User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 6 |

Archive 7

| Archive 8 →

GA Failed nom of I Am Your Gummy Bear

The article I Am Your Gummy Bear you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:I Am Your Gummy Bear for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Pbroks13 (talk)

the list

conform dates to WP:DATE.
fix citations per (Template:Cite web#common forms).
gold bears image needed?
"Appearance" section, is this needed?
Wikipedia:Lead, appropriate number of paragraphs and adequately summarize the article.

writing

The article is poorly written. Work on;

run-on sentences,
comma splices,
introductory phrase's (adverb clause),
quotations, ect. Benjiboi 03:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Note

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. Nakon 20:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, which template or which talk page? Benjiboi 22:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Rosie O'Donnell

Develop lede. non-rush Benjiboi

done. Benjiboi 12:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Bearforce1

What a joke. Did you go to their web site? They aren't even bears.. the closest one is barely hitting cub. Puke. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 09:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Totally disagree. Instead of beer googles you may have bear googles! I've been reading about them for a while and believe they are more a hybrid as house and techno are huge over there. They would be well received at circuit parties, leather events and bear events as well. Personally I think they would do much better named "Beef Jerky" but a porn spin-off would also do when under any name. Benjiboi 10:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn you and that link, my eyes have been burned out of my skull! None of them are bears! lol - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 10:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You might need to burn more as they all are considered bear-ish or within the associated neighboring wild animals categories. Bears don't have to have facial hair or immense body hair but these guys seem to have both and bears don't have to been beefy guys but they are all that too. Maybe we need to sponsor you getting to some of the more diverse bear events where they come in every size, flavour and texture! Benjiboi 10:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, they *could* be muscle bears but I ain't buying it. :P - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 20:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol. You don't have to - there's plenty of honey for all the bears. Benjiboi 02:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

andrew sullivan

What sections of the article were you referring to that need to be wikified? The article is on my list of ones to clean up and monitor, so I'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks. --AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If I were to waive a majic wand at it I would start be getting all the cites re-formatted include titles, access dates, etc. This is most useful to help the article against link rot for if and when a webpage moves or is not longer online. In this way we can keep a good reference as long as we know when the information was accessed. Throughout that process I thin other issues will present themself but to me good sourcing is amongst the biggest issues. If you want other feedback or me to relook later I'm happy to help. Benjiboi 03:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesse Dirkhising asap

Resolved.

needs help, research, clean-up, refs et al

done. Benjiboi 04:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Rosie O'Donnell

Thanks for the message, but the portion I edited was not part of a quote.Mamalujo (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually they both were, "pedophile scandal" is a quote and has been presented in quote marks just as I have now printed it. Another quote is "the most interesting thing about Deliver Us from Evil (is) that the person who was in charge of investigating all the allegations of pedophilia in the Catholic church from the ‘80s until just recently was guess who? The current pope." You'll notice there is indeed quote marks there as well. Benjiboi 12:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I will again state that I fully support qualifying these statements with a WP:RS that asserts that there was no pedophilia involved by Catholic priests. Benjiboi 12:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Three issues:

Your repeated claims that these are quotes does not make them so. The first not a quote but simply using the inaccurate term used by her which can easily be replaced by the accurate one. The second one is a quote but there is no dispute about the quote itself but about the introduction of it. And again your cherished Rosie is wrong and committing slander.
Your rewrite, supposedly to address concerns, does not cut it at all. It's just as POV and slanderous as your earlier versions.
You have been reported for violating 3RR.

