User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 20

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 19 |

Archive 20

| Archive 21 →

rename

ahh, well since it was delrev i thought i'd be okay. no matter. was just trying to be bold. check out the template for the protest movement i made, i'd love some input.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. The template seems like a good idea although you will likely need to rework it a bunch. I would focus it on either the protests of the Iraq War (my preference) or the War on terror both would be useful but the War on terror one will likely be more complicated. To remain WP:NPOV you should also include counter-protests (those who protest the protesters) and you may want to review more of the material and post for help at the WP:village pump for input as well. Banje boi 22:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding some international groups - or at least setting the ones that are international apart so we know some are USA-focused and the rest are international and maybe a section just for Iraq-focus protest if you do the Iraq War version. Banje boi 22:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		I would like to award you this Barnstar for your tireless efforts on March 19, 2008 anti-war protest whilst it was facing deletion. I did not see the merits in the existence of article before your good work, your efforts have proven me wrong, and I salute you. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tis very kind, thank you for your kind words! Banje boi 10:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that barnstar and agree that the article is so well improved that it is no longer the same article. Really great job, Benji. Your work made the difference in an AfD close as no consensus, and a DRV endorse of that close. I also salute you. — Becksguy (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much - sometimes I get riled up when I see articles being deleted when it's obvious, to me at least, that there is some promise there. Hopefully it will survive the onslaught of enthusiasm that still surrounds it but we'll always have the article history if nothing else! Banje boi 11:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hi, if you'd consider enabling e-mail or know someone else who would, I'd welcome communication about the privacy/safety issue you posted to ANI today. As you may be aware, David Shankbone and I have gone public jointly about the violent threats we've each received. I take this issue very seriously and, with respect for the subject's privacy, I'd like to help. Sincerely, Durova^Charge! 02:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have no contact with Crocker nor do I know anyone who does. Also until my topic ban is lifted I'm uneasy about having any dealings with you or JzG (Guy). Banje boi 01:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted Chris Crocker and he's confirmed what you said about the situation. Also I hope you see that my interest in BLP is not partisan. I understand your concerns. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 18:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

have you got a source he's a comedian? if you haven't then remove it again.--WillyJulia (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources are already in the article but I'll add more. Banje boi 10:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just give me three good ones here--WillyJulia (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already added more content and references and reworked some of the material that was in there to address your concerns, further discussion on the topic would be better held on the article's talk page. Banje boi 21:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

im not going click over a 100 references to find if they say comedian or not, give me them here or I will remove it again--WillyJulia (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can you call off your gang already? its really annoying--WillyJulia (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Im not sure if your aware, Encyclopedia Dramatica are claiming you are Chris Crocker. If you are recieving a lot of nasty stuff/trolling this is probably where it is coming from. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 04:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This reminds me of so many closeted gay guys - for "hating" gay sex so much they sure seem to spend a lot of time thinking about it. It did have a Jeffree Star link which may be useful but I didn't see any mention of myself. Not that I was hoping for one but what had you seen? Maybe it was deleted already. Banje boi 04:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I JUST read their article on Britney, which linked to their chris crocker article. Their Chris Crocker article states that he edits wikipedia and provide a direct link to your user page. You might want to request semi protection of your user page & talk page considering this development. If you arent Crocker (I dont care or mind if you are), make sure not to release any person details about your life, they probably have trolls watching your every edit unfortunately. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 04:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey. Thanks. I think it's pretty funny actually but that may explain a few of the latest Crocker incidents. I'm not terribly worried as I'm not him (nor do I want to be - LOL) but will keep this in mind if more drama seeks me out. Banje boi 04:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me know if you need anything. Regards. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 04:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, thanks again. Banje boi 05:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Why does it say "Banjeboi" insteadof "Benjiboi"? Just wondering. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to Banjee. Banje boi 09:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! A play on words. An inside reference, as I suspected. Thanks. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Banje boi 10:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark storm

