Jump to content

User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 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 12

This is going to take a long time..

Seeing that we're the only two people adding refs.. zzz -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Actually I've asked for help and just added about 30 myself so we should have it done soon. Benjiboi 01:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of, I moved that yummy 11 inches of delectable man meat Pierre Fitch and his husband Ralph Woods to the Parted couples section as Woods own blog says they are exs, and I sourced it. I see its been put back with a source to a dead page.. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 02:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the categories might be a bit tough but we have to save the article first. Benjiboi 02:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I see where Epbr123 used Rollback on me to revert it. Big no-no. Rollback is supposed to be used only for vandalism. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 02:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that be reverted anyway? Benjiboi 02:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He apologized just now on my talk page after I questioned him about it on his. He thought it was link spam. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 02:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bless his soul. Benjiboi 02:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it wrong to be turned on by the way you debate? lol :P ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 04:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Yes and you're a naughty boy for even having such thoughts! Benjiboi 04:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least I said debate and not mastur.. err, yeah. behave you! ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 05:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How curious, gay flirtation on Wikipedia! I've always thought of WP as a staid, conservative sort of thing.. perhaps not =) -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was I flirting?? *hides screen from husband unit* lol ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 05:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Staid? Conservative? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allright settle down. GeezWjhonson (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crocker drama part XIII

::adjusts his dentures:: Well now. lol And since you're both here, just a friendly note about 3RR over at Chris Crocker.. let that poor soul get in trouble himself. I've done my 2 and I'm out. ;) ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 00:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I did my bit for Chris, too. 2's my limit. There's only so far I'm willing to go, even for a Friend of Britney. Jeffpw (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, my goodness gracious! Reginmund got his fingers majorly slapped for his tendentious edit warring on Chris Crocker! Benjiboi, you now have THREE MONTHS of relative peace now! Jeffpw (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See this ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 01:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He had been blocked previously for similar conduct on other articles, I see these folks rampaging through and deleting things and it's sad what work they have destroyed in their wake. The upside, I suppose, is that the content could be dug out of the respective histories. Hopefully they'll learn to see that other people don't always revert just for kicks and just maybe there's room for more than one interpretation. Benjiboi 01:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. and thank you for seeking help on that, it has been a source of stress! Benjiboi 01:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's discussion going on now on his talkpage as to whether or not 3 months was too harsh. It could get reduced. Just FYI. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 01:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI if you haven't seen yet, Crocker is now open for editing. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 05:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the hotties dieing?

First Brad Renfro and now today Brokeback Mountain extraordinaire Heath Ledger. :[ They say it happens in 3's.. who's next? ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 22:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! Ledger was the next generation Brad Pitt, so sad. Benjiboi 22:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Total shocker. I was floored when I saw it in the Times. Jeffpw (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now the drugs don't work, they just make you worse, but we know we'll see you face again. Rest in Peace. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:John Forbes Nash

Is John Forbes Nash someone you're working up references for? I noticed the banner was taken off his talk page and you seem to be in discussions about it. Thought I'd mention it to you in case you'd forgotten :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh). Yes, thank you for the heads-up. I've re-added the tag, responded and will add it to the priority pile. Benjiboi 23:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Benjiboi 23:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awesomeness - you're totally fabulous! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, you would think I'd learn that anything that looks easy will suck several hours out of you! Benjiboi 04:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R Family Vacations add-on

Benjiboi

Done. Benjiboi 04:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wonky edit summary

