User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 54

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50 ← Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 → Archive 60

Blueballs IP

Regarding that, I've filed a SPI. FYI. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 06:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, many of the past socks of the accused as well as those who have worked against that advocacy have been able to evade detection as IPs are easy enough to fake and mask. The same accused should be given enough rope to blank themselves with, and they will. Also be cautious yourself as I got off that carnival ride when enough dots showed they may be willing to travel to stalk in person. "Beauty fades, dumb is forever", once Ms. DuBois' looks fade all the "cash business" might melt away as well. Then the bitter pill will rot and spoil and lordy for anyone who steps in Ms. Crawford's path to fame then! -- Banjeboi 07:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

LGBT topic label (Re:Art Smith (chef))

I don't really know how to send a personal message, but I believe it is unfair to force the LGBT topic label on every popular individual who is openly gay. I am male, but male issues should not categorize my wiki-label. Unless the celebrity in question is a large contributor to public gay, lesbian, bisexual or (gasp) transgender charities or public discussions on the like, relegating their interest or identity to the LGBT flag is unnecessary and ultimately damaging to the end goal of integrating homosexual or other sexual dispositions into society seamlessly. All black people shouldn't be relegated to black issues, all minority identity shouldn't be a part of someones profile or discussion unless they personally have stated a public state in supporting minority causes. So yea, unless you can cite for me Art Smith's devotion to gay issues, I will continue to remove the flag from his page. It is ultimately about you more than it is about gay and lesbian rights.

Sometimes, fighting tirelessly for perceived injustices on Wikipedia becomes a personal issue, rather than one devoted to the betterment of any minority community. - BP 24.155.242.36

You make some interest points but I think are misguided in this case. The "topic label" is our LBGT Wikiproject tag on the talkpage we use this to track our articles, thousands of them, just like many other Wikiprojects. It doesn't denote someone is LGBT, although in this case they are, but that the subject of the article is of interest to the project and we are also able to serve as a resource to help improve the article. -- Banjeboi 01:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Since you filed the 3RR on this user, FYI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Future MD 217. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 09:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the time you've put into those pages. I was surprised when you mentioned being aware of paid editors already on Wikipedia who have not been blocked. I am curious as to the circumstances of their editing and financial arrangements. I don't want to create a blacklist of some sort (I assume you mean people openly editing for pay), but am quite curious since I am unaware of these folks. Could you tell me more about those cases? --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not drill into it for a couple of reasons; (i) no need, we already have devoted a lot of space to discuss examples that spell out some of the many variations on this theme, (ii) I'd rather not do anything to draw likely negative attention to editors who are otherwise doing nothing even seen as wrong and (iii) I don't know all the circumstances and frankly you know people who are likely in similar circumstances but they remain closeted for the heat this would bring. If someone is contributing positively and really the issue is they got compensated in some I'm still not convinced there is any problem. For instance, a Catholic diocese thinks coverage on their local area in regards to their religion is lacking; someone offers up one of their whiz kid geeky children who knows all about Internet research. They pay her $100 for every article she writes and another $100 for every article on the topic she brings to GA status. She makes $2000 over the summer and a review of her work shows the apart from not writing an article about a disreputable Bishop her work is otherwise excellent. She did include redlinks to that Bishop's future article to show how they fit into the rest of the articles. So we have an understandable and forgive-able act of omission but nothing that would cause any true concern and the encyclopedia has indeed been improved. She's still writing but prefers to work in other areas, again with little or no actual problems. Sorry, I think the ethical issues are localized to each editor whether they think the concept is morally corrupt, I simply remain unconvinced. -- Banjeboi 02:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I had assumed that you were refering to people openly editing in a manner which I had suggested was against common practice. Since I have been trying to reflect present practice, such cases of great interest to me. Of course there are almost certainly people who get paid to add content but that they keep it a secret for fear of blocks or such ensuing is, in fact, some indication they think current practice would forbid them from doing what they are doing (perhaps mistakenly). I suggest that for the time being, we should have the limited goal of clearly outlining present practices, not passing judgement on them.
I'm sure we can also agree that clearly outlining the present practice would be a relief to those who abide by it, and change nothing for editors who refuse to follow those practices. A clearly outlined set of practices, I think, would accomplish some small measure our shared goal of not driving editors underground. In any event, thanks as always for the careful and thoughtful comments. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Thank you as well for working through these issues. Upon reflection you might find some of the information you seek in the RfC on the matter. -- Banjeboi 17:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk-back notice from User:Allstarecho