It's already tagged for deletion, so there's no need to add a tag with the request "please delete" :). Ironho lds 16:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the wikitionary tag with {{hoax}} and included "please delete" as I agree it probably should have been speedily deleted. From what I've seen we don't like to keep such items around like this, perhaps because it emboldens other such efforts, but I made my opinion known on the AfD and those wiser than I can sort it all out. Cheers! Banje boi 23:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

With regards to this edit. I bring your attention to Wikipedia:BLP#Non-article_space, specifically "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." - I have therefore refactored your edit. Please do not continue to add extremely contentious material about any living person, especially Matt Sanchez anywhere on Wikipedia or you may be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see how uncomfortable some of my statements were, I've reworked the material and hope I have stayed within the allowable content for that BLP subject. If not let me know what isn't still supported by the article as i haven't bothered to keep up with the ... unique editing there. Banje boi 23:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the concerns seriously and refactoring your comments so they are acceptable. Much appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout this entire ordeal I believe I have shown and demonstrated an absolute willingness to follow policies even if I felt they were being abused or were in need of updating. If we see editing crossing a line I think it helps all concerned to be upfront and helpful to not only correct the current issue but also act in a way that fosters a better environment for all. So many article conflicts are based on valid concerns and by addressing those usually the articles improve so even if someone's style is ... "special", they may still have a point that could help the project overall. Banje boi 00:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Helms talkpage help asap

add archives and clean asap. Banje boi

I almmost added, "may he rest in peace...the fucking scumbag", but then thought better of it:-S Jeffpw (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he did seem to be a bit of a Hitler for the LGBT community generally demonizing all. We're all in a better place now. Banje boi 19:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

72.76 et al vandal

If anon shows again use WP:AIV and cite. User:David_Shankbone/72.76. Banje boi 00:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

premature archiving of active discussions

Benjiboi, you have archived numerous discussions of the Jesse Helms article from its Talk page which had seen activity within the past few days. Please don't do that. The relevant help page indicates that old discussions should be archived when the talk page becomes too large. In this case, the talk page was not large, and many of the discussions were not old.

Thanks for listening. NCdave (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit not being an expert on Helms but I did a clean-up on the entire article - which still needs plenty of work - to sort out some of the larger problems. As I was doing so I used the talk page discussions as a guideline and if whatever subjects seemed to have been resolved then I archived them. The talk page actually was a bit huge, maybe not for you but certainly for others so we should try to clear off old items as needed and with Helms' recent death the article is getting a lot of activity so it doesn't seem to let up anytime soon. My suggestion would be to either be bold and simply fix something in the article if likely uncontroversial or reintroduce the subject of issue on the talk page and see what the current take on it is. Banje boi 17:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT Project Newsletter highlight?

Would you mind or like to be featured in the newsletter? I had an idea to discuss the wiki-careers of some of the more veteran members of the project. If you agree, please answer the following questions, and only the ones you feel comfortable answering:

How long have you been an editor at Wikipedia?
What tasks or projects in LGBT do you focus on the most?
In what very general area (state or country) are you located?
In what decade are you age-wise? 20s, 30s, teens?
Do you have a particular triumph here at Wikipedia?
Do you have a particular low moment?
Why do you spend time at Wikipedia working for the LGBT studies project?
What would you like to see it become?

You can answer here or on my talk page. If you're not comfortable answering, that's ok. Just let me know. I'm going to ask Becksguy the same questions, and two more next month and on... --Moni3 (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to hold off at the moment since I seem to have so many "admirers". Instead can I suggest we add a bonus tidbit "These are a few of my favorite links ..."? Banje boi 18:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm an ANI page stalker, thinking the majority of what goes on there is too reminiscent of my mediating arguments over who stole who's pencil in an elementary classroom. However, sometimes I see some freaky stuff, and you present some of it. Reply what you will. I'll try to introduce you as "Benjiboi, who spends most of (gender specific pronoun here) time as a wiki-gnome and vandal fighter in LGBT articles". Would that be accurate? --Moni3 (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Freaky, yes, that about covers it. What's your deadline and how many words/what length works best for you? I was thinking maybe just three of my favorite links but could do more if needed. Banje boi 18:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the draft here. I'd like to put you in a topic space and Becksguy in another. I'd like it to be sent out Friday. Is that enough time? Can you state why they are your favorite links? Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Apologies!

