User talk:Benc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Older discussions are 
 located in the archive. 
—Benc

Contents


[edit] RfD deletions

When you deleted the entry for Sample article title, you also deleted the material about Talk:Sample article title, which had not been dealt with yet. Please be more careful, and only delete entries which really are completely done with. Noel 14:01, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good catch; thank you. I was closing out old RFD discussions when I saw the first sentence of your response, which was "Done." I didn't read the rest of the comment... my mistake. I'll be sure to read it next time. Sorry about that, • Benc • 14:11, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! Thanks! (No problem, BTW.)

One other thing, looking down the list of stuff you worked on: I was wondering if maybe the list of saved precedents shouldn't be on a page called /Precedents (following the example of VfD), rather than /Archive - in part to follow the example, and also since it's not really a comprehensive archive.

I do really like the way you put the actual debates on a separate page, as opposed to inline, the way VfD/Precendents does it - it makes for a much easier to read page. You might want to suggest on WT:VfD that we do the same thing there - the VfD/Precedents page is really long, and hard to use. Noel 15:20, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hunh. It turns out there is a talk page for the VfD/Precedents subpage, at Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/Precedents. So I guess my suggestion immediately above ought to be directed there instead. Noel 00:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] You reverted your OWN edits??

How could you revert your OWN edits?? Generally, edits of this kind usually mismatch Z and X in "reverted edits by X to last version by Y", but they match in this section. 66.245.126.161 16:10, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm entitled to change my mind. Who isn't? :-) • Benc • 17:30, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Or perhaps I have an evil twin? :-P • cneB • 17:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] About meta

I clicked Recent Changes and looked for an admin. You were the first one I saw, so you get this question.  :-) Would you check Typeparameter and see if you can make heads or tails of it. I've never worked with templates here. Should this be on meta or is it about something else entirely? Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 02:59, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Muuuuch better. Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 03:17, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Help

First of all, thank you for the compliments you posted re: my article.
Secondly: since you've posted in the Talk:Cross-dresser discussion now, I'm hoping you can help myself and Stbalbach finally bring this interminable bicker-session to a close. It was started and sustained by AlexR - who seems to have a consistent track record of causing the same problems he's now causing in the above discussion. Here's a brief background:
When I attempted to clean up some of the historical information for the "Cross-Dresser" article - specifically with regard to a personage whom I specialize in as a historian - he set off an enormous fight over the changes which I and now also Stbalbach have agreed upon. To give some idea of his argument style, I'll use one subtopic as an example: despite my attempts to point out that many eyewitnesses related quotes from Joan of Arc herself explaining that she wore "male clothing" out of necessity, he keeps claiming that I've instead been citing subjective "interpretations" rather than direct quotes, therefore he thinks we should argue over the ability of others to make such "interpretations". When I try to point out (again) that these are quotes from Joan herself, he ironically accuses me of ignoring his arguments rather than vice-versa. This appears to be his pattern, judging from a remarkably similar ping-pong match he's managed to sustain in Talk:List of transgendered people. Glancing over that discussion, it looks like numerous people have asked that an obscure word should be properly defined in the article for the benefit of readers, but he has been resisting this common-sense change and repeatedly undoing every edit which the others make - all while accusing the others of being the unreasonable party rather than himself.
I would ask that, if possible, you could please block him from further interference, at least in the Cross-Dresser discussion and perhaps others if such is merited. It is literally impossible to make improvements when one stubborn editor engages in this type of persistent behavior, and it would seem to be rather senseless to argue with him when he appears to deliberately make irrelevant comments just to keep the debate going indefinitely.
Many thanks for your time and consideration. I joined Wikipedia with the intent of contributing some historical material, but thus far it has been a rather frustrating process.
- AWilliamson (Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive ) 00:56, 11 Oct 2004

I will gladly do whatever I can to help. I'm very sorry that you have encountered such a difficult opposition to your edits so early on. Thank you for your patience and willingness to discuss in search of consensus. Those are key virtues for any Wikipedian, especially in cases where others forget the civility rule.
Anyway, no matter how much I would like to, I can not and will not block anyone simply for being stubborn and rude. It's against the blocking policy. Unfortunately, this allows POV warriors to exist. That's why we have dispute resolution and page protection in place. In the worst cases, rude, argumentative editors dig themselves into a hole, with most of the community against them, and eventually get banned by the arbitration committee. It's slow, but in the interests of maintaining a fair, open-minded community, we have to do it this way, however slow and painful it may be.
I'm sure you've seen this by now, but I've just finished a major edit at cross-dressing to help settle the Joan of Arc issue. I hope this will help; if there's anything that didn't help please let me know on Talk:Cross-dressing. • Benc • 07:44, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As expected, AlexR has now gone in and completely changed your edits to that page, and has promised (in another place) to keep up an endless "edit war". This is a bit like dealing with an adolescent.
I had joined Wikipedia after someone posted a note to an academic list making the point, in essence, that historians really should edit Wikipedia articles for the sake of insuring accuracy. I'm finding out why more of them do not.
Would you at least revert the article back to the changes that you had made, and then protect the article from additional tampering? Otherwise this process will truly never end. - AWilliamson (Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive ) 15:12, 11 Oct 2004