Finally, I do not understand what your second post is all about. Probably some POV nonsense. But please don't bother explaining as I actually don't care. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not claiming anything. They are quotes and we don't re-write history and we don't alter quotes to suit our desires. I would feel the same if she said that some other Catholic official was in charge and her statement proven to be in error. We state what she said and demonstrate that the statement is in error with reliable sources. And I apologize if you don't care or indeed think think I'm doing something slanderous. I think you'll find that citing sources covers your concern of slander as O'Donnell was the one to state the quote that you're objecting to. If the statement actually was slander we should definitely remove it - please note that the statement should be proven to be untrue as a part of that. Benjiboi 02:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

- - The sources are already there. And no, these are not (changes to) quotes. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Well, We're certainly have to agree to disagree about that then as it's pretty clear when someone or a source is being quoted. If you really can't tell what a quote is I'm not sure what to suggest as the use of quotation marks almost always denotes a quote. Benjiboi 13:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Arthurdent. I know what a quote is and what quote mark are for. The thing is: while your "pedophile scandal" is a quote, there was no change to the quote - it was merely replaced by a more accurate rendering. While the "guess who was in charge" is a quote, there was no change to the quote, merely to the introduction. If you really can't tell that I can't help you. It was you who spewed accusations against me and another editor about "changing quotes" when we have changed not a word in a quote. (And even if it were true it would not allow you to revert six times.) Changing quotes would indeed be a no-no. But slander and endorsing slander is as well. Remember that Rosie is not the only living person involved in this. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "Arthurdent" is but changing "the most interesting thing about Deliver Us from Evil (is) that the person who was in charge of investigating all the allegations of pedophilia in the Catholic church from the ‘80s until just recently was guess who? The current pope." to "the most interesting thing about Deliver Us from Evil (is) that the person who was in charge of investigating all the allegations of child sexual abuse in the Catholic church from the ‘80s until just recently was guess who? The current pope." is indeed changing a quote. I also didn't revert six times but you can believe that if you wish. Also, slander is "the communication of a statement that makes a false claim" which doesn't seem to be true as I've pointed out on the article talk page it does seem like the Pope was in charge of investigating pedophile cases. As I also stated the wording is unclear so perhaps we should introduce another source showing that he wasn't put in charge of those investigations until 2002, regardless of when the abuse occurred. I will also point out that if you want to hang O'Donnell as an anti-Catholic then her relation to topic is the one we present in her article. In the Pope's or any of the priests involved or the victim's article we would present the information in relation to them. Benjiboi 14:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

No, I undeleted it for technical reasons: the oldest postings should be archived first, not the most recent ones. That's all. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree there as well. Talk pages are for active or ongoing conversations and "Discussions can be archived by topic, rather than chronologically." which seems to be the way the vast majority of talk pages are archived. Someone posts a topic, the conversation ensues and when a resolution or the topic is no longer relevant, the topic can be archived. For instance, a talk about an image which has been deleted in the interim, is an example of a talk topic that may be archived before a topic that was posted prior to it. We don't wait until the oldest topic is resolved before archiving the rest. If you have no further objections I'm going to re-archive that otherwise resolved topic. Benjiboi 13:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that's not the way it is done. Usually the oldest sections are archived first unless they are still in use or relevant to current discussions in some other way. But the point is: your edit summaries talked of "archiving old discussion" but your actions were different: your archived the newest discussion and retained the old ones. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Again we'll have to agree to disagree. here you are simply picking a semantic point about an edit summary. This is bordering on wikistalking, IMHO. That topic was over and I was moving an "old" topic, as in done, not needed as new actions on the article had rendered the topic moot, etc. topic into the archives so that if someone wanted to note what had occurred it was there. Cleaning up talk pages helps focus on the remaining outstanding issues to be worked on going forward. Again, if you have no further objections I want to move that old topic into the archives. Benjiboi 14:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

thank you

thank you for your edit summary over at andrew sullivan. i am trying to edit but people do not like my edits.can there be a source for hiv people can not get citizenship other than his article?--70.109.223.188 (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and I've added a ref. Benjiboi 16:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Crocker again

See Talk:Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity)#Interview with Crocker - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Coolio! The past days has drained me so I haven't been inspired to do too much. I will work on it though to clean off some of those items. Benjiboi 04:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ref Girlfriend Article