Please realize User: Sir Crimson did not mean to intentionally [[[vandalize]] the article Jesse Helms! From reading his achievements, User:Sir Crimson just assumed the man viewed himself as a Nazi. However, I was wrong, and I thank you kindly for correcting me! Keep fighting for facts! ----- User:Sir Crimson —Preceding comment was added at 22:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, assuming in this case probably wasn't the best idea. Banje boi 22:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A one-man battle: James Hormel

It looks like you have been fighting a one-man battle to prevent POV-pushing and/or censorship on the James Hormel article. Kudos to you, sir! To save you some work, I went ahead and semi-protected the article. Thanks again for your hard work! --Kralizec! (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Lol. Yes, it's been quite special, hopefully the banned user will move on and regular editing can resume. For what it's worth every article has, in some way or another, improved because of their attention so I'm used to just having to find sourcing to keep valid content preserved. Thank you again! Banje boi 01:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something?

Am I missing something? Was an edit oversighted, or was your blatant vandalism warning for Mrfreakyinastar given because he tried to prod the article? There may have been several things wrong with trying to prod the article at this point, but I don't think it quite worth that level of a warning. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies but I'm unsure of what warning would have been better. At the time it looked like a sneaky adding of a prod at the end of a long article which has already, and recently, passed AfD. It sure seemed disruptive and blatant at the time and a vandalism warning seemed better than no warning. It also crossed my mind that it may have been a shared account of some sort as this seemed to be a departure from their recent subject areas. Banje boi 16:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT template

per your comments i reverted the template back into Gay, but tightened up the template some to reduce the space it takes up when transcluded. Pls take a look if you think it needs any adjustments... Template:LGBT sidebar Thx, -- User0529 (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I formatted a bit to put the longest/shortest together to further lessen the impact. I don't see a problem with both templates as they are now vastly different. Thank you for your work on this. Banje boi 00:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you

... for this. Tired now, need sleep, discuss later perhaps. We have a long way to go. Whistling42 (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. We all can do more to be just a bit nicer to each other and non-gender-inferring manners are a step in the right direction. Banje boi 09:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur C. Clarke

Please be aware that there has been a long campaign by a perma-banned user and his socks to "out" Clarke (when he himself ever openly discussed his sexuality). There's probably a good case for LGBT project interest, but the tags need to be added by someone who is clearly not a sock. Whilst there were allegations of paedophilia, they were discredited, so it's probably best not to go down that route. David Underdown (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. There does seem to be something to it all but as there are dedicated editors there I'm happy to leave them to it. As the article with the interview of him involving paedophilia was printed was there a retraction or lawsuit? It may be good to button that loose end to satisfy future editors' concerns. Banje boi 10:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category Revert

I saw your change directly after reading a well thought out comment stating that the Red Sox are homosexual. When I saw that the only change in the article was the addition of the word "queer", it flipped a switch that read it as vandalism. I apologize. --tj9991 (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Please revert yourself then and use a note like "mistook for vandalism" or "ooops" so other editors know what's up. Banje boi 12:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no

No - feel free to remove it, if it offends you. --Allemandtando (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, taken care of. Banje boi 12:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:LGBT

add archive and clean. Banje boi 00:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Banjeboi 12:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gender neutral pronouns

Whistling requested that the discussion be centralized on Whistling's talk page, but since you didn't post there at all, I figured I would reply to you here to make sure you see my reply.