[edit] RfA

Now I've got some homework to do. Thank you for your supportive RfA vote and consideration. Fire Star 14:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] My nomination for adminship

Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. I will do my best to serve Wikipedia. --Slowking Man 00:11, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Richardson VfD

Are you sure putting him on the same sub-page with her is valuable? I am removing the redundant copy of her debate, but i suspect something like an system-resolved edit-conf between the two sections may have gotten her doubled. --Jerzy(t) 00:29, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

It's neither good nor bad to have two related VfD discussions on a single page. I did so because it was quicker and easier for me when I listed the article. If someone messes it up by doubling it, it will be fixed by excellent WikiJanitors like yourself (and I mean this as a strong compliment!) I've fixed doubling-resulting-from-edit-conflicts before, including on the main VfD page. It happens anywhere and everywhere. (Though let me tell you, I wasted quite a bit of bandwidth figuring the VfD doubling out.)
Anyway, if you really want to split the VfD listing to give Matthew Richardson its own page, feel free to do so. It's harmless either way, but thanks for your concern. • Benc • 00:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it rolls onto /Old in 19 hours, so i'm more interested in the principle than the case. BTW, it does occur to me that editors sometimes add out of sequence within a day, and doubling up keeps the items together (making sense of "the previous item") despite that! (But i sure was confused when i started troubleshooting the doubling; i hadn't conceptualized the obvious model that the transcluded-heading mechanism uses! Glad to do the Janitorial; i haven't got the bandwidth to spare, and felt like a slacker when my own contrib to doublings in the old monolithic VfD was just pulling the fire alarm.) Tnx, --Jerzy(t) 05:22, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with an administrator

What are the procedures for abitrating NPOV disputes? A Wikipedia administrator, Jayjg insists on inserting his virulently Zionist POV into many Middle East-related pages and he ignores Talk page discussions questioning his actions. For instance, he deletes references to Occupied Territories, insisting that they are "disputed territories" a typical ruse of Zionist propaganda. He insists that Hamas is a terrorist organization and refuses to recognize that the label terrorist reflects his POV and is not universally shared. He constantly reverts edits by users he disagrees with (not just me) and insists that his view is the only acceptable view. He does not seek consensus, he does not discuss issues honestly, he just insists that he is right and everyone else must conform to his view. His behavior borders on vandalism and it discourages objective Wikipedians who are working sincerely to build pages with a NPOV. Any suggestions on dealing with this problem? Thanks! Alberuni 00:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about working with me towards NPOV? That might work. Accurate summaries of my edits (unlike the fantasy listed above) would help too. Also, avoiding ad hominem comments in Talk: pages would be a definite plus. Jayjg 00:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You can see that Jayjg is stalking my edits on multiple pages, even to your Talk page. He redirected Occupied Palestinian Territories without even bothering to discuss it on the Talk page. He has systematically tried to revert many of my edits and new page creations of the past 24 hours for purely political purposes. Is this the way Wikipedia administrators are suppose to behave? Alberuni 01:15, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please, as requested above, try to give accurate summaries of my activities. I did not redirect Occupied Palestinian Territories, I listed it for deletion, which requires no Talk: discussion. And I'm not sure what "He has systematically tried to revert many of new page creations of the past 24 hours" means, I haven't reverted any of your new page creations in the past 24 hours, I've just listed one specific page for deletion. Also, if you have issues with me, the preferred method of dealing with them is to first discuss them with me, on my Talk: page. Why don't you take the discussion there? Jayjg 02:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni, as long as Jayjg does not abuse his administrator-specific powers (i.e., deletion and blocking) at any time, the issue of him being an admin is irrelevant in the context of your unfortunate dispute with him. First and foremost, admins are Wikipedians. If Jayjg had abused his privileges, I would be among the first calling for investigation and arbitration. Admins should (and do for the most part, I believe) represent the friendliest, most hardworking and helpful face of Wikipedia. I have seen zero evidence of Jayjg abusing his admin status in this dispute.

About his "stalking" your edits: you're allowed to look at Jayjg's, mine, or any other user's contributions and follow up on them if you believe they are misrepresenting you. Jayjg has that right, too. I'm not saying you misrepresented him or vice versa; I am not yet familiar with the dispute. As long as Jayjg doesn't misrepresent you by editing your comments in bad faith, he's well within his rights to respond wherever and however he pleases within the bounds of Wikiquette and civility, as are you.