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Girlfriend. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Steven Hipkins (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, my addition of content to the Girlfriend article was actually reverting what I consider your vandalism of removing content without any consensus to do so. Please gain support for such deletions on the talk page - you'll see I had previously responded to your statements there. Benjiboi 16:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI: this. Tisk tisk and shame shame on her. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 11:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

yikes. Someone didn't eat all their veggies! Benjiboi 11:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Recovering content

The fact that there's a citation on a piece of information doesn't give it special immunity from deletion. If someone doesn't think it belongs in an article, they're free to explain why and remove it. If you think the information should be used somewhere else, it can easily be recovered from the edit history; there's no need for me to repost it somewhere. - JasonAQuest (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps technically so but it sure seems rude and less than cooperative. Having to dig through history to find valid content seems the worst option, IMHO, and far from ideal. Deleting other's well-intended contributions may be technically correct but it seems to fly in the face of consensus-building. Benjiboi 11:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Fuck

Benji. Sometimes you just gotta scream: Image:Englishf.ogg You've had one hell of a week so go ahead, you deserve it! ;] - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 01:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Yes, it's been special lately. Benjiboi 11:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning

This is to warn you that while you were not blocked as a result of your violation of the 3RR at Rosie O'Donnell, that does not mean you are absolved of it and I would strongly encourage you to gain consensus on the talk page during the period of protection before returning with agreed versions of your edits when it expires. Stifle (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think I presumed that I was innocent of breaking the policy. In all fairness I made good faith efforts to change the wording to try to be more clear and address the concerns that could be addressed. However I stand by the wikipedia is not censored at we don't change quotes to appease POV-pushing from any side. I'm happy to work towards consensus and have continually demonstrated that on the O'Donnell article as well as elsewhere. On the same article there is also a well-documented history of Str1977's interests in making O'Donnell look unfavorable and, IMHO, going beyond acceptable BLP policies to do so specifically hanging anti-Catholicism on her without balancing the context of her documented statements. The original version of that section was an extensive press release quote from the Catholic League and an email campaign against O'Donnell from a right-wing host. We can do better than that. Benjiboi 01:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly encourage you, Benji, to disengage from conversation with Str1977. It has become clear to me that the best thing all parties can do is to walk away. If there's something so critical that it can't be ignored, perhaps using a neutral mediator to point it out would be a good idea. I have a terrible feeling that this encounter could deteriorate into something less than wonderful. It seems the two of you have a way of pushing each other's buttons - in all fairness, I believe it's totally unintentional on both parts - and it seems best to keep some space between you. I'm going to leave the same message on Str's talk page. - Philippe | Talk 01:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I have ever sought to interact with them and indeed have only ever seen them show up to the O'Donnell page to address their take on the "anti-Catholic accusations" section. I will look at yet another rewrite of that entire section as Str1977's edits weren't the only one so obviously others share the concern. I think there was room for compromise. However, as in the last interactions with Str1977 they only engaged in talk after an edit war and then only recirculated the same arguments with little to no compromise and plenty of accusations. I will go above and beyond however both Str1977 and Mamalujo seem to operate similarly in simply showing up from time to time and either inserting or deleting material they deem dispensible. I find that problematic. Benjiboi 02:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I will say, as an outside observer, that Str1977's belligerent and hostile attitude, coupled with failure to work together with Benji is rather disgusting. I've actually found myself somewhat upset at his/her behavior and I haven't had any interaction with the user. That having been said, Benji I'd suggest dropping a note at Wikiproject LGBT Studies Talk and requesting more eyes on the article for when it comes off of protection. It's obivious this user has an agenda and agendas are considered disruption and abuse of policy. In all honesty, this has a similar appearance to our "friend" from the Chris Crocker article. ;] - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 03:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try re-writing the section again although she said what she said so i doubt that will appease Str1977's concerns. I actually had a similar run in with them on the same issue, same article several times before and don't believe they are our special guest from the Crocker article but I've overly AGF many times before and proven wrong so at least I have a strong track record of being naive! Benjiboi 03:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Benji, I think I can live with the gist of the "asterisk solution". As for your point about being "told not to engage me": I have no problem with you replying to the very precise points I raise on talk and I think you were told to gain consensus on talk. However, have it your way as long as you are addressing my points (even in talk pages) I will not ask for more. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Blackpool

