use. You may discuss any changes to the article on the biography noticeboard. Your co-operation is appreciated in respect of this sensitive article. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, you might want to read this, which I've reverted per WP:BAN as an edit that's almost certainly from Pwok. It's up to you whether to believe his interpretation or trust my offer. If you're on the fence, I could refer you to a couple of editors who were formerly sitebanned either by me directly or at my recommendation and who've made legitimate returns and now have good working relationships with me. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 06:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT Pwok. Run any test you have in your arsenal Ms 'Sherlock Holmes'. Never mind - it won't really matter - reality and proof are re-defined by you and others here daily to suit your paranoia and self-aggrandizing agenda. I am awed by your powers of perception and inference. Hey, maybe I am Pwok and just don't know it -- Durova super sleuth has made that determination after all. Ooooh, maybe I'm some secret weapon from Wikipedia Review. They're everwhere! They're everywhere!

Wow. What a leap. And what a joke.

Benjiboi, note that even your talk page 'home' isn't really yours....your wishes about what may be posted here are irrelevant. The 'elite' know and see all - Big Sister is watching ! So 'back-logged' she can't help but 'police' your talk page. Poor poor overworked Durova. As Guy 'explains' to the now-blocked Eleemosynary: "...be assured that Jay, Durova and I all wish we did not have to spend so much time keeping a lid on this. " (Interesting choice of words, no?) Stop your bad behavior in the Sanchez article - spreading "irrelevant comments that give passersby the mistaken impression that this is a content dispute." As one of the 'passersby' I must say - your months of good-faith and remarkably restrained efforts to improve the article's veracity have certainly fooled me. How clever of you to invent a content dispute that precedes your participation in editing the article and which was present from the article's inception and has been discussed for over a year! Wait! You're probably Pwok too! (He certainly is diabolical!)

Your sincerity in this matter is highly suspect. Your 'real' motivation is clear to all 'in-the-know.' Repent and take on Durova's kind offer to speak to 'reformed' editors she previously had sitebanned and thereby learn the secrets of submission (no thinnly veiled threat there, no sir.) After all it's of paramount importance to make a 'legitimate return' and have a 'good working relationship' with Durova. (And you thought creating the best encyclopedia ever was the goal, silly you !)

Wikipedia-the-Cabal owns you and don't you forget it! Naaah, the outcome isn't pre-determined, the system isn't 'gamed'. Verified facts (such as "he said it, then he denied it") are always included in our 'most excellent' articles.

Go forth into the 'free' encyclopedia and "Edit Boldly !!" Since Wikipedia doesn't censor, I'm sure you'll get to read this so I won't have to E-mail it to you to try and avoid the 'overseers'.

FWIW, as an academic I'll be sure to spread the word about Wikipedia's true methodology and reliability with my peers in the real world - one thing I agree with - "Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source." Cite it in class and risk failing the course. Rely on it at your own peril.

Start countdown for deletion of this post and/or an IP block.......now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.24.13 (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiboi, consider the possibility that the individual who posted above may be the same person who trolled you with those insults yesterday, just to get you angry. He certainly is dedicated to stirring the pot. Durova^Charge! 17:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm extending a huge amount of good faith towards all concerned in this. Sanchez is likely gay, or according to guys he's had sex with certainly was, and reliable sources also seem to support he was also a prostitute for men who have sex with men although semantically Sanchez argues that "gay" isn't appropriate. I think my collective track record speaks for itself on this matter and for the record I've never slept with Sanchez, nor do I mentor him on Commons or otherwise condone compromising policies to censor. Perhaps I'm naive but I'd rather play by the rules in practice and spirit. Benji boi 19:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, even though sources seem to support Sanchez may be gay (or bisexual or simply someone who happens to have sex with men) I fully agree with policies regarding reliable sourcing especially in regards to Sanchez as we aren't a tabloid and our articles should be neutral. I'm concerned also about what seems to be, in Sanchez's case, clearing off of all content the subject doesn't like and from what I've seen elsewhere, a pattern of harassment by people with bios on wikipedia that unfortunately works towards censoring as the admins tire of dealing with it. The losers are editors like myself and our readers who deserve to have uncensored articles. Sympathy should also be given to the admins who are likely more interested in doing anything else than sorting out these issues. Banji boi 00:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Adolescence

general clean-up of talk page; also article hat-note is a mess. Banji boi

Likely need Teen (disambiguation) page. Banji boi

Done. Banji boi 22:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages

Regarding your edits to Leather (disambiguation) and Teen (disambiguation): I would like to encourage you to consult the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages before creating and/or editing more disambiguation pages. Disambiguation pages are not intended to be exhaustive catalogs of every article containing the disambiguated term. There are various search functions that serve that purpose. Dab pages exist to help users find articles that have, or might have, the same or very similar titles. For a fairly typical example of a correct (though not perfect--but what is?) dab page, see, for instance, Water (disambiguation). Regards--ShelfSkewed Talk 22:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, I've been reading up a bit and trying to get better on them. My primary goal with teen was to turn 5 hatnotes on adolescent into one link to disamb page. Feel free to trim whatever needs it. Banji boi 22:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi Benjiboi, thank you for your edit in regards to a See also section you made. This user seems to be very intent on populating See also sections with articles already linked to in the main article. I am just trying to clean these sectins up. Thanks again and if I do something that dosen't look right just let me know. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do seem rather intent on driving that point home. In practice I believe we should remove those extra links but just maybe they'll come around to seeing that as the best option as well. For the time being it's just a point of disagreement but for now I'd say revert it just once and then engage on the talk page to see what the issue is, who knows, maybe there's some point we're missing. Meanwhile there's a lot of other cleaning up that is probably more helpful to making the article better so focusing on that may make sense. As a rule of thumb it's best to aim for what would the article look like if it were a featured article and I think it's generally accepted we wouldn't repeat links as such. Banje boi 23:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. This editor has repopulated the see also sections and labeled ny edits as vandalism. I have reverted and will ty to use the talk page. Thanks again, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, we're not in a rush here and it's not something that is incorrect just stylistic disagreed upon for now. Not worth hard feelings I'd say. Banje boi 20:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insults

