User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 36
 | 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 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
convert bibliography to cites and then clean-up all the refs to cite format. Banjeboi
- Yikes, battleground. -- Banjeboi 15:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry. Spotfixer (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC).
- No problem. It's a mess that will get sorted out but as others are on it I can work on other articles that need some TLC. -- Banjeboi 18:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry. Spotfixer (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC).
Trouble
I just noticed that you've also had some trouble with unjust bans. I can only offer my sympathy. Spotfixer (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it's been particularly annoying but, in hindsight, it opened my eyes that mistakes are indeed made and assuming good faith has its rewards. I saw the tussle on the Catalyst article and the only way to answer that kind of editing is to throw references at it. Lol! -- Banjeboi 07:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hey Benjiboi, just because the accusation was made on another user's talk page, I have never requested a citation for a citation. Thanks for those references. - Schrandit (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- No worries, I haven't looked into yet but I would offer a friendly suggestion that even if cite tags are needed and helpful at times ... we are here to serve our readers so excessive tagging of any kind keeps them from accessing the knowledge we are working hard to share. If I may perhaps inspire or challenge you, consider cite tagging as an artform that is there to help an article grow. We aren't in a rush here but sometimes prodding particular bits can be constructive. If you see 20-some items that should be cited maybe tag a couple that are in most needing of cites or instead adding one section tag if it concerns a whole section. I don't know if you are doing this in subject areas you personally find unappealing but that may also be adding to a less than pleasant experience here. I just a day ago commented on a baseball article AfD that I'm sooooo not into baseball. I won't say I loath it but I might just a little bit. Guess what articles I have almost nothing to do with? There are just gads of wonderful articles and so many of them need help. I suggest looking for areas you either know well or would enjoy learning more about, Those articles need your help and you'd likely find working on them more fulfilling. Because when someone slaps a fact tag you wouldn't mind finding a source for it! -- Banjeboi 07:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hey Benjiboi, just because the accusation was made on another user's talk page, I have never requested a citation for a citation. Thanks for those references. - Schrandit (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- The saying I keep seeing around here is "AGF is not a suicide pact". The way I interpret it is that good faith should always be our initial assumption, but we're not obligated to ignore further evidence that contradicts it. I'm not the only editor who's concluded this. Spotfixer (talk) 07:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Lol! "AGF is not a suicide pact" is pretty damn funny! When in doubt though fallback, do nothing, take a breath. Wikipedia isn't a perfect or even a just god but things do seems to get sorted out. Sometimes quickly, sometimes not so much. If I may suggest, if you see articles that need a few refs or a bit of help maybe post to the related wikiprojects. WT:LGBT seems to be pretty active and things magicly happen there all the time. The bottom line is that stress is the enemy and if all else fails we have the article history to pull from if items that are helpful get deleted or an article otherwise corrupted. So, no worries, no stress. Just close your eyes, and count to ten before you beat your computer. Take a break and see if the world doesn't keep spinning. There's some matra about don't sweat the small stuff - and it's all small stuff. -- Banjeboi 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I've been laughing ever since the first absurd block. Of course, my sense of humor offended some admins, which led to the second, even more absurd, block. Spotfixer (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yikes. Well I'm sorry that happened. It's better to take a break on your own than have one inflicted on you. -- Banjeboi 07:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I've been laughing ever since the first absurd block. Of course, my sense of humor offended some admins, which led to the second, even more absurd, block. Spotfixer (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Jared Polis image improved
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Thank you! -- Banjeboi 15:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Memberlist combined with Category list
Hello Ben, I know this is pretty dumb to bring up right now, but I get excited with new developments and ideas I see on wikipedia, and I wanted to share this with you.
I just found the new version of this page:
The page has a huge template at the top (it shows up as blue on the page):
I was thinking that maybe we could combine Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Members with Category:Wikipedians in the Article Rescue Squadron, similar to how that page does it.