Hi, Benjiboi! I'm posting this message to you and Belovedfreak. Both of you !voted "keep" for Gay Blackpool, which confuses me. My feeling is that we're "ghetto-izing" by keeping this separate article. I'm curious if y'all have any input on that and what is gained by keeping both that one and LGBT community of Brighton and Hove? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, flawed as it is ... The city of Blackpool article will include precious little about LGBT culture and only if those who feel it's important are vigilant from it being removed and further marginalized. Whereas an article specifically addressing Blackpools LGBT community can cover a more expansive treatment and be of some use to those looking for the information. Benjiboi 15:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you don't mind me replying to Satyr here, to keep the conversation together. I must admit, I'm a little unsure now. I definitely think the subject is notable and should be kept, but whether as a separate article or part of Blackpool, I don't know. Having looked at the LGBT community of Brighton and Hove article, I'm inclined to think that that doesn't really need a separate article. I looked at San Francisco and I suppose a sort of equivalent would be the Castro article, but then that's about a specific district, which isn't the case in Blackpool or Brighton. I will think further & get back to you. --Beloved Freak 17:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that either way, the article will get tagged, categorized as a Gay village, and put on the LGBT watchlist. Then it will be "in the system", so to speak, so vandalism is less likely.

But as a separate article, it's less likely to be viewed at all, whereas being a part of the main article will mean the information is there. I feel the same way about Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln or Personal relationships of James I of England. If we allow ourselves to be marginalized, we're stuffing the info away where it will never be viewed. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about it, frankly I'd rather have all the information then just the summary bits. Using the Personal relationships of James I of England as an example, yes it's in its own orbit but the subject can be fully explored and nuanced whereas it would be treated as a tumor on the main article otherwise slowly picked at and covered over with vanishing cremes. Whether or not there is a Blackpool LGBT community article the main article, in theory, would have at least a summary and frankly having a well written separate article helps those working on the Blackpool article understand why anything should be included at all. Benjiboi 21:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

After reading over Wikipedia:Content forking, I'm wondering if the Gay Blackpool and LGBT community of Brighton and Hove articles aren't just unnecessary content forks? Particularly given the fact that Gay Blackpool, once cleaned up, will be somewhat smaller than it is now. I'm thinking that they should be incorporated back into the main town articles, and if and when the sections grow too big for the parent article, they can become spinout articles. As you say, Satyr, they can be put on the LGBT watchlist.--Beloved Freak 22:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Content forking is about presenting different stances so I'm puzzled as to that application here. Benjiboi 11:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In this case, forking would be moving all the gay content into an article, leaving a paragraph back in the main article. James was a different animal - there *are* nuances there. For Blackpool, it's not as if we're examining which blocks of the area are more gay than others, or which businesses have gay employees but don't offer health benefits to domestic partners. It's simply some extra information - info that would fit fine in the main article. After all, once cleaned up, it's only going to be a couple paragraphs? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is where we may disagree, I think the present article's content wikified down would only be a paragraph or so but a well-developed article would be significantly more and if only in the city article will have little inspiration for those familiar with the subject to develop it. This is where researching history of people and places is intriguing as you start to see the connections of notable people and events and eventually find the relevance and intersections of folks. Benjiboi 15:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

