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.
Did you know that Rick Warren is politically conservative? I didn't, but then again, I've been living in a cave for the last decade. Spotfixer (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
lol! Apparently. I hadn't heard of this guy until his controversy with the Obama ceremony started up. What drama! -- Banjeboi 02:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I knew of him as some sort of self-help author, but didn't realize that his day job was as a homophobic minister. Dan Savage also wrote some funny things about him! Anyhow, if anyone questions the valid citation I added, I'm certain you or I could easily find a dozen more even better ones to take its place. There is no doubt that he's a political conservative. Spotfixer (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
He was the biggest controversy in the US's biggest news event so, yea, I'm sure there is plenty RSs to sort it all out. Turns out one of the editors calling foul is a member of the church so - gee - no problems there! On a certain level I feel bad that (quiet voice here) their faith is so shaken by this, do they really think their dieties can't handle criticism? Anyhoo, it's good to get a reality check even if it's a bit mean. -- Banjeboi 03:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, irrational beliefs are brittle because of the cognitive dissonance required to hold them. Spotfixer (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Possibly true, but like Jesus said - just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they won't still crucify you. -- Banjeboi 04:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Somehow, I don't think the Jesus Seminar would conclude that this was something he actually said. Spotfixer (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Well ... I went to a hell house and the voices in my head said to redecorate, hmmm, maybe they weren't in my best interest. hmmm -- Banjeboi 04:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Did you know that anyone who eats shrimp goes to hell because God hates shrimp? Very educational. Speaking of which, with some luck, I may get blocked again today. We'll see. Spotfixer (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Arrg. Take a breather, don't let the nonsense get you down. wikipedia and the world can spin a day or two without and getting blocked is not a good goal, imho. -- Banjeboi 04:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't do anything vaguely blockworthy, but Schrandit is trying to manufacture a 3RR violation. He's been trying for days, with the help of his brothers in Jesus. As far as I can tell, I didn't break any rules, but it's not like admins are limited to enforcing what the rules actually say. There's plenty of wiggle room for vindictiveness and even more for incompetence. Don't worry about it. As I prophetically wrote earlier today, I know the game is rigged and fully expect to "lose". What's funny is how much bigger Schrandit's loss has been. He's thrown away his dignity, integrity and any hope at the moral high ground, all to "win" against the infidels. The irony is worth a permanent block. Spotfixer (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Outdent. Sigh, you want to get out but they just drag you back in! 3RRs are generally in the moment but now that you've been in some tussles I suggest giving them enough room to get themselves in trouble. That persistent fact tagging, for information just too liberal to print, is cause for concern but you'd do well to instead document it then simply always reverting it as they may be gaming the system and baiting you. Even if you win at their game you're still paying their tune which isn't as fab as you can be. -- Banjeboi 05:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not like there's even a shred of self-consistency among the admins. Last time around, Schrandit violated 3RR and flatly refused to revert his own edit when I explained this and asked him to. In contrast, I took care not to violate 3RR. Despite this, the admin banged both our heads together by giving us each a block, to punish me for reporting him. It's a joke. Spotfixer (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
That may be true but you're enabling the disruption and making yourself an accomplice when instead you could just allow them to get in trouble all by themselves. Maybe you have a secret crush on them instead! Could he be a dream - or a dud! -- Banjeboi 05:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
An interesting theory, but I assure you that I have excellent taste in men, with particularly high standards. :-)
It looks like I rolled the dice and didn't get one of the malicious admins this time, so no block. I'm disappointed. I've come to expect a certain level of unfairness, and this falls somewhat short. I want a refund from Jimbo. Spotfixer (talk) 05:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Lol! Back to the grindstone! -- Banjeboi 05:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Benji. Btw, this is what I'm proposing for the article: User_talk:Phoenix_of9/warren. Feel free to comment on it or edit it. Thx... Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Those references might be good but this also needs to be givena reality filter of what will be accepted for the next year? or longer as well as due weight to give to the material. I'm still looking through the article but will think about what may work here. There's little use to adding something that will simply be removed so it's better to ferret out the problems and see what the mainstream sources state. Advocate may be good as a counterpoint. -- Banjeboi 02:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
On the "Feminine Essence Theory of Transsexualism"
None the less in public with transsexuals don't let them hear you saying the idea of male to female transsexuals having a feminine essence or a female brain is rubbish. You will be verbally attacked by them or worse.
