User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 → Archive 45

AfD nomination of Devoucoux

An article that you have been involved in editing, Devoucoux, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devoucoux (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unionsoap (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've offered a bit of help. -- Banjeboi 10:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I emailed you. Ikip (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Replied ;) -- Banjeboi 13:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Add {{Infobox Company}}. -- Banjeboi 13:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for helping revert a very determined IP user's messages on my talk page. I really do appreciate it, and it makes me glad that someone else is helping keep this community-banned user away. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I'm not sure which article it was but when I saw some vandalism I checked to see what else they did, and lo and behold! In any case I'm happy to help anytime. -- Banjeboi 01:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

HolldwoodGossip (Chris Crocker birthdate/age)

If I find a similar article on TMZ.com, can I reference from that? Or is that not a reliable source? Keithf2008 (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No, actually. TMZ is generally not considered reliable and it's likely that's where HolldwoodGossip got the story. I could be swayed if it were specifically stating ___ is my birthday and we were sure he wasn't joking. The video states he was celebrating his birthday but it still could have been almost any day around there. The biggest issue, however, is the do no harm issue as this BLP gets daily death threats. Not only do we want to have no part in enabling someone to identify him we certainly want to avoid someone else being wrongly identified as him. The general rule with TMZ, and similar gossip sites, is that if the information is notable enough, it will be covered in more reliable sources. It certainly can be used to guide content but isn't very good for sourcing content. -- Banjeboi 01:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Stonewall riots

Clean-up. -- Banjeboi

Done. -- Banjeboi 08:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Arundhati Roy

Please check w:index.php?title=Arundhati_Roy&action=history and revert to include latest info about Roy's list. Each objection is carefully addressed, then the edit gets reverted anyway by two editors working in tandem. Thanks, 74.162.153.220 (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've offered an opinion on the talkpage and see that discussion is underway. -- Banjeboi 14:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to restore this edit. Please see this about "Roy's List" then this about the edit. Thanks, 65.246.126.130 (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Basically, it comes down to whether this is credible or not: 'Roy has gathered a compelling piece of evidence for her position. In an opinion piece in the Manchester Guardian (10/23/01), Roy wrote, "Here is a list of the countries that America has been at war with - and bombed - since the second world war:" Updated, it reads China (1945-46, 1950-53), Korea (1950-53), Guatemala (1954, 1967-69), Indonesia (1958), Cuba (1959-60), Vietnam (1961-73), the Belgian Congo (1964), Laos (1964-73), Peru (1965), Cambodia (1969-70), Nicaragua (the 1980s), El Salvador (the 1980s), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), Panama (1989), Iraq (1991-99, 2003-08), Bosnia (1995), Sudan (1998), Yugoslavia (1999), and Afghanistan (2001-08). (duly cited) From this, the years 1947-49, 1955-57, 1974-79, 1990 and 2000 were the only peaceful ones. 73% of the years, from World War II's end until 1989, the U.S. was militarily intervening somewhere. After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 (not counting conflicts like Colombia where governing elites request help against rebellious subpopulations) the U.S. was actively militarily intervening in a foreign country at least 89% of the years into 2008.' and I say "Yes". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.246.126.130 (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

homosexual transsexual

You put a criticism section tag on the article homosexual transsexual. Please do explain your reasons in detail, otherwise the tag will be removed. Keep in mind that Wikipedia does also support criticism sections and an integration into the article would give the few critical voices cited WP:undue weight. Of course, I'm open minded about more WP:reliable sources on criticism and an integration into another section of the article under such circumstances. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've responded there. -- Banjeboi 14:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I invited you to write a sandbox version that includes the criticism in other sections without giving it undue weight. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I've responded there. -- Banjeboi 02:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

WikiThanks
WikiThanks

Thanks for your comments on WP:ARS Ikip (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I hope they consider dialing it down a bit, stress is bad. -- Banjeboi 03:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Penny Arcade (webcomic)

more clean-up -- Banjeboi

Done. -- Banjeboi 20:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Boxes

It's rude and vandalism to place such boxes on a user's talkpage who isn't new. Ejnogarb (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd hardly call welcoming someone to Wikipedia "rude" and it certainly wasn't vandalism. What else can you possibly add to your agenda? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 15:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Allstarecho on this one, this was hardly meant in any way but a welcoming one. I'm sorry if you saw it as anything but that; it was hardly vandalism but welcome anyway and I hope you find ways to constructively contribute. -- Banjeboi 17:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Please chill, you've made less than 500 edits the vast majority (about 400) within the last month. It's quibbly to argue if you are a regular but WP:Don't template the regulars concerns warning templates which a welcome one is not. Again, if thought it was anything accept a welcome, I apologize. Can we move on from this now? -- Banjeboi 19:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Weasel Words