By content forking, I don't mean POV forking, just having separate articles dealing with the same subject. I think that Gay Blackpool is, essentially, about Blackpool, so I guess it should probably be in one article. I wanted to keep the article in the AFD because I was worried about losing the material, but I think now that it should be incorporated into the Blackpool article.--Beloved Freak 20:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Anderson Cooper

clean-up archives and talk page Benji boi

Um. I've removed the WikiProject's banner. He's not gay / out. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither is Fred Phelps, Jodie Foster or Jerry Falwell. I'm re-adding as the LGBT tag denotes its of interest to our project mot that the subject is gay. Topping the Out list certainly makes him of interest, especially if he's not gay. Benji boi 15:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		We don't always agree, but you put a lot of work and thought into the project and I respect that. David Shankbone 18:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

A few words on Justin Berry

Hi. I've been on a somewhat extended wikibreak (2 years actually) and I have just come back. It has taken a little while, but I've finally caught up on areas of interest. It was during this time that I noticed your comments/questions about the Justin Berry article on the talk page. The Justin Berry story was one of those things I always found to be a little strange and never really added up in my mind. I dunno how to describe it, but I get the feeling that there is a lot more to it than he claims. I have this gut feeling that he is being dishonest. I feel like he's manipulating a whole lot of peoples' sympathy so that he can escape responsibility. He should have been prosecuted for his soliciting of minors to perform sexual acts, even before he met that other creep and then after. And later, Kurt even admits that he had threatened to report Justin if he didn't co-operate in giving him the scoop. It was quite likely he was very worried he was going to get in big trouble. Interestingly, he was over 18 yet he was continuing his little operation of exploiting other minors to earn a tidy sum of money. Incidentally, I believe that is why he was called a pornographer; he was engaged in producing pornography. No, Oprah (as always) was a total feel-good, POV whitewash. Again, no mention of the minors he had abused. It didn't talk about half the stuff that Kurt had reported and even Kurt's version is now in serious doubt of being fully factual. As for what brought online predators to light? Easy, it was the Dateline stings that PJ started in ~2003 more then anything else. Anyway, maybe I'm way out of line with my speculation? Dragon695 (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, all child pornography is going to be problematic even if the child in question may have enjoyed it or profited from it. It's a field that is under researched altogether as well as sex with minors nowadays is simply taboo and illegal whereas back in the day preteens were getting married. Berry's case is a pile of interwoven issues but at its core is the exploitation of minors for greed and sexual gratification. Will we ever get a good credible child victim to speak on the issues in general? Will we see that puritanical attitudes towards human sexuality are causing more harm than good and denial of sexuality education leads to a host of dysfunctional behaviors including exploiting other people? I'm not holding my breath. Was Berry a victim, probably and because of that he is forever saddled with his victimhood regardless of his role beyond simply being one of the most famous of the thousands. For hat I'll give him more than a benefit of the doubt but agree that the article is below par for wikipedia. Did Oprah do an expose - of course not, but as always she enlightened millions to an uncomfortable subject and opened the door a little bit more on issues that will help countless others as well as opening the door on Berry's case. Anything Oprah uses we can certainly use in the article. Benji boi 07:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What's your take on this?

I nominated Christian Wikipedians and American Wikipedians categories for deletion, using the same rationale that was used to delete the Gay Wikipedian user categories. As of this writing, the Christian Wikipedian category was closed as a speedy keep, and the closing admin implied he would be doing the same with the American Wikipedia category. Does this seem just the teensiest bit hypocritical to you? Jeffpw (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Completely. One can choose their religion. Benji boi 22:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well just FYI (not trolling here), it's back open at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians by religion and related. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 01:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should get it sorted out so the LGBT user cats can be used and useful, I've avoided using as they are deleted so often. Benji boi 01:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Merv Griffin

You may wish to take a look at this section of the Manual of Style on date formatting. Robert K S (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, American formatting can work but that doesn't mean it should be imposed on the rest of the world and if the rest of the article has already been formatted over to international then there's no reason to flip one usage back. I'm sypathetic to the American verses British spelling issues but the date format should be less confusing to the majority of our users. Benji boi 22:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Richard Simmons

Please assume good faith. Saying I have some sort of personal grudge against Christopher Farney, well, that's so ridiculous I don't know how to respond. If you would like to discuss the issue in a civil manner, then I invite you to discuss it on Talk:Richard Simmons. hateless 04:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I did AGF and simply stuck to what the sources stated. If something else shows up I'm happy to amend. Benji boi 07:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please restore my remarks.

