User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 21
|
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. |
GLAAD 2008
As President of Mt. San Antonio College LAMBDA Student Association, I was lucky enough to receive free tickets to the 2008 GLAAD Media Awards. Our VP, Comic artist Aubrey Miranda was also in attendance. Here's what would have happened had I decided to take the plunge. Hope you find it amusing. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Lol! Yes, I can see Ms. Jackson-if-you're-nasty as being a very dangerous force for the sheer magnetism alone. Perhaps an anti-gravity belt would help? Banjeboi 14:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I startled a few people when I screamed her name. :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Lol. You must be careful - you could spill a drink thus wasting valuable alcohol! Banjeboi 10:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- I startled a few people when I screamed her name. :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I've started a Request for Comment that will hopefully bring in some more editors to the Helms article. NCdave's behavior is really pushing it, so hopefully more eyes will keep him in check. While he's certainly keeping us honest I'm getting sick of reverting his deletions. I'm not actively restoring the lead section, since I think that's not quite as clear-cut as the quotes that I'm restoring, but I think your latest version is just about ready for permanent inclusion in the article, if not necessarily the lead.--TexasDex ★ 15:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate that, I've started Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#NCdave deleting uncomfortable material about Jesse Helms about the same thing. NCdave has some valid points but they get lost in all the rest of it and there is so much other material to work through. This is why the rest of the world is puzzled by Americans, does anyone really think Helms wasn't a segregationist and likely a bigot as well? Helms was a fascinating person so I hope a good article will help show where he came from (his views) and how he was sustained financially. Banjeboi 16:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
sources for Castro Street Fair
It looks to me like the castrostreetfair.org link (in the External links and references section) is a source, albeit a primary one. Why did you change my primarysources template to noreferences? Stepheng3 (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Because it's listed as an external link and not under references or notes. It's not that big of a deal, the article is safe from deletion as it's plenty notable and sources certainly exist. The fair was founded by Harvey Milk who was killed late 1970s so that fair is at least 30 years old. Banjeboi 04:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- The section in question was titled "External links and references." How can you tell that castrostreetfair.org isn't a reference? Stepheng3 (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- It could be used as a ref but those sections shouldn't be combined. Really the whole article need a lot of content and sources added. I've put on one and updated the tag and fixed those sections. Banjeboi 05:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- The article looks better now. Thanks. Stepheng3 (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Great work
On the tag you just did. perfect! Now off to work. Jeffpw (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh thank you, I agree it seems a bit silly. but... these things do count somewhere for something. Banjeboi 05:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh Benji
The assholes are truly something, aren't they? Jeffpw (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I thought we were getting pretty neutral there but obviously passions are running deep on this. It does seem a bit much! Banjeboi 18:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
How I make it through the day
I'm Still Here God bless Dame Shirley Bassey] Jeffpw (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- God bless us each and every one! Banjeboi 21:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Gay bathhouse needs refs - rush
- saved from AfD already. Banjeboi 21:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
So - as one of the newer "news", how would I upload a picture, like the Woodhull logo? Or one of our banners? RicciJoy (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure a banner would cut it but you certainly can do a logo with a "fair-use rationale". Ensure you have the image set-up so you can copy it from your desktop or file. In the article edit the infobox and type in something like [[Image:WFFlogo.jpg|thumb]], depending on the infobox you later will have to tweak the formatting (sometimes by dropping the brackets, sometimes by dropping the Image: bit or adding size parameters. When you save it should show the name of your file rather than an image because you haven't yet uploaded the image. Now, go to another Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia which presently has a valid logo with rationale, and click on that logo which will take you to its image page. Click to edit the rationale section and copy the whole thing so you can paste it. Go back to WFF article and click on the name of your logo file. This should take you to an ominous page of instructions and warnings intended to slow the uploading of nonsense and unfree images. Use the search mechanism to upload the image from your desktop. The under licensing there is a bewildering array of choices - you're looking for "logo". Click on it and it should autofill the logo license boilerplate. Then go to summary and paste in the rationale from the Martha Stewart article, replace all Martha stuff with WFF and save. Then go back to your article and work on tweaking the logo. If all else fails i can fix it or upload a new one. Sometimes logos have to be fixed in our Graphic lab as well. No worries. Banjeboi 18:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll try this tomorrow when my brain is fresh! RicciJoy (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Coolio, let me know if you want help. Banjeboi 00:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Congrats
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For your work on improving Jesse Helms, particularly your recent improvements on the wording in the lead section, I hereby award you this barnstar. You've done well to find a compromise between our own beliefs about his character and the tone of the reporting in the mainstream media. Thanks! --TexasDex ★ 15:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