Hello, Benjiboi. You have new messages at ALLST✰R▼echo 's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing this template.
Done, -- Banjeboi 22:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Warning

What you are doing in Top and bottom is pure vandalism. Please stop it. --Meister und Margarita (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually adding original research and unreliable sourcing is vandalism. -- Banjeboi 22:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
It has been decided by an admin that the two articles be merged. Who gives you the permission to delete the whole flip-flop-section?--Meister und Margarita (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Merge doesn't mean everything that was there goes in. We don't serve our own interests to inflate or deflate the importance of something beyond what is common sense. I saw maybe one sentence that could have been objectively added; the rest of the notable points were already covered. And then that ridiculous list, which according to sources %95 of all the male pron stars would be on. guess what - that makes such a list meaningless, trivial. It degrades the article. It makes our readers not trust or respect what they read when an article is so messy and unreliable. -- Banjeboi 22:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The list was already there when I came in. You love to throw everything in the garbage that doesn't fit your preconception. AGF and be nice to a newcomer. Don't delete and vandalize. --Meister und Margarita (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The short list of notable bottoms and tops was fine. The versatile list can include everyone else and as such made it smarter just to remove them all; there was also a limit of scope to only gay pornography actors so also unhelpful. And I am being nice, i didn't report you for your tenditiousness and inserting unreliable sources repeatedly. Guess what? It will all be removed, I was doing the nice version of using what we could and cleaning off the rest. -- Banjeboi 22:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The short list of notable bottoms and tops was not fine but false. Most of them very versatile. Now in the versatile list are only those who performed extraordinaryly in both roles (I left Tag Adams and Joey Stefano with the bottoms because they were weak as tops). You are not nice at all. Above you mentioned "one sentence that could have been objectively added" and you deleted it as well. This is what I call vandalism. --Meister und Margarita (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Meister und Margarita, I left the only slavagable bits I thought worked and removed the rest, the list should be removed as well IMHO. Go ahead and add all the ridiculous bloat you wish as I'm sure it will all be removed by the time I get back around there. You have shown a willingness to add really bad sourcing which brings the encyclopedia into disrepute. Any experienced editor would have caught that as well. More does not equal better. -- Banjeboi 23:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

talk: Conversion therapy archives

Benjiboi, was it really necessary to merge the talk page where Mish and I discussed a proposed request for comment for the article into the other talk archives? I think that what you have done there is confusing rather than helpful, since it was always meant to be a separate page. And the resulting archive page has a talk archive banner in the middle, whereas it should be at the bottom. Born Gay (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

First off that RfC should have retained its headers and should not be a separate page but simply one discussion among many within the archives. Secondly we standardize archives so we can find something by searching one not three different sets of pages. I've started a new archive page that the RfC leads on, it's quite short so other items will be added below it. Sadly I've had to clean up many talkpages in just such a manner. We try to standardize them so when someone wants to look through things or do a search they can. -- Banjeboi 00:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Note

Have you noticed this? I recall you starting an ANI thread; well, here he is essentially admitting he plans to follow that specific editor around! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It does seem to be a sign of where their priorities are. Wikihounding seems to be OK by the community at this point. I hope that trend reverses. -- Banjeboi 01:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. The notion that it is okay for any editor to follow around another is absurd and can be a reason that prevents people from wanting to edit or even taking Wikipedia seriously. I mean reading that diff again... I do not know about you, but I have never fixated so much on any given editor that I saw the need to actually discuss him/her in real life with family and friends! Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Well we each create our own reality so hopefully theirs will become one of instead creating content. Time will tell. -- Banjeboi 15:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I wish I could creator a better reality!  :) Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
You can, you do it every day! -- Banjeboi 03:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Article exists?