You did some selective archiving at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron. My comments were shuffled into the archives, but virtually every thread there is a newer discussion there, some of which haven't seen any activity in a couple months. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies if you feel I prematurely archived a discussion, you are welcome, as is anyone, to pull an entire thread back to a talk page. You might consider redacting instead to start a new thread to clearly discuss a particular point if the entire thread isn't needed. I also encourage you to stay on point to discussing clearly issues particular to the ARS project and not, for instance, imploring the editors there to fix an article that isn't tagged for rescue as is the stated purpose. Benji boi 14:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

History of LGBT people in Singapore film

Needs refs asap! AfD Benji boi 18:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

here Benji boi 08:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User 86.20.169.102

I saw the user's contribs and yes, it is disruptive and they should stop. To understand exactly why, see the "Edit Ninjas" section at WP:BRD violations.

If one user does it, by themselves, it's not a problem because anybody can just come along and change it. But consider this: Imagine that you have hundreds or thousands of users doing this. It becomes a problem because they're not collaborating.

I dealt with this same problem on Austrian economics. You have some users who will just troll from one article to the next, making the same kinds of edits (pushing a certain POV, removing tags, whatever) and when they cluster together, it's insanely annoying.

It's doubtful posting on WP:ANI will do anything. I suggest asking the user directly to make a note of their edits on the talkpage and attempt to discuss what they're doing, not just moving from article-to-article, making one edit after another. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I got exactly what I was looking for, a more thoughtful perspective on what I saw as disruptive anon but what turned out to be a seemingly well-meaning editor flying within acceptable parameters. Benji boi 05:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User cats

You may be interested in participating in the discussion at User talk:Hyacinth/User categories#Proposal. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 01:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've pretty much given up on user categories but if it gets exceptionally riveting or dramatic let me know. Benji boi 05:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it Christmas yet?

'Cause I wanna meet Santa's little helper. And BTW, nice new sig. ;] - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 08:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Woo hoo ho ho ho! And yes, still working on the colors but I liked the cursive sig. Benji boi 08:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Words can't describe what I think about Santa's little helper. lol Whew. So umm, cursive? I've never seen your sig in cursive, not even now. I must not have that font. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 08:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added him to the twink article so you can visit him as needed. Cursive-ish? It's what the font is called for formatting. Benji boi 08:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

LMAO! This bear's favorite 2 things in the world, on one page - junk food and a hot twink. I will have that article to FA in no time! haha - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 08:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The photographer has lots of nice things to look at, most of them free for use. I shall bookmark with urgency. lol - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 09:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Yes, research that. Benji boi 10:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Have mercy Wikipedia may become my new online stop for exercise material! Whew! - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 18:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

hehe I saw that Twink edit. Keep it up and we can start charging $19.95 a month recurring for access! - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 19:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Towels extra. Benji boi 21:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Corey Delaney DR

Thanks for the heads up mate, I've placed my !vote. Have a great day! Fosnez (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

you're very welcome. Benji boi 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC-"Cult" of homosexuality

Hey hey--could you take a look at this request for comment. Some homophobic nonsense keeps getting reverted back. Thanks! Boodlesthecat (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If gays get a cult then tax-exempt status should go along with it. Benji boi 05:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[1] [2] ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Harold Washington edits

With respect, address my reasoning. Consensus does not outweigh wiki policy and guidelines. The Mirth and Girth image is as much a viable and notable image as the statue is. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted however the RfC seems to be 3-to-1 disagreeing with your view. Benji boi 19:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect, the RfC doesn't get to override current image and Wiki guidelines. Did you perhaps miss that note above while you were "on break"? Please use the discussion page to present cogent arguments as to why the image doesn't belong. Don't throw a less than consensus RfC of three editors who react based on feeling rather than policy. You might wish to consult with an admin in regards to current wiki policy, You can rest assured that my edit stance is in concurrence with current wiki policy and guidelines.