- Thank you! I honestly think that he believed in what he was doing but had some pretty messed up ideas about other races, sexualities, etc that were pretty messed up. Also he did recreate how to run cultural war politics which we've yet to really address there. I'm glad we've cleaned it up a bit but many of teh sources cite him as the most divisive political figure in the 1900s so it would be good to show why he was successful despite that. Thank you again for your work and keep looking to improve it! Banjeboi 20:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I hope for sweet dreams
It's 6:45 pm here, and I've taken my sleeping pill and tranquilizer to ensure escape from the horrors of today and brave the horrors of tomorrow. As Neely O'Hara famously said, "The booze makes the pills work faster"'. But I couldn't sign off without congratulating you on your special mention on the LGBT Newsletter. It's people like you that make people like me keep coming back. Jeffpw (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Arrg! I haven't gotten a newsletter!? Am I famous? How will I ever know? p.s I find red wine and dark comedy help too. Banjeboi 21:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I was set to leave my computer for the night, butI'm guessing with that many threads it will take some time to get through them, even with a number of helpers. If you're still working on it next time I've got some spare time I'll take a look for you. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. I find it's easiest to start with the obvious ones first. If other editor mark them with the {{stale}} and {{resolved}} tags as needed I'm happy to do the actual moving. Usually an article is much shorter so i can read through it and the talk to tell if something is done or not but this one is just a bit overwhelming. Banjeboi 22:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
a video I made
I made this in tribute to Isaäc. I hope you watch and enjoy it. Jeffpw (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, that's quite stunning and heartfelt, a beautiful song as well! Thank you! Banjeboi 10:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Ping
I've responded to your request here and sent you an email. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! Banjeboi 12:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
add archive and clean. Banjeboi
Barnstar section
start Barnstar, et al section on my mainpage. Banjeboi
Please leave the article issues tags in place until the issues have been dealt with. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukexpat (talk • contribs)
- Your rather WP:POINTy tag is bordering on violating our policies on civility, IMHO, with six clean-up issues. I respectfully suggest you pick the top two (with a suggestion that referencing be one of them), and leave the rest of the issues until those are resolved. If you are unable or unwilling I will be happy to do so for you. The editors there have made a good-faith effort to address your concerns and I'm not quite seeing the problem in the same light as you are. Banjeboi 03:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- You are not the only one making constructive edits - I have been doing my bit too. The tags are there to alert editors to issues, no more, no less and I have raised valid issues. – ukexpat (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to suggest you weren't making valid edits. To be more clear, although your concerns may be valid they don't help create a collaborative atmosphere of working with one another. We could all add such a tag to the vast majority of articles because almost all do need improving. But we don't because it makes the article look clunky and our readers don't need a laundry list of issues to read through first. I'm sure there's a policy or guideline but I'd rather you consider what your goal there is? I again suggest picking the top 1 or 2 concerns that will make the biggest beneficial change for the article. Leave a note on the talk page stating "these are the current tags but these are some other issues that do need to be addressed". The article is being worked on and we want to get those who are putting in problem stuff to learn, not be intimidated away. Banjeboi 03:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- OK I guess I don't see the same problem with the tags that you do, but in any event I have reduced them to three. I will start a discussion on the talk page soon. – ukexpat (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that! Banjeboi 10:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- OK I guess I don't see the same problem with the tags that you do, but in any event I have reduced them to three. I will start a discussion on the talk page soon. – ukexpat (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to suggest you weren't making valid edits. To be more clear, although your concerns may be valid they don't help create a collaborative atmosphere of working with one another. We could all add such a tag to the vast majority of articles because almost all do need improving. But we don't because it makes the article look clunky and our readers don't need a laundry list of issues to read through first. I'm sure there's a policy or guideline but I'd rather you consider what your goal there is? I again suggest picking the top 1 or 2 concerns that will make the biggest beneficial change for the article. Leave a note on the talk page stating "these are the current tags but these are some other issues that do need to be addressed". The article is being worked on and we want to get those who are putting in problem stuff to learn, not be intimidated away. Banjeboi 03:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- You are not the only one making constructive edits - I have been doing my bit too. The tags are there to alert editors to issues, no more, no less and I have raised valid issues. – ukexpat (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Benjiboi - I, as the person who wrote the article, am lost and could seriously use some help (and would welcome such assistance as you would be willing to offer). You're right - it was intimidating and frustrating and, as someone new to doing anything on wiki other than using it as a reference, I was about ready to consider it hopeless. The article may be a conflict of interest, since I am one of the founders and the executive director, but I did try to write it in a way that was honest and "third-partyish". This whole thing began because someone saw our entry, written by someone NOT in Woodhull, and pointed out that there was a serious mis-communication presented on the page.