So umm, is there an article for thisCaution: NSFW link ahead. phenomenon? -    allstar▼echo    08:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

DIY at its best! I would say expanded orgasm and neotantra ... <ahem> comes closest. LOL! -- Banjeboi 08:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

World Pride

Expand and dyk asap. -- Banjeboi 14:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Hi Benjiboi. It seems User:Meister und Margarita has reported you at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Perhaps you'd like to comment? -FASTILY (TALK) 19:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the heads up. -- Banjeboi 19:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Closeted

You reverted the NPOV flag on the closeted page without contributing to the discussion on the talk page. In the edit summary you said that I needed to enter the new information in a NPOV way. I tried to put it in a NPOV way. I do not understand why what I put was not NPOV. You and I are obviously coming at this at different points. If you could please articulate your problems with the edits, I will be glad to address your concerns. However, regardless of how NPOV my edits were, I still think the whole article is POV. Simply removing banners does not resolve the dispute. Please use the area already set up on the talk page. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, you have been inserting similarly interpreted content on quite a few pages and the article didn't seem to be a POV issue until your addition was reverted for being ... POV. I will look over the article and see if I can offer a way to present the content that might work. -- Banjeboi 00:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

re: ANI post

Let me know if you need a hand with anything. Although I'm not really sure why you've not picked up the mop yourself. You obviously have the experience, clue, and ability - but I'll appreciate what you do, and not try to force anything. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  06:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, if I see stuff that just makes the project look bad I do get too passionate myself so I understand why folks are invested as such but I do try to be objective and see the bigger picture. If someone calls me a name, so what? Thank you for the encouragement and feel free to let me know if you need anything as well, I'll do what I'm able! -- Banjeboi 12:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

send Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Petrick to DrV

User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.2FRobert Petrick and the section below it should both be referenced. -- Banjeboi 23:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation question

Is this sufficient citation for a newspaper article which is not currently available online? Sigmund Cuda, Heidi (Thursday, March 28), "Parlour's Tricks Draw a Crowd", Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, CA {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Thanks again.Granny Bebeb (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia:Citation templates, there's one just for newspapers and you can switch out and use that. In this example the year dropped for some reason, if you use the newspaper cite I think it will work fine. -- Banjeboi 19:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I sent you an email - did you ever get it? Some topics are easier to discuss off-Wiki, but if that can't happen then they get pushed back here.   Will Beback  talk  00:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Gaa! I have 35. Will look now. -- Banjeboi 00:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, have read it and disagree with most but agree with one part that may be helpful. You state every edit I did has weakened it - well no, it's not a policy but a summation and we aren't creating policies as much as helping people try to understand why it's an issue. Your correct in assuming that we can't force people to disclose if they are a paid editor, that's a really big deal don't you think? Should all Italians be somehow compelled to disclose their lineage and therefore assumed to be compromised for editing articles on their history? Or any other group? Really we need to not try to build closets to push people into but encourage good editing practices and if a - valid - COI issue arises then get into any needed disclosures. Personally I don't want every talkpage littered with noisy COI accusations and disclaimers. From what I've seen those are unneeded as the bigger issue is their actual editing and behaviour. The few I've seen where someone disclosing it's because they are about to be outed or the disclosure is rather meaningless. Seriously we do need to focus on that just because someone is paid does not mean they are inherently COI. -- Banjeboi 01:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I tried to have this discussion privately, but if you prefer it to be public then so be it. Let's get this over with and stop dancing around it. Have you ever been paid to edit on Wikiepdia?   Will Beback  talk  10:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it's really rude for you to even ask and frankly this seems like WP:Baiting. Despite the hostility and your public insinuations I see no reason to defend myself as I've done nothing wrong. I hope anyone who edits is extended the same assumption of good faith we expect from each other. If you have some evidence I'm a paid editor please feel free to let me know so we can sort out if it really is any business of yours or it matters to anyone else. -- Banjeboi 11:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
If, for example, you were extensively involved in editing an article about a company, and consistently removed criticisms of it while adding favorable material, at some point it would be logical and reasonable to question whether you had a COI regarding that subject. Policies on Wikipedia are my "business", figuratively speaking. What I'm asking is whether Wikipedia is literally your business. As simple "yes" or "no" would suffice. A refusal to answer doesn't mean the issue goes away, though I won't ask again unless it's relevant.   Will Beback  talk  20:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you started the If as to insinuate I might have. I'll save you some effort. I have removed negative material from lots of articles, dozens, perhaps even hundreds in accordance with policies. I have also added sourced criticism as well. To see your logic from my POV ... you have essentially accused me of something and asserted the issues won't go away while at the same time stating "I won't ask again unless it's relevant." IMHO you shouldn't even bring it up unless it is relevant. I feel you've been dickish now for no reason except you disagree with me and know are tossing in paid editing as a red herring. This is exactly why it's better to wait until a COI is relevant and even then the paid part seems rather a possible subtext. This was needless drama but has made a good point. -- Banjeboi 20:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Benjiboi/Archive_54&oldid=1190229737"