I am sorry, but I must respectfully disagree that standard English includes gender-neutral pronouns for living beings. I know that a large number of compromises have been suggested (Whistling's favorite being "ze/hir"), however, none of these is part of standard English, and I personally find most of them to sound forced, artificial, and in a lot of cases just confusing or hard to say. (For instance, "hir" is a terrible idea because of it's phonetic similarity to "her")

As you may have noticed in my conversation with Whistling, there may come a day when a mainstream publication such as the New York Times chooses to adopt one of these neologisms. If that were to happen, it could enter standard English rather rapidly. However, until something like that happens, it is unreasonable to expect that all Wikipedians will suddenly reject their native language and start using a non-standard extension to it.

I have personally agreed to abide by Whistling's request in that I will not use pronouns at all to refer to Whistling. However, I simply don't think we can expect all Wikipedians to abide by that. My wording in closing the Wikiquette Alert was actually modified from my initial closing, since I felt a little bad for Whistling -- I know Whistling is very hurt by this. I initially basically said that the Alert was crap and people should just ignore it. I then decided that it would be better to say that people should be aware this is what Whistling prefers -- but I don't think anybody can be forced to abide by this. It is not a civility issue. It is a special request, and some editors may choose to abide by it, and some may not.

I really don't feel like I'm the intolerant/close-minded bad guy here. As I said, I have made a personal choice to respect Whistling's wishes. Whistling's gender indentification (or lack thereof) is actually a new experience for me -- I've known people with a very fluid gender identification, and can understand that pretty well, but I've never known anyone with no gender identification. I can't say I entirely understand it, but I can respect it, and I do dearly sympathize with this flaw in the English language, and the isolation that Whistling feels as a result. That is why I will do what I feel that I reasonably can do to abide by Whistling's preference. But I can't force other people to do it, nor, in my opinion, should I. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your statements are a bit faulty but appreciate you giving consideration to these issues. Although the user probably could have handled this better ... and they may have to adjust their expectations for dealing with perceived gender binary bias ... they do have quite a valid point and this is unlikely the first time the issues have been brought up. Nor is it likely the last. I still encourage you to modify your resolved statement as there were two issues that I felt should be addressed:

1. There are gender-neutral pronouns for living people within the English language, our language adds new words all the time so it is of little surspise that these exist.

2. Whistling42's concerns are basically spot-on. We are careful not to assume someone's religion or sexuality and likewise should develop sensitivity in gender arenas as well. Simply stating something like "editors are encouraged to use gender-neutral language and user names if unsure of a user's gender identity", I think, may benefit all concerned.

Having stated all this I'm happy to remind Whistling42 that it's unlikely these issues will be resolved quickly or universally, on Wikipedia or elsewhere. I find "his or her" a less-than-ideal phrase for exactly the reasons stated - it implies one is either one or the other and no others exist. However that is the current academic phrasing and his been put into use for over two decades. I also don't think it's healthy to expect other editors to learn what your chosen gender identity is and then only use that when referencing oneself. It's a bit tilting at windmills, at least for the moment. [User_talk:Benjiboi|Banjeboi]] 21:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There are not gender-neutral pronouns in standard English. Just because somebody made them up and some handful of people use them does not mean they are part of the English language. Absolutely our language adds new words all the time, but they are added by entering into frequent usage within published copy-edited texts -- not by somebody just deciding they might be useful. In my experience, dictionaries are more likely to include the clunky and undesirable "irregardless" (a neologism without purpose or meaning, but unfortunately part of the English lexicon since the early 20th century) than they are to contain "ze".

Like I say, maybe this will change in the future. But in 2008, "ze" is not a word in English. People may choose to use it if they wish, and if enough people do it may enter the language in the future. But it hasn't yet. --Jaysweet (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your resolved statement was that they don't exit, I'm glad you are now at least modifying and qualifying your view. And like every word in the English language they start with a few people using them and go from there. Are they widely recognized? Not yet. Are they a part of the English language, of course. I'm hardly a linguistical or semantics authority so I won't pretend to know what is the test that determines if a word has or hasn't moved up in status but my point was that the words do exist, are a part of the English language and certainly can be used by and for living people. I think the rest we mostly agree on. Banjeboi 17:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]