Anyway, I've added third-party sources, I've third-person'd the article and I hope I've brought it more into the framework of what's needed for a wikipedia article. I had based much of my content on a page that was acceptable here on wikipedia, by the way, that was certainly more of an advertisement and written in the first person than anything I put up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coalition_for_Sexual_Freedom).
So, anyway, any help you can give me will be greatly appreciated! RicciJoy (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that article is also problematic and I've tagged it for references needed. As you do seem willing to improve the Woodhull FF article please take a look at Greenpeace and see how similar information is treated. Rather than dwell on what the article was or why it was that way let's just keep improving it. I'll add some tweaks here and there and anybody else can make changes as well. Try not to get discouraged, everything we write will be edited and reworked to some degree. I would say the main concern would be to keep adding sources to verify information presented. The more that are independent of WFF the better. I also am not too concerned about COI issues as you have been forthcoming about your connection and concerns. I would be concerned if you were stating WFF is the top _____ for all sexuality researchers or similar claims with no sources to back it up. I've seen nothing in my brief overviews that suggest outlandish or untrue claims are being made. Banjeboi 23:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
You are an absolute delight to work with and I thank you. I'm beginning my search to have someone other than me do some edits and, in the meantime, will find sources and continue to do things like remove the redundant tags (sheesh - that took forever to put in there, too.. And here I thought I was doing something great!
Anyway, thanks for all of your help and encouragement. This is a fascinating process and an amazing resource and I'm particularly glad there are folks here like you to help folks like me who might otherwise give up! I'll check out Greenpeace and use that as a model. RicciJoy (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- We were all new once! Banjeboi 14:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to be sure to thank you personally for all of your help with this process. I'm a great fan of rules and regulations, but, of course, even in a court of law, intent matters. So I want to thank you for recognizing that the intention was honest and the effort sincere. RicciJoy (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- You're very welcome. It would be quite cynical to see your work here as something besides an earnest effort to show WFF as you actually see it - which isn't perhaps encyclopedic but neither is it something you should be persecuted for. That, combined with you responding to feedback and willingness to adapt should be seen by all as someone trying to improve the encyclopedia. I really hope you won't be discouraged or driven away. Banjeboi 18:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
inflict talkpage archive. Banjeboi
Your AN post
I've responded to your AN post (regarding the Rainbow flag) and reversed the page move. Just an FYI in the event you are not watchlisting AN. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 19:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Was watching but very much appreciate that - your skills with a mop & such be praised indeed! Banjeboi 19:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Move from commons to WP as not considered free content but fair use. Benjiboi
- Already done. Banjeboi 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, you probably didn't mean to, but you listed ingen as FA class. I moved it back to start for you. Protonk (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- lol! You mean it isn't FA! Yes, I was merely trying to add the wikiproject. Thanks for catching that. Banjeboi 01:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. I think I was moving some of the boxes around and it caught my eye. I was all lathered up and ready to scold someone for a textbook POINTy move. Then I looked through the edit histories. I was crestfallen to see that it appeared to be a mistake and I couldn't yell at someone. :) Protonk (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'll do what I can to screw something else up - if we're lucky you can yell at me then! Banjeboi 06:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Will do! Always good to get riled up. Getting pumped like that and then finding out it is a false alarm is like that feeling when you think you are going to sneeze but you don't. :) Protonk (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Lol!