That being said, your concerns are valid. Every Wikipedian has a right to speak his mind, so long as he keeps civility in mind at all times. I see that a request for comment about general user conduct regarding yourself exists at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alberuni. I also see that you have responded there. Keep in mind that if you feel Jayjg's conduct is inappropriate, you are free to open an RFC on him, though it must be seconded by another user within 48 hours of the listing in order to be considered. I would also recommend involving a mediator and/or an advocate from the Association of Members' Advocates (AMA).

In short, your options at this point include:

Please note that I am currently neither a mediator nor a members' advocate. I may apply to be a mediator in the future, but my life is currently too busy, job-wise. Anyway, I hope all this helps in resolving your difficulties with Jayjg. I cannot emphasize enough that personal attacks are the single most harmful factor affecting the Wikipedia. Please avoid them like the plague. • Benc • 01:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Benc for the comprehensive advice. I really appreciate it and I will do my best to follow it. Good luck with your new job. If your sound advice to me is any indication, I'm sure you will have great success. Alberuni 01:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Admin nomination

Wow, such nice words! I really appreciate your vote and comments on my admin nomination! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Vanity

Can we improve this? It seems a bit condescending at the moment. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] MacGyverMagic for adminship

Well, it's been a long time since our paths last crossed, but I'd like to thank you again for your nifty layout coding and ask you to read the following:
I've decided to take the plunge and self-nominate for adminship to make the work I do a lot easier. Please head over to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#MacGyverMagic and let your voice be heard. There's no hard feelings if you oppose, just make sure you let me know how I can improve. -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 10:29, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] RFC pages on VfD

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Just to be sure, is it ok for me to use your footer?

User:Sgeo/Footer... --Sgeo | Talk 23:20, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. :-) • Benc • 22:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] anarchism symbols

I saw your pictures on fr.wikipedia.org (fr:Symbolisme anarchiste) and i would like to know if i can use them for the same article in http://encyclopedie.zaup.org, an anarchist encyclopedia... fr:Utilisateur:Doud ~13:00 - 31/12/2004

[edit] Template:Category side effect

Is this page a test? I don't see it being used on anything. I was going to TFD it, but if it's a user test, perhaps you can delete it yourself. Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 00:23, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense

Eh, I was bored and I added about 40 suggestions of new titles. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pro wrestling articles

Do you think there is sufficient interest in the topic to warrant a Wikiproject? — Gwalla | Talk 22:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Libertatis Æquilibritas

My reading of the copyright information on Image:Libertatis Aequilibritas silver.jpg was that we're allowed to use all the colors (the email says "images"), so I put the gold one on the site on the libertarianism page. I thought I should check with you to make sure this is all kosher, though.

Thanks in advance, Dave 03:12, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Circle A red.jpg

Hi Benc. I bet the copyright holder of Image:Circle A red.jpg would be willing to license it under the GFDL. Perhaps you could ask him? Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 17:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Table suffixes

Template:Table suffixes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Table suffixes. Thank you. — Xiong熊talk* 10:39, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board

I have now reopened the notice board, if you are interested in contributing new topics, or in nominating articles for the Collaboration of the Week, which also received a revamp. Please post on the project's talk page if you show interest. Mike H 02:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American Old West at the US Collaboration

Some time ago, you supported the nomination of American Old West at the COTW. I have now renominated it at the new US Collaboration. If you are still interested, you can support the article with your vote there!--Fenice 08:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User Categorization

Hello! We are working on a new system that will categorize the users. Please take a moment to move your user page into the category Category:Wikipedians in Virginia and removing your name from the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Virginia page.

To add your name to the category, please use the tag [[Category:Wikipedians in Viginia|Benc]] to sort yourself correctly.

--skraz (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Birthday!

Happy Birthday!

Here's a tasty Birthday cake. Best wishes to you! Hope you enjoy your day. Now, get on out there and have some fun! ;)

--Jen Moakler 22:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:VfD nomination

Template:VfD nomination has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:VfD nomination. Thank you. ∞Who?¿? 09:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Iceberg2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Iceberg2.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Thue | talk 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Situation of administrator abuse

Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.

The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.

I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [1] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 06:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaissance

So then Ben, what happened to your proposal way back then to rearrance Renaissance where you been? why arent it done?

you fix it! Then I'll buy into it, and write a thousand pages. Pleeese don't put it altogether in one lump or it'll be too long and cumbersome.

--Amandajm 10:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr Gatchet

HiBen! 'smee-agen! Don't worry yourself about Dr Gadget. The D'Orsay has the original, no worries!

--Amandajm 10:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Georgia Move

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 04:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Black flag.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Black flag.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Chowbok ☠ 05:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/e/n/User_talk%7EBenc_b8ae.html"