Please stop edit-warring. Do not revert me again, and instead use your time to actually construct an argument that utilizes wiki policy than your fears that this yet another gay-bashing exercise.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Your veiled homophobic comments are also duly noted - thanks. Benji boi 19:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, precisely what homophobic comments are you referring to? Apparently, they are so veiled that not even I can see them. Please, feel free to point them out, if you could be so kind. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Referring to my break note above and then following it with "instead use your time to actually construct an argument that utilizes wiki policy than your fears that this yet another gay-bashing exercise" to me, are pretty homophobic. I'm not straight but that doesn't mean I'm unable to edit articles about non-LGBT subjects nor does it mean that I somehow see everything through a LGBT-filter. You can also desist from engaging me here as the article's talk page seems to be addressing the article and your desire to add the image. Benji boi 00:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unclear as to the definition of homophobic, which is as follows: "unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality." Perhaps you can - again - define how any of my comments contained any of that. If I am of the opinion that you are acting on the HW undergarment issue out of fear that it is a launching pad for homophobic reaction, you should be aware that that opinion is called 'reasoned deduction;, not a fear or hatred of things homosexual. If anything, I am pissed off that someone would immediately make the connection that cross-dressing is an conformation of gay-ness.

Maybe your edits and your contact with me will be far better served by actually asking me questions instead of assuming opinions I do not possess. It makes me irritable and makes you look like an ass.

Now I am done. Please feel free to engage me on HW issues within the article - now that I've cleared up your misconceptions here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Your interesting justification for what i feel is veiled homophobic remarks on my talkpgae are hereby noted. Thank you for sharing. Benji boi 20:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Then I urge you read a book, phone a friend or poll the audience. You are clearly unaware as to what constitutes homophobia, champ. And I'll point out that ANY time you accuse me of something I am not guilty of, you'd best be prepared to deal with my response. I don't suffer fools. At all. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And now I'm a fool. Thanks for visiting. Benji boi 04:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Ellen DeGeneres

add archive and clean-up talk page. Benji boi 02:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Benji boi 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For all your support and help during the recent Michael Lucas bouhaha. Feel free to let me know if you need help combating a troll. --David Shankbone 03:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Others have help me sometimes before I even knew it was happening. I expect it's just par for the LGBT course but it's sure crappy while it's happening. I still have to check myself when dealing with anons because of this and try to ensure I'm only addressing the actions evident and not ABF. Benji boi 21:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael Brandon (porn star)

add refs to address talkpage editor's issues. Benji boi 00:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom Freda AfD