There is no need to discuss removing POV weasel-words and/or improperly referenced material. Anybody can clean out irrelevant junk from WP articles without asking. Bushcutter (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which article you're referring but based on your edits that I've seen I think your judgment on what is "irrelevant junk" is quite convenient to your POV which likely is not serving Wikipedia very well. We don't write what is comfortably to our beliefs, we write what is verifiable and accurate and we do so from a neutral point of view. -- Banjeboi 16:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Noah's Arc

[1] I believe this is a POV violation because, well, the guest stars are "notable" in whose opinion? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia's opinion, basically if they have an article, they are considered notable. If those names were all WP:Redlinks, like Johnny Bumblernothing, I would agree with you. -- Banjeboi 22:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
You're not getting it. I mean, how are the listed guest stars notable opposed to the guest stars from the show that aren't listed? The focus is to prove how they're notable to the show, not to Wikipedia. The field "notable roles" was removed from the Actor infobox for that very reason. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 02:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I see what you mean. There are a couple ways to sort it out. One is to rephrase it as notable guest stars and explain these are notable people who've appeared. Another would be to expand the article a bit with an episode guide which would include a list of guest stars on each episode - episode "A"; synopsis; guest stars on episode "A", etc - I'm OK with either approach although the second approach woudl be better information providing more storyline and character development. -- Banjeboi 03:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. :) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Hey, can you check out: User_talk:Moni3#Homosexuality ? Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the welcome!

87.81.240.78 (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You are indeed welcome! -- Banjeboi 21:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

loves it

APK has given you a Dolce & Gabbana model, just for shiz and gigglez. The consumption of male models somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else eye candy, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or someone who needs to get laid. Enjoy!

Oooooo, candy! Thanks! -- Banjeboi 21:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

NARTH

for when ip resets [2]. -- Banjeboi

Wow, i was curious about those "professionals", so i read that little excerpt from that book... and almost wanted to burst into tears. To find such hateful denigration from a supposed expert in the field of mental health was a horrifying shock. Maybe i should stop snooping into your piles of research, it just makes a gay so weary. Oh, Banjeboi, how i admire your fortitude, as you seem to be able to stomach so much putrescence with such a clinically detached aplomb, i sometimes wonder whether you are a magical sort of library fairy-- impervious to the hatespeech soiling the pages of so many books out there.... i don't know how you stay so dignified. Well, anyway, happy April. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 01:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
But it's how we make the sausages that is so compelling! Lol! Seriously though I do so for the closeted and young LGBTIQs out there who need accurate and fair information. Being told you are evil/damaged/flawed/etc seems terribly inhumane but some of these people make a living off that hurt. Eventually justice will find them out but until then we can at least be a goto source of valid information if they are ever allowed on the Internet. -- Banjeboi 01:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

my on Wi-Fi anteena

sir how could i make my own wifi anteena is the is there any way to make it approx 5 k.m distance it have to work or i have to purchase a divice for it plz send your suggestion in my @ id "sudeepkumar_2008@rediffmail.com"


Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.33.40 (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've got the wrong person to help with that quest. You might start by looking at Piggybacking (internet access) and see of some of the information there may help. Using that information search the Internet for ideas. Good luck! -- Banjeboi 13:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

richly deserved

300px|left

You deserve some of these tasty real girl scout cookies. The box on the left says it has real Samoas girl scouts (who wear funky hats). The box on the right says it has real Thin Mints (who are apparently a hardhat-wearing family from the Ewok treetops?) so I hope you will enjoy! Thanks for all the superduper wikipedia editing, your contributions are a rainbow of good examples.

~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~

Thank you indeed! Let's hope all our LGBT articles improve greatly to shine information to a world that has often misrepresented LGBT people. Thank you too for your work helping keep the nonsense at bay! -- Banjeboi 04:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Club Universe

Not yet looking into the other situation you mentioned at the AfD, I did find and add WP:Reliable sources to the article showing it has been the recipient of news coverage for several years. I believe the article could use a major sandblasting, but should be strong enough to then stand up on its own. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You're a gem! I think ultimately King Street Garage and 177 Townsend should be merged as they were one jointly run venue with a section for each club. Many of them were notable, to a degree but they can sit in one article until the sourcing is unearthed. -- Banjeboi 03:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Same-sex unions in the United States