yes yes TLDR but this is complicated stuff here. It dosen't compress easily.--Hfarmer (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
A centralised discussion which may interest you
Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, i commented there. -- Banjeboi 02:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we should talk about merging those two articles? Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the main article was split as it was huge. Perhaps it was split wrong but combining them again may not help. I'm unsure of any easy solution besides a total rewrite. Lesbian is being re-written off-article and will be an example of how one of these articles should look. I think homosexual orientation has been regularly targeted and negative-POV material added. It may have been fixed since then but it was too much drama for my taste. I pop in on those articles every once in a while and clean-up some of the more obviously messy stuff. Not sure if there is an easy answer there. -- Banjeboi 02:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Rick Warren again
Hey, I'm gonna open a RFC again soon but I think it would be better if we agree on a version first. What do you think, I made some changes (its not the whole article this time either): User talk:Phoenix of9/warrenPhoenix of9 (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you might be happier if we can get the first part approved then tweak from there. Already the article has greatly improved but we are looking for strong sourcing and NPOV language that will stick. Once that is approved we can then build consensus on how to present Prop 8 material. I've left a modified draft as far how i would first update your current draft. I'm uneasy about the foreign language sourcing. -- Banjeboi 04:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we will not be able to coordinate a response. Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm all for WP:AGF, but as I said before, it has its limits. Right now, I'm seeing what can only be described as partisan resistance to WP:NPOV changes to Rick Warren. They have nothing that can pass muster as a credible argument for their desired conclusion, but they do have force of numbers, and some admins don't look any further than a head count. Consider how quickly an admin jumped to ruling that the consensus (rather than the partisan majority) supported excluding saddlebacking.
What I see in the future is more edit-warring, unless something is done. Any ideas? Spotfixer (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to consistently present rational and NPOV content with strong sourcing and avoid the negative comments that get editors in trouble. Months from now what will count is what remains in the article so one by one notable chunks of content will be added that are appropriate. It sure hasn't been pleasant but at the end of the day I can say I was true to my job as an editor even if dogmatic opposition presents itself. Let their actions speak for themselves. -- Banjeboi 02:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
They do speak for themselves, but admins are, for the most part, not listening. I'm not saying they're stupid, as such, but they're clearly rushed and not making any sort of deep investigation into this. Consider all of these mock votes where the stated reasons are refuted trivially while most people don't even state reasons of their own, just dittoing the refuted ones. An admin who's actually careful would not for a moment settle for what the head count shows. Spotfixer (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I hereby deposit a big ol' SMOOCH! squarely on your talkpage, for your awesomeness in source-finding. I'd found one of the articlearchive sources, but you totally nailed it and I'd be highly surprised if it gets deleted now. (And I loved the bit about "indoctrination", as well; that was one of the main reasons I started watching those kids' shows, to get a handle on the degree of evangelism. "Nanna's" is actually quite tame in this regard--if you REALLY wanna curl your hair, watch "Faithville" sometime. Scaaaaaary.) Anyhoo--thank you so much for digging out those sources. Take care... GJC 06:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Yes, quite spooky actually, there's some line of singing Christian vegetable pirates - Veggie tales? - also troubling. I will admit though some of my favorite movie flashbacks come from this Christian company - Mark IV productions or similar - that specialized in end of times dramas. high production values and lots of blood and gore plus some twisted campy songs. The humour was likely quite unintentional but it was all fascinating. -- Banjeboi 16:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Nanna's Cottage