Would you like to explain your comment about "vandalism" on the Tom Freda AfD? Black Kite 09:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. As evidenced by the article's history and the fact that he's, by default, a high-profile political figure, I have little doubt that the article will be targeted on that basis alone. My comment was intended to inspire those who are working on the article to keep adding references as a keen eye will kept on this so it's better to have everything referenced than not. Benji boi 17:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. I think that's not exactly assuming good faith, then, because I don't know if he's a high-profile figure (being from the UK, I'd never actually heard of him) but if he is, wouldn't you at least expect some independent sources about him? Because there still aren't any in the article, apart from the fact that he's associated in this organisation. If there were, I'd be happy to withdraw the AfD. Black Kite 07:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully expect that the refs are out there but they need someone closer to the situation to say here is a recent interview with him. To me the main point is he is the founder/spokesperson for a political opposition group so there's something there. The article certainly needs to be developed but most do. I say keep because of what the article is likely to be and others are just as likely to delete because it's not that yet. Frankly I think the AfD system needs to be overhauled to elongate the process to ensure those who are most able to help an article have time to notice it's in danger and address concerns. Personally I think any article would first get tagged for clean-up issues and discussed on the talk page. Then after a few weeks maybe follow-up to tag for notability or sources. I suppose even if we did convert to such a system those bent on deletion would simply aggressively start tagging everything then complain that deleting articles should be more efficient. I don't see a system where everyone will be satisfied but i certainly think we're doing ourselves a disservice by being repellent to editors who are making a good faith effort to build articles. Benji boi 20:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with you there. THat's why I don't bother AfD'ing articles that are obviously non-notable (someone else can do that) but go for the "in-between" ones. I AfD'd a whole bunch of bios that someone had added to the alumni of a college recently, and guess what? Once they were AfD'd, most (I think 8 out of 12) got improved to the point where they were keepable, which is great. Sometimes AfDing is the only way of doing this - it seems weird that the deletion process is the best way of keeping articles, but there you go. I'll keep an eye on this one anyway, and see how it goes. Black Kite 01:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well to me that's quite upsetting as it tells me that at least 8 of them never should have been AfD'd as AfD isn't clean-up. I hear what you're saying but that's quite stressful and I've many times taken away from building an article to do AFDing related stuff which I am not hugely fond of. Please at least consider engaging the talk page and trying notability tags etc more. Cheers Benji boi 04:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, especially with minor bios, is that they're either (a) created by the person themselves, or someone close to them, or (b) written from a single source like an online bio. They hardly ever link to anything and then stay untouched. The problem there is that putting improvement tags on them is pointless because no-one ever sees them. Trying to improve them is often difficult because sources are difficult to find (especially offline ones when you're in a different country). But when they're AfD'd, the much wider audience that WP:AFD gets often digs up at least one editor willing and able to improve the articles. It shouldn't have to work like that, I know, but ... Black Kite 13:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree then as per WP:AfD - "if an article can be improved through regular editing it isn't a good candidate for AfD" The AfD system, IMHO, is way abused so even if your assumptions as noted above are true I think you should suspend your doubts and make a good faith effort to use tags and prods. We both agree that articles can and should be improved but our methods seem vastly different. I also would like you to consider what it feels like for a new user to essentially told there article isn't on par with the many others that litter wikipedia. I think coaching them a bit will help them learn. I'd rather empower editors to do better and build up articles instead of (just) finding fault. Wikipedia's ways are pretty mysterious to new users so showing them how to format, leading them to examples of say other Canadian politicians so they can see this is the style of writing that seems more neutral, etc. I think this helps coach newbies in a positive direction than potentially embittering them against a project that removed every trace of an article they invested a lot of energy into. Benji boi 21:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay Brannan

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Brannan. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 20:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

LGBT quotes

FYI I added a new quote to Portal:LGBT/Quotes:

I still find it personally disappointing that people kind of go out of their way to voice their disgust or their opinions against the ways in which two people choose to love one another. I think that's really unfortunate. - Heath Ledger

How timely and appropriate. R.I.P. Heath... - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 06:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to add wikilinks within the quotes. Is it possible? And yes, I've been helping referee some drama on the Ledger article, very sad his death. Benji boi 06:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's possible to wikilink within the quotes. Whether or not it'll work and not bork the script is another issue. And since they rotate through 60 quotes, it could be days before you ever see the one you add wikilinks to. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 06:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

So worth it! Benji boi 06:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Your note

I have responded on my talk. :-) - Philippe | Talk 16:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Str1977

I notice you claim that you have been instructed by an admin not to talk to this user. I don't remember saying that, but if I did, consider it cancelled. If I didn't, I would recommend reconsidering because it's a poor excuse to revert-war rather than discuss. Stifle (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I recommended that they not engage. Revert warring is clearly engaging. I stand by my recommendation that the two of them walk away and not engage with each other. - Philippe | Talk 22:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, then. Benjiboi is interpreting it as continuing to revert but not to discuss. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories: User talk archives