I think we should separate the banned by amendment section into whether just marriage is banned or if unions and DPs are banned too. CTJF83Talk 04:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well??? CTJF83Talk 03:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding sooner, I had some RL issues to suss out. I think it would make sense, why not. -- Banjeboi 09:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok sorry I'm way too impatient. CTJF83Talk 23:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments

WikiThanks
WikiThanks

Thank you for your comments on WP:ARS, regarding South Park. I really appreciate your support and assistance. Ikip (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, I'm sorry there is drama around this. -- Banjeboi 09:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for my first Barnstar! Cheers Kyle1278 01:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You are so very welcome! I'm only sorry it's your first. We all work so hard so thanking each seems to be forgotten too often. Know that your work is quite appreciated and very benficial! -- Banjeboi 01:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is too funny

Who'd of thought it? ChildofMidnight, champion of gay rights! -- Scjessey (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, fascinating. It reminds me of some unique editors I've dealt with who have an incredible appetite for content regarding sex between men. They do seem to think a lot on it. -- Banjeboi 20:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

re Barney Frank

Please don't remove notable and well sourced content from articles. See wp:lead for guidelines. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't think I did, and apparently the concensus agrees with my take on it. Your work on the Barney Frank article speaks for itself. I will concede, however, that by continually adding negative and poorly sourced content you have forced other editors into rewriting and resourcing the material thus indirectly improving the article. Unsure of that net benefit is worth all the energy though. -- Banjeboi 20:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Your statement that including content on Barney Frank's lifetime of work as an advocate for gay rights is "negative" is troubling. I'm already dealing with one editor who appears to have severe homophobia and has been aggresively censoring content discussing advocacy for gay rights. I hope you don't share a similar bias against gays. Whatever our personal opinions, Wikipedia policy requires we maintain an NPOV approach and include notable content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
CoM is, of course, fabricating this. I am not homophobic. I reverted his addition because it was misplaced and redundant, with a full explanation for my action. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Uh-huh ChildofMidnight. Thanks for your newfound concern in regards to ensuring gay rights are fairly represented on Wikipedia. You may want to re-read what I've written as I've never suggested Frank's lifetime of work as an advocate for gay rights is "negative". You're actually the one who has been trying to remove that content so please refrain from harassing me, thanks. -- Banjeboi 20:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Please refactor your comment. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but lying goes against Wikipedia policy. As you know I've been trying to include well cited, well established, and very notable content regarding Barney Frank's advocacy for gay rights. The edit history is very clear in this regard, and your distortion is another troubling act that seems very disruptive and totally inappropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Knock it off or I'll invite some others to see if you need a vacation. -- Banjeboi 21:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
As I stated on my talk page, I am happy with any fair solicitation of outside involvement. My edits are consistent with Wikipedia guidelines and those reverting them have been acting against policy and in a way that is difficult to explain as being consistent with good faith. I think an RfC is an excellent idea and I would support one. It would be great if there was an article discussion page instead of just noticeboard for behavior. I could really use the help of fair, experienced and neutral editors to fix the damage being done to that article. Finally, I again ask you to refactor your statement accusing me of "being the one who has been trying to remove that content" (regadring: Frank's lifetime of work as an advocate for gay rights). As you know this is patently false and as such your statement clearly goes against Wikipedia guidelines. You've tried to suggest I'm the one who has been removing this content, so I ask that you restore that content to the article (as I've tried to do repeatedly) and retract your false accusation. Otherwise, the lie is exposed for all to see. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside observation: I've got no dog in this fight, but I feel it's necessary to point out something to CoM. You keep asking Benji to retract his statement, yet your comment on Talk:Barney Frank includes the phrase Some of Wikipedia's most notorious POV pushers... when referring to Benji and other Wikipedians. IMHO, it would help ease tensions if everyone stopped the PA/AGF accusations that are mostly attempts to get someone in trouble. Smoke the peace pipe and improve Frank's article. 8-) APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 22:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I am going to refactor that comment per your suggestion. However, you should understand that it's been very frustrating to edit in good faith and face harassment and personal attacks. The guidelines and the edits speak volumes on my attempts to improve the article by including notable, well sourced content and on my being open to compromise. These efforts have been met with inexplicable wholesale reversions. I still haven't heard a reasonable explanation on why Barney Frank's lifetime of work and advocacy on behalf of gay's and lesbians (and let's not forget that he is himself a notable and prominent member of that community) is being censored. Other edits of mine are similarly reasonable and appropriate. I don't know how anyone can argue that saying he is a prominent advocate for gay rights isn't NPOV. I think these actions are disturbing and need to stop. Are we dealing with homophobia? What is the issue here? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Benjiboi/Archive_40&oldid=1146647746"