User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 24

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 23 |

Archive 24

| Archive 25 →

Your topic ban

After reading through the entire thread, I believe the ban itself violates policy, on the grounds at which it had taken place(the line where you state that the decision to ban you was made before you were notified). I say this as there was a previous ArbCom case just as this one, in that, it was held privately without one of the parties being notified of its existance. The desicsion(yes I know I spelled it wrong) in the case I speak of was reversed, as holding a secret trial is against policy.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 06:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I realize that you are an established editor, but while browsing the unblock requests section of WP(I just recently found it, I always wondered how admins found unblock requests), I came across a quote by Jimbo that goes with what I said above:

I have encouraged the ArbCom to move slowly and thoughtfully. Gather all the facts. Don't have a public argument with each other that confuses people or gives trolls the opportunity to turn more people against each other. Figure out what went wrong, correct it, apologize where beneficial to do so, and build a better framework going forward. You don't get all that done in a weekend, and you don't further that kind of thoughtful and mature process with a hasty statement. I think the important statement has been made: no secret trials, and no convictions without giving the opportunity to present a defense. That's just basic justice, and I will overturn any ArbCom decision to the contrary. (Although, I should point out, there is ZERO chance of the ArbCom doing this in the first place.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

From reading the thread, it didn't appear as the process which got you topic banned was done so carefully and without prejudice.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 06:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, in general I agree. Personally I take topic bans just as seriously as regular bans and blocks - I don't see these "as no big deal" as the admin apparently does. Technically they may not have violated some policy but they sure trampled over the spirit of community building and why those policies exist. That they did so in this case and in this manner speaks a lot more about them than myself, I think. I hope they dramatically rethink what they are doing here as Wikipedia is not supposed to be a battleground and driving away good editors doesn't seem to be a good thing for the project. That someone does a lot of good and there are percentage-wise not too many wrong blocks, bans and civility violations in process does not cut it as far as I'm concerned. This has been a good learning lesson for me. I feel authority is coupled with responsibility and even if we know in our heart of hearts that someone is "just a vandal" we are obliged by human dignity to treat them with respect. We should also heap a pile of hope toward them that they become a more valuable contributor rather than someone who fooled around and was treated poorly ergo harbors ill-will toward a community. Banjeboi 21:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-heterosexual

On 28 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Non-heterosexual, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

woo hoo! thank you!

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For showing people how to make an article up for deletion significant enough to survive, and in so doing, make wikipedia better! Bravo. Quartermaster (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Now copy this to your user page! --Quartermaster (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope many good articles will follow its path! Banjeboi 01:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimal classification

- Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! Thanks a lot for your help in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimal classification. I appreciate it. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

No problem, feel free anytime. I always do like learning new things so this was new to say the least; also that user was a special case and hopefully they'll decide to be more constructive in their future efforts here. Plus I was accused of being a part of the Robotics cabal! Such an honor (I hope I get a secret decoder ring). You did a great job of trying to share your concerns but sometimes that will never be enough. Banjeboi 02:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your reversion to Neil Patrick Harris

Given the strange form of the link you reinstated in a more understandable way, I think you need to justify why it should be reinstated like that, by means of verification according to WP:BLP. I don't think such apparent contradictions between the actual link and the word used as the anchor for the link should go by without some additional comment by the editor who adds it.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look at that closer, I put in closeted which is where we link when talking about someone being openly gay. That seems to be the best target article. There is also "coming out" but that speaks more to the process. So "closeted" is the better choice for readers who want to find out more about what being openly gay means. The sources support that he is openly gay. I'm unclear what the problem is? Banjeboi 08:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Heteronormativity" Talk Page Post

Does NO ONE on wikipedia have a sense of humor? We're not translating the King James Bible here; or even working on Encyclopedia Britannica--so much superior in so many ways, a simple glance tells one just how far wikipedia has to go. You act as though I cast aspersions on the editor's heredity. It was HUMOR. Perhaps not the best witticism ever written, but un peu amusant none-the-less. So let me say it again for the cheap seats: IT WAS A JOKE! And no one can seriously have taken it otherwise, especially since I used a parenthetically insertion so as to not confuse the residents of Rio Linda.

Actually, this was a test. I was hoping that my assumption that someone would post some self-righteous, condescending comment, such as yours, would be (for once!) wrong. As expected, you proved my assumption.

As for:

And calling for editors to be blocked in some way is completely not acceptable even if later qualified as "just kidding".

First: I did not "qualif[y] it later", I did it immediately! Pls state the facts correctly.