Hi, I have responded to your comments - but this is just to say that I also corrected a typo (reefers for refers) in your last edit. Hope you are not offended - if you are please rollback the whole edit and I will resubmit. Springnuts (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
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) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
We need something NPOV but yes, we should be able to shorten, I'll put my crack team of scissors to work! -- Banjeboi 16:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm first thinking Articles tagged for deletion and rescue but that may not be wonky sounding enough. -- Banjeboi 16:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
first of all, thanks for considering the change :) I love your suggestion: Articles tagged for deletion and rescue, much better than my first suggestion. Can I change it with your permission? We can always change it to another title. The reason I thought we should change it, is because WP:ARS members will now have the new template I created {{Wikipedia:ARS/Tagged}} on their page (too the right), and the title seemed too long. Let me know sir. Always a pleasure to fight with you in the trenches. I saw your good work in several AfDs I commented on tonight. Ikip (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, I want to be bold here but let's not screw things up in the process. I'll poke around to see what the best way may be and that the title will be OK. I think it is but it may be flawed as well. -- Banjeboi 09:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
It's a general issue for this infobox template...please work towards general consensus (or at least centralized debate) rather than re-re-reverting on one specific page that uses this template. Template talk:Infobox Actor#Why is the actual website URL hidden?DMacks (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
please note that web address is not expressed in infobox. parameters are set forth in {{infobox actor}}. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emerson7 (talk • contribs)
That's because someone corrupted the coding to force it in. Hopefully we'll change it so that coding is removed, meanwhile there's no reason to conceal the web address so it remains unreadable. -- Banjeboi 03:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
PC case airflow
I disagree with some your airflow drawing... if indeed this is your drawing. The only way for hot air to be expelled from this case is through the exhaust fans (of which there are actually 2 in this drawing)... all other airflow holes will be air inlets.
How can warm/hot air be expelled through the holes in the back side of the case? The entire inside of the cabinet is a low-pressure area... as the fans are working in the direction to 'suck' air from the inside of the case, and blow it out.
BTW... there should be 2 hot air exit paths shown... all PC power supplies have a fan, as well as the top-mounted fan shown in your drawing.
HOWEVER... the idea of using an ancillary exhaust fan (the top-mounted fan) will often cause more problems than it solves... as it creates an imbalance that the power supply fan can not overcome... leading to a "air stall" condition inside of the power supply fan enclosure, because the top-mounted fan is trying to "suck" the air IN from the power supply fan as well. (IF the top fan is more powerful than the power supply fan).
The two fans will be competing for the air that's inside the power supply enclosure. Although using 2 fans can slightly increase the OVERALL airflow OUT of the entire PC chassis, the power supply itself will suffer reduced -or- even REVERSED airflow, due to this "competition" going on.
Consider this... the power supply fan is trying to "suck" air from where? A zone that is already a low-pressure area, due to the top-mounted fan. This will severely limit its ability to move air.
The best way to remedy this would be to move the power supply fan outside the power supply enclosure, and next to (or near) the top-mounted fan... thereby completely reversing the airflow in the power supply enclosure.
Alternatively, reversing the airflow direction of the power supply fan will restore the airflow rate inside that enclosure, and will allow the top-mounted fan to expel the combined airflow of the entire computer.