Hi Benjiboi. I've just seen some insults directed at you from about a week ago and I absolutely don't approve. I've talked to Matt: he's admitted to one occasion and pledged to me he won't do that anymore. I don't know where the other one comes from and it's my belief that a portion of the trolling has been spoofed. The AOL account insulted you while Matt was in France and I'm pretty certain he wasn't involved that time. At any rate, I'm doing all I can to end it and if you're targeted again please let me know. I take this quite seriously. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 18:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your looking into it. Frankly if I can't clear my name I won't be around for him or any other vandals to attack so that may resolve the issue altogether. Banje boi 23:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tough situation here all around. When I said I'd like to be the one to open the proposal for lifting your sanction I wasn't kidding. Matt took the chance of trusting me when I offered to mentor him at Commons, which wasn't an easy leap for him to take after I had supported his Wikipedia siteban. If you'll take a similar chance and trust me I promise I'll do my best to be fair by you too. You can ask David Shankbone about me if you have doubts. Here's hoping things take a turn for the better. Durova^Charge! 17:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that will get my ban lifted is likely a step in the right direction. Banje boi 22:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well basically all I care about is that the article follows the standard site policies and standards. Like if you want to source a broadcast, the citation would need to go to a non-copyvio web hosting or a transcript. My same offer goes to you that went to Matt: find the citations, and if the stuff looks fair and legitimate I'll present it for discussion. And if the editors don't agree then whichever person thinks some material should be in the article can take it to a noticeboard for independent review. If you trust me enough to come to me, great. If not, then use the noticeboards yourself (it's understandable to be skeptical at a page that's been a battleground for such a long time). Let's touch bases on the one month anniversary of your page ban: drop a note at my user talk, and if everything you've done seems fair to me (which so far is yes) then I'll open a new AE thread myself and petition to have your restriction lifted. Sounds fair? Durova^Charge! 01:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate your reply and interest in this. Frankly I have come to learn some information about the subject of that article that has led me to want to steer clear of anything to do with the subject so that I become of no interest to them. Further, although I appreciate the challenges and your willingness to work with the subject I can no longer look at my efforts and energy there as something that has been anything more than a learning lesson. Until my name is cleared I will be working to get the ban lifted and pretty much everything else can wait. Banje boi 03:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate that. As long as there's no problem for a month my offer stands. Let's hope things work out and get back to normal. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 07:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear of your mistreatment. Let me know if there's anything I can do to be supportive.ShirleyPartridge (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Hills

Many months ago I explained my reasons for removing Beverly Hills as a gay village. Let me know if it qualifies as such. Beverly Hills's economy is centered on retail and high fashion shopping, and thus much of BH's "workforce" is gay. Gay men maintain a large presence as employees and managers in the stores on Wilshire Boulevard, Rodeo Drive, and Beverly Drive. Most do not live there. There is hardly any bar scene at all in Beverly Hills, and not surprisingly nothing of that little bit is gay.

As for Hollywood proper, Hollywood is the center of nightlife in the Greater Los Angeles Area. Gay nightlife is centered in West Hollywood (mostly on Santa Monica Blvd) while Hollywood clubs are situated mostly across Sunset Blvd. There are just a small number of gay bars on Sunset--a very small fraction of the many other clubs/bars. Hollywood is, however, located directly east of West Hollywood and directly west of Silver Lake--two actual gay villages, so I would assume that they make up a good amount of residents.

So, would you say they qualify? --Shamir1 (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ban

it will pass

Benjiboi, sorry you got banned, but it will pass. I did read what you linked to. My problem with you seems to be you lean too far right. which is surprising since you seem to be gay. Which is no big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.101.204 (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate your comment although the "too far right" seems off-base, in fairness once people own property they are said to become more conservative but I'm not even sure that's accurate. Banje boi 13:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your ban

Benji, I'm so sorry to read that you got banned. I read what you linked to and I want you to know that you have my support. Although you and I have had some differences of opinions in the past, you have been in my honest opinion, a very fair and fine editor. It would be a huge loss to both myself and to the Wikipedia community if you were not to return. You have always been more than helpful to a newbie such as myself. You have assumed good faith with me more times than I can count. I thank you for that. I wish you the best of luck and sincerely hope things go your way. Your ban on that certain page should be lifted. Just my humble opinion. CadenS (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the kind words and I do hope my appeal will bring this to a close and I can get on with building articles again. Banje boi 13:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway! :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! You as well! As America goes so does iraq and few other countries so let's hope peace is the priority! Banje boi 01:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]