- Will do! Always good to get riled up. Getting pumped like that and then finding out it is a false alarm is like that feeling when you think you are going to sneeze but you don't. :) Protonk (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'll do what I can to screw something else up - if we're lucky you can yell at me then! Banjeboi 06:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. I think I was moving some of the boxes around and it caught my eye. I was all lathered up and ready to scold someone for a textbook POINTy move. Then I looked through the edit histories. I was crestfallen to see that it appeared to be a mistake and I couldn't yell at someone. :) Protonk (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Please look (Re: Historical pederastic couples)
See my talk and ANI. Jeffpw (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Article was deleted by rouge admin after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical pederastic couples (2nd nomination) ended in no consensus. Unfortunately it seems like reasonable discussion wasn't final enough so it's likely this article will see more drama until it goes through another AfD and kept. Mark your calendars for that pile of passion and be sure to support Haiduc getting everything sourced. Banjeboi 21:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'll be working on it every minute of my free time until we have every source needed. I am APPALLED by this admin's actions, and am considering an Rfc on it. Jeffpw (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think the ANI is the RFC needed here as seeing some of the comments they've seriously misstepped over what others consider acceptable. This just may be their hot-button issue as sadly many just can't handle male-male love let alone older-younger ones. As a suggestion, connect up with Moni3 as they've already got some suggestions on how to proceed. I'll help as I'm able! Banjeboi 22:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Just a quick comment before I go off to bed: YouTube is a lot more fun to edit, with no dramas and lots of personal rewards. And it is as much of an encyclopedia as this pile of rubbish is. Hmmph. Jeffpw (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think the ANI is the RFC needed here as seeing some of the comments they've seriously misstepped over what others consider acceptable. This just may be their hot-button issue as sadly many just can't handle male-male love let alone older-younger ones. As a suggestion, connect up with Moni3 as they've already got some suggestions on how to proceed. I'll help as I'm able! Banjeboi 22:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
"If you are unable or unwilling to do so civilly then you will be assisted in taking a break from the article altogether"
Please do not make threats of this nature. In particular, please do not make threats that you are unable to carry out towards editors who are politely expressing a viewpoint other than your own. If, I must admit, an opinion that is somewhat diversionary... but still neither rude nor impolite.
brenneman 00:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually combined with Peter Damian's history of calling other editors something akin to pro-pedophile activists and accusing admins of protecting the same I wanted to be quite firm that veiled accusations like calling the article Haiduc's thesis and stating things such as "acres of original research that Haiduc insists on propogating in Wikipedia" on the talkpage of Historical pederastic couples is seen as unhelpful, disruptive and uncivil. Adding that to Peter Damian's comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 20#Historical pederastic couples - "Everything Haiduc writes is plagued by fallacy of equivocation and similar logical deficiencies." Seems to be a personal attack of some sort. I also see this as possibly violating assuming good faith policy. To me this is an editor whose not showing a polite discourse but flouting the disposition to let bad faith accusations and personal attacks against certain editors stand unchallenged. Wikipedia is not a battleground and an atmosphere of harassment and intimidation should not be encouraged. I also am readily able, as is any editor, to file reports at ANI or another appropriate board if Peter Damian's behavior doesn't come into an acceptable level. Just because some admins have been allowed to abuse tools or fling mud at Haiduc and other editors doesn't mean we all roll over and take punches and personal attacks. We need to support editors not an atmosphere of intolerance. Banjeboi 00:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- I do understand your concern. Clearly there are many who unable to approach this article dispassionately. My concern in that you are responding to even fairly neutral commentary as if it were an attack. While this may be understandable in the event that the other editor has some history with you, it is neither acceptable not helpful. In the example I refer to above, the only thing that has even the slightest whiff of attack is "insists on propogating." However, given that he then provides evidence to support this thesis, it's quite difficult to get my knickers in a twist over it.
- In short, wait until someone actually is rude before asking them not to be. Don't "warn" people who you think are being rude, ask someone neutral for support or advice. *hint* I'm as neutral as they come. *hint* All concerns regarding this article can be addressed by careful discourse and sensible editting. NB: I remain unconvinced that a neutral article is possible, but that opinion plastic. - brenneman 01:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I appreciate your insight and will try to be more judicious. Their comments seem to be over the line to me and I've simply left other articles when being treated in such a manner. If you were to look at a textbook case on how to build a hostile atmosphere Peter Damian's comments would seem to do the trick. In part that atmosphere is nurtured when no one addresses the issue of that hostility. Banjeboi 01:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- I hope there is no confusion that I may be defending any earlier comments. No bones: I have not fully explored the history of this yet. I'll be attempting to ensure that everyone behaves themselves, and in the event that any editor goes too far I'm happy to deal with it. If there are personality issues beyond the article I'm happy to attempt to mediate those. But I've taken up quite a bit of your day, so I'll let you get back to editting. Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. - brenneman 02:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I appreciate your insight and will try to be more judicious. Their comments seem to be over the line to me and I've simply left other articles when being treated in such a manner. If you were to look at a textbook case on how to build a hostile atmosphere Peter Damian's comments would seem to do the trick. In part that atmosphere is nurtured when no one addresses the issue of that hostility. Banjeboi 01:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)