That is a lovely image, however, until now, I hadn't seen it. I you return to the image page you can see who uploaded and changed it; as well, on the bottom of the page, what pages it's used. -- Banjeboi 10:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
as a reference several times in LGBT. This is a self-published book and not a reliable source. I removed the references. The author used to spam Wikipedia with references to his book, but that is probably a coincidence. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Is it because Lulu.com is known for this? -- Banjeboi 11:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Lulu.com is some kind of vanity press as far as I know. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if I would have caught this otherwise. Perhaps some sort of bot should flag cites as possible RS issues with vanity press. I simply pull from Google Books which doesn't really filter those out, apparently. Also, even though it may be a vanity press, the source may still be considered reliable on a case by case basis. -- Banjeboi 12:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there can be cases. Google Scholar gives more reliable results including books, but also a lot of academic papers that can be difficult to access the actual text of. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Lol! You are quite correct there! -- Banjeboi 13:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The enmity, quibbling and wikilawyering of some of those commenting. I may return to present a new version once the RfC resolves. -- Banjeboi 01:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
infobox website formatting
Sorry Benji, I'm slow to read stuff that has blown out into large sections that I'm not already involved with. The ArbCom date case is sapping me of energy. Tony(talk) 14:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
No worries, I saw that Arbcom case - yuck. I'll just keep plugging away and I'm sure both our dramas will melt like ice in a urinal after a few pints! Lol! -- Banjeboi 14:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
When you added the cquote template, you munged the punctuation of the quote. Can you fix that, please? (Apologies if you weren't the one who added the cquote template, I can't find the specific edit; your edit summaries give little hint of what the edits are.) THF (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem, fixed. -- Banjeboi 03:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually still munged. I'm just going to restore the original. THF (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
How is it "munged"? I copied direct from the source. -- Banjeboi 03:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Please stop edit-warring. I'm discussing my edits where we disagree on the talk page, and you're just blindly reverting. THF (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
You really have lot of nerve. When I do exactly what you do, then it becomes edit-warring - very convenient. -- Banjeboi 14:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm amazed at how you were "manhandled" here but the main person causing the problem and the edit war gets handled with velvet gloves by William. Sad. Typical. -✰ALLST☆R✰echo 23:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I've been on WP long enough to know how to use it. I choose not to talk about it there because it'll just fall on deaf ears. The good ole boy Admin club has each others back, even when they are wrong. ;] -✰ALLST☆R✰echo 00:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Thats true, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't try. I have done it, it is possible. Ikip (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Ben, I posted a request to look this over, at two random admins pages:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
THF has been continually insulting me despite my repeatedly asking them to not to focus on the contributor but on contributions. They also have made a concerted effort to simply revert my edits on a regular basis and, sadly, I let it get to me. There has been a pattern on the article and talkpage with them of, IMHO, ownership, tenditiousness and veiled hostility. When I stood up for the content they proceeded to fill up the talkpage including an RfC over two wikilinks. The discussions, like Bad edit and NPOV tag seemed more designed to disparage me than work toward consensus. If it was a trap I fell right in. They continually argue about me removing POV material that was poorly sourced so I finally asked for clarity at the RS noticeboard. I was also never notified of the 3RR noticeboard thread by THF but would have readily agreed to step back from the article if that was proposed. I'm sorry I got sucked into it but I'm not sorry I'm called them on their actions and asked them to use reliable sourcing and abide by our policies for NPOV. As is evidenced by the talkpage I was more than willing to discuss content issues but each time they tried to simply characterize me as causing problems. Sadly I've had to take take breaks from that article before for these very same reasons. At the moment, the first half of the article, which I have vetted and added clarity to is fine. The second half I still pretty messy. Given the unlikelyhood of THF editing style changing there it would be good to have more eyes on the article. It's fine to BRD but intimidating other editors doesn't seem like the best route for building consensus. I have a feeling as well other editors have been drummed away from that article in a similar manner. I'm sorry I technically broke 3rr but I'm not sorry for trying to ensure we stay policy compliant and I have remained civil even though continually provoked. -- Banjeboi 04:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
“I'm sorry I technically broke 3rr [...]” Okay, the block seems to be justified then. — Aitias//discussion 05:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Considering Benji was only making content changes that THF asked him to, then THF reports him for 3RR? THF is unblocked even though he broke 3RR too? Not to unblock Benji is a serious pile of steaming bullshit. And you can quote me on that. -✰ALLST☆R✰echo 08:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