I have some other ideas, but I think this one is overwhelming enough. :) If you don't want to change anything, thats fine. travb (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Boo
I found my WikiBreak to be very relaxing. Before returning last night, APK decided he wants to continue this relaxation sensation running through his body. He told himself to avoid drama and to play nice during disagreements. That means making ammends with a few people. So consider this an apology for any rudeness I showed you last Spring in regards to those Disney movies. I hope we can get work together soon on an article and then have e-drinks at Babylon (which still lives...in my head at least). Now, I must go search for Brian. He seems to have lost his way and settled for Susan. APK lives in Dupont and Gomorrah 16:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- No worries, I could have been more Miss Manners myself. Glad you're back and let know if I can help on anything. -- Banjeboi 01:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 18:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
rescue? [1] -- Banjeboi
- Agree, needs rescue. How about the homoerotic initiation rites in fraternity, military, and other masculinity groups. Several RS point to that in addition to it's context as a masturbation game. I've been trying to borrow Guyland from my library. See talk page. — Becksguy (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Banjeboi, thanks for your note regarding the refs for Candis' birthname but I'm afraid I disagree with you. The second ref most definitely does state what her birthname is and even quotes Candis referring to her twin brother, viz -
- This island girl was born a boy. She was born Brendan McDaniel with fraternal twin Dylan.
- Cayne said she knew she was different from a young age.
- "(Dylan) was off with his friends playing football and riding bike, and I was with my girlfriends playing Barbies," Cayne said. "My parents were very liberal, and amazing, and they kind of let me be who I wanted to be. They never really questioned it."
- They remained supportive when she decided a decade ago to transition to a woman.
Also, re IMDb, I saw no mention of it in WP:BLP. If you had edited on IMDb, you would know that unlike Wikipedia, people can't just go and add something to a page - submitted information is vetted by IMDb paid staff before being added, so I fail to see why this would be considered to be an unreliable source.
Thirdly, Candis' birthname is factual information that is neither controversial nor negative as she is quite open about her past.
I'm going to add it back in.
Regards, Secret Squïrrel, approx 05:50, 16 Johnuary 2009 (Earth Standard Time)
- My apologies, I did see it in the the other ref now, not sure how I missed that. IMDB is ok as a ref but using it to source LGBT issues isn't supported as far as I'm aware. I think they correct problems when they are brought up but it does seem like anyone can edit there by submitting and the staff does make mistakes. In any case I support re-adding it now and apologize for missing that the first time. -- Banjeboi 03:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thx - is good now. Happy to leave IMDb ref out if you feel it's risky. Secret Squïrrel, approx 04:55, 18 Johnuary 2009 (Earth Standard Time)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 3 | 17 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
BLP and SPS
You appear to have a serious error in understanding SPSes especially in connection with BLPs. Our policy's are quite clear, blogs without editorial control, and other self published sources are not reliable sources for anything relating to living people but comments by the authors on themselves. In other words, if person X says in his/her blog, 'I am gay' it may be acceptable to mention this in the article on that person. If person X in a blog says 'Person Y is gay' it is most definitely NOT acceptable to use that as a source, except if for some reason the blog comment itself became exceptionally notable, e.g. if it was widely reported in other reliable sources. This part of BLP and RS policy is clear and not likely to change any time soon, if you continue to have any doubts, take it up on the noticeboards and talk pages. Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, thank you for bringing this serious error to my attention but I think my take on that policy is almost exactly as you describe. People are considered experts on themselves and SPS should be used with caution and judiciously especially with exceptional statements. We can qualify such statements as their own but independent sourcing is preferred for such claims. Is there something in particular this is regarding? I've been trying to keep Michael Brandon (porn star) clear of some POV editing and stated that generally emails and faxes weren't considered reliable sources. Was I wrong? -- Banjeboi 17:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello! As you seem to be really on top of the rescued articles, by any chance would you be so kind as to help me update this page or to make suggestions for inclusion on its talk page? I want to give editors added incentive and appreciation for their volunteer contributions and I think recognition of this sort helps editors feel more appreciated and it gives editors a goal to shoot for beyond even improving the project. Feel free to add yourself if you meet the parameters! :) Thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- HI, on first blush I wouldn't count merge and redirects as rescues as that seems quite a generous definition. I have had to take soem longer breaks recently but will look into what may make sense. -- Banjeboi 01:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. I still consider merges and redirects rescues in that the information at least is still preserved in the edit histories or moved elsewhere. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that many other people would consider that a rescue though, another concern would be the inclusion criteria although I think there might be a way to address these a bit. I'll think more on it. -- Banjeboi 23:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks, just let me know when you're able; no urgency in the larger scheme of things; I just want to provide some inventive for editors and another means of honoring our colleagues (yes, I know I'm one of two listed thus far...). Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think constructing a table starting with out main table and utilizing the ones listed here will help us to gauge volume by editor. I think those tagging articles could also be added although that, in and of itself, may not constitute rescuing. But, we can recognize them regardless via a search and rescue barnstar if they do find, maybe 5? articles that are indeed rescued. We need to also hover on the more sensible side of not encouraging efforts just to get a barnstar as that may detract from the project or process. Not sure if there is an easy way to do that be we should at least be aware of that concern. Anyway, lots of possibilities. -- Banjeboi 01:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, we could see inclusion on the list hinges on meeting two of the following criteria: tagging the article for rescue, making substantive edits to the article, and/or making a persuasive article in the discussion. There are some articles that I for instance tagged and made significant improvements to while under discussion, but didn't comment in the AfD or tagged and made a good argument in the discussion, but didn't work on the article. Cheers! --A NobodyMy talk 01:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think constructing a table starting with out main table and utilizing the ones listed here will help us to gauge volume by editor. I think those tagging articles could also be added although that, in and of itself, may not constitute rescuing. But, we can recognize them regardless via a search and rescue barnstar if they do find, maybe 5? articles that are indeed rescued. We need to also hover on the more sensible side of not encouraging efforts just to get a barnstar as that may detract from the project or process. Not sure if there is an easy way to do that be we should at least be aware of that concern. Anyway, lots of possibilities. -- Banjeboi 01:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks, just let me know when you're able; no urgency in the larger scheme of things; I just want to provide some inventive for editors and another means of honoring our colleagues (yes, I know I'm one of two listed thus far...). Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that many other people would consider that a rescue though, another concern would be the inclusion criteria although I think there might be a way to address these a bit. I'll think more on it. -- Banjeboi 23:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. I still consider merges and redirects rescues in that the information at least is still preserved in the edit histories or moved elsewhere. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
RfA thankspam
|
|
| Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.
Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
Denbot (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by 03:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC) at §hepBot (Disable)
File copyright problem with File:Fag bomb.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Fag bomb.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought I added that as well, it's there now. -- Banjeboi 16:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Award from: Article Rescue Squadron's Hall of Fame
Congratulations, you have been inducted into the Article Rescue Squadron's Hall of Fame
See the new little Life Preservers at the top of your page?
Coding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feel free to add more articles saved awards to your page, and to award other people this award too, for saving articles from deletion on Wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. I added the list that I remember on my userpage. I love the icon! -- Banjeboi 22:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
AC conversation close
Why did you close the conversation??? I just asked you some questions, and I want them answered. Or are you backing down??? Just want to know, not trying to be mean. I have let the other user know about this BTW. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 23:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a chatroom or a battleground. I have no interest in passing by drafts for your opinion. I'm also quite concerned about issues of trolling and sock-puppetry but as there isn't more damage being done to the article besides removing some sourced content it can be left for now. I have no intention of being baited into, yet more, endless discussions about Cooper's sexuality. It is well documented, as is the speculation and criticism. I closed that thread, and others before it as it was twice as long as the article - a sign that discussion is well off the mark of article improvement. I believe the current talk threads are the open items regarding the improvement of the article which is what we are here to do. -- Banjeboi 23:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)