Second: You should try telling that to this dude named Blaxthos. Check my User_talk:PainMan under topic #35 where he threatens to personally ban me even though he has no such power. If individual editors could ban each other, the result would be even more anarchy than already plagues this project. Because if one editor bans another, all the "banned" editor has to do is get a new IP address from his ISP, sign back up and then ban the banner.

As for deletion of the article, no, it probably won't happen. It should, the topic is Femi-Nazi propaganda and the writing is atrocious--but it probably won't given the left-wing bent of so many editors. Politics plays a huge part in wikipedia and conservatives (comme moi) are routinely attacked, vilified, lectured, patronized threatened with being blocked, etc.

You should take deep breaths, do yoga or something. You're taking this way too seriously. I too have been abused by other editors. It's not exactly the end of the world. (This is more humor, o;) As we said back in the 80s, "Time to chill, bra."

PainMan (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC) t

Well as someone who has been attacked both online and in the real world for being outside the heteronormative construct I can assure you that no, I'm not just going to chill and yes, I do have a sense of humor. The LGBT communities, even the ones on Wikipedia, are under constant attack and the violence isn't just name calling or seemingly innocent jokes. Members of our communities are killed - regularly - even in the United States, because they are different. Do I expect one little statement - a joke - to escalate into something much more, no. But neither did many LGBT folks who are no longer alive to laugh it off. That article and many like it are part of educating people worldwide and just like every article about every other minority they are important and hopefully it will reach the right people before their words escalate into actions that can't be taken back. I don't mean to guilt trip on you or even "bum" you out - it's just that words are the start and on wikipedia they are almost everything. we should use the a bit more carefully and know that what we write does make a difference and maybe a year from now you probably will want to see your own words as not only being humorous but also not adding to a hostile atmosphere. Words are your friends and you've got the skills to use them so well as to be funny and make a point. Having seen quite a few great people walk away from contributing because it just was too much. I hope you'll rise to the occasion as you totally have the potential! Banjeboi 11:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Diverse Harmony DYK

submit for 29 July asap. Banjeboi

done. Banjeboi 12:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter (July 2008)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 12:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

possible note for ARS

Notice: The Article Rescue Squad is always in need of additional help; All are welcome to try their hand at saving articles tagged for rescue!

done. Banjeboi 14:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter

Sure, is it ready to go out now? And I send it to active members only here: Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Members (except for those who opted out)? –xeno (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

yes please! Thank you!!! Banjeboi 12:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

 Doing... –xeno (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is  Done (as you can see), but I didn't deliver it to the "link only" people because it doesn't appear to have been permanently archived yet. Could you take care of that and leave them notes? –xeno (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Archived and links sent - whew! Thank you so much for your help! Banjeboi 14:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Always happy to fill in. –xeno (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting/weird post here

So, like an idiot, I kind of took over from Charlie Crist and participated in that discussion about template removal. I don't get wrought up in all this nonsense, and it really, really bugged me. I was pretty angry about it all day yesterday and the day before. When I got home from work yesterday, I was much sleepier than normal, so I laid down and had this fever-fueled dream. When I woke up I was sick but no longer angry. Soooo. I don't know if this is worth discussing on the WP:LGBT talk page, but I was thinking (pre-fever, mid-rage) that we need to come up with a firm stance about what LGBT templates are for, the purpose(s) that they may serve, the reason(s) why an article may get tagged, and that they do not violate BLP. Thoughts? Do you think this is worth it or feasible? Should I take something to break my fever again? --Moni3 (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's worth the bother. Frankly, it's their hang-up. Would such a heated and personal debate rage on if I had put a Chicago or Animation or any other template? No, we would have a reasoned and quick "who cares?" discussion and if the tag seemed fine then great. Instead it's all about OMG I'm not gay, they're not gay, how dare you even post here! Just like any other project and template we should be treated with civility and common sense. That we aren't is more about them than us. At the end of the day, as well, Crist's gay rumors will either become more widely known or dissipate if they really aren't that big of deal. In the meantime we get to know a little bit about some of our fellow editors which can be like finding out your neighbor has some "issues". You really are better off knowing than not. Banjeboi 22:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also say that similar to the NAMBLA case, and likely what would be seen as logical by those less passionate about Crist would be a project vote, does this article merit having our tag. That a single sentence covering this information has been stonewalled out of the article is one thing, that a project tag is also seen as somehow a huge deal is another - both are problematic. There is likely some template policy that if a project adds a tag there is little reason to edit war over it. If we need to we can start an RfC just on the tag. Banjeboi 22:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Benji - good to see you again

David Shankbone has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

yum! Banjeboi 22:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)