Hi, "Revert previous revision by ____" seems wonky to me; should it say "revert edit by ____" or "reverted to revision by ____" instead? Benjiboi 08:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Reverted to revision by..." is no good because we're interested in the user whose contributions are beng reverted, not the user who is being reverted to (whose contributions are presumably constructive). "Revert edit by ____" would work in some cases, but without "previous" it is not always clear which edit is being reverted – if more than one recent edit to the page is made by the same user, it's possible that any one of those edits could be individually undone; the undo summary includes the revision number to clarify which, but it's not obvious at a glance what the revision ID is (on the web interface at least, you have to look at the URLs of the revision links), so it seems more elegant to simply identify the revision being reverted as the previous one, where applicable. As for the use of "revision" instead of "edit", this is consistent with most of the MediaWiki interface ("Revision history", "Difference between revisions", "Revision as of...") and in particular the undo summary, which also uses "Revision" – Gurch 09:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it stopped me in my tracks, howabout "Reverted edits by ____ to last edit by ____"? I've seen that before and it's always made sense. Benjiboi 09:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what rollback uses, the problem with that is that huggle doesn't always know in advance which user it's going to revert to if it's doing a rollback (doing so would require an extra request to retrieve the page history, which would slow things down a lot); it could use the default rollback summary in such cases but that would make its summaries inconsistent, as they would vary depending on the method of reversion, which isn't really desirable (even among the contribs of an individual user, as the rollback rate-limit forces a normal revert at times) – Gurch 09:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well. I stand by my original statement, it seems wonky and I didn't understand what exactly was reverted and to which version so I suggest something be worked up to add more clarity. Benjiboi 09:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it says "previous revision"... and the previous revision was reverted. Is that not clear? – Gurch 10:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Hence my bothering to mention it. Benjiboi 10:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could change it to "Revert revision by ____" ... but that seems even less clear to me. If the user being reverted has made several edits to the page, it doesn't say which – Gurch 10:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you generally reverting all of them? Benjiboi 10:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only if they're consecutive. It's possible to undo individual edits that are further back in the history -- undo uses a revision ID to make it clear, but this isn't user-friendly, since the revision ID isn't actually displayed in the page history. To avoid confusion with such an action I feel it's better if it clarifies that it is actually the previous edit, not some other edit by the same user, that's being reverted. (If multiple edits in a row by the same user are being reverted, it will say so) – Gurch 10:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indent reset. OK, shooting for clarity then...if you are reverting edits that aren't consecutive, to me, that's exceptional and confusing and should be stated clearly "reverting edits by _____ through December 2007" or something and I'm still puzzled that that is the way to go. If they are making multiple edits in a row that are beng reverted perhaps "Revert edits by ____"? Benjiboi 10:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If multiple edits in a row are reverted (whether by the same user or not), it uses "Revert N revisions by [list of users]", where N is the number of reverted revisions. I assume there is no problem with this as nobody seems to have mentioned it. In the case where there is only one edit, it currently uses "Revert previous revision by [user]". It is not capable of reverting individual older revisions, but the undo function is, and that's what I want to avoid confusion with (merely not starting the summary with "undo" doesn't really do that, since the undo summary can be changed – Gurch 10:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a semantics fix then? Could it be replaced to say "edits" rather than "revisions"? That would clear up my issue? You do want to help clear all my issues don't you! Benjiboi 10:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So "Revert previous edit by [user]"? If that's what you want, though I'm not sure I see the difference between an edit and a revision (as I say, MediaWiki mostly uses 'revision' in the interface) – Gurch 11:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding, and I've been so very wrong so many times..., is that an edit is something you did and do whereas a revision is each subsequent version of an article's history. Benjiboi 11:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed in next version – Gurch 12:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Benjiboi's comments about needing clarity in the edit summary [after all, it's his talk page :-)]. All the above is why I use Twinkle, as it lets you enter your own edit summary verbiage, which can be adapted to almost any situation, including jumping back over several versions made earlier by one or more editors, to the selected version for restoration. It's not perfect, but it does seem better than rollback, based on the crazy and extremely lengthy discussions I've read on giving out rollback to non-admins. Never used Undo (nor know how to use it), so I can't comment on that. But I agree that it makes sense to include the user who's edit(s) are being reverted, rather than the restored version editor. Or better, include both. Here is the edit summary from Twinkle's vandalism rollback function which includes both: (Reverted 1 edit by Bassmancliff identified as vandalism to last revision by Wikid77. (TW)). Seems rather clear, doesn't it? The edit summary: "Revert N revisions by [list of users]" is fine as to identifying which were the "bad" versions, but it doesn't identify the restored version, which I think is helpful when jumping over several versions. — BTW, Benji, just how many "issues" do you have that need clearing up?  ;-) — Becksguy (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So many issues they don't even have names for them all! Benjiboi 16:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to enter a different summary if needed. The problem with identifying the last editor, as mentioned above, is that it is not always known, and an extra request would slow things down. The presence or absence of rollback is irrelevant; it uses the best method available, but gives the same summary regardless – Gurch 13:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten huggle to make an extra request to retrieve the last editor when it is not known, so it will now be shown in summaries – Gurch 09:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too cool for school! Thank you for looking into it! Benjiboi 16:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity)

I'm not sure if you are still on wikibreak or not (I'm on a bit of a break of my own) but I just wanted to notify you that the protection level of the Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) article has since been reduced to semi. Take care, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Generally I stop as soon as I start feeling stressed, this article was actually stressing me so i was just doing research instead on it. Benjiboi 01:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And have you seen his latest? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 09:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting! Benjiboi 16:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Níð

Hi Benji! Just wanted to tell you that I've responded to your post on the talkpage. --TlatoSMD (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As have I, to you in return. Benjiboi 19:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girlfriend

Hi there. Just a quick note to prevent any misunderstandings or the development of an edit war. I still feel the article should be deleted for failing WP:DICDEF; however, if the consensus is against me, that'll be the end of my involvement with it. I hope that you can accept my assurance that my only motivation is to improve the encyclopedia as a whole. Tevildo (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think actions speak clearly. You may wish to review the AfDs for other perspectives and note that AfD is not clean-up - "if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidate for AfD" (per WP:AFD). I see quite a few possibilities and Girlfriend (disambiguation) should be an indication that the term itself has been used extensively in popular culture. Just because someone has yet to build up the article hardly means it's a mere dicdef any more than any other noun. Benjiboi 19:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiboi, I jumped in with a fairly strong opposition to merging or deleting, I think. Your response looks a bit like a comment rather than the strong opposition I assume you have, so could you clarify it please? — Becksguy (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for mentioning it as I want my disdain for such practices to be quite clear. Benjiboi 22:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


From A Few Good Men (1992)

Colonel JESSEP (Jack Nicholson): Are we clear?
Lieutenant KAFFEE (Tom Cruise): Crystal.

— Becksguy (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Benjiboi 00:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity)

By making the image larger, its artifacts become scaled. Rappingwonders (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put a request in at the Image lab, if they can't fix it then we should add hidden text to explain why 200px was chosen. Benjiboi 22:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hot House Entertainment

Find them a logo image and clean talk page. Benjiboi

Done and done. Benjiboi 22:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear to your statement...

I was re editing my own comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahovictor (talk • contribs) 02:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you were WP:Soapboxing. You did it on the article talk page which was reverted then you went into the article talk page archives and added your same (or perhaps modified) contents there. There are plenty of non-wikipedia forums where you can entertain your disdain for the group but wikipedia is an encyclopedia and our work is building encyclopedic articles. If you want to make constructive contributions they are more than welcome but POV-pushing and WP:Soap-boxing will likely be met by the same fate. Benjiboi 21:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use of Images

Hey Benjiboi... I see you edit/police the Hot House page a lot; thank you! Can you help me get an image in place so that it won't get deleted?? I've tried to add one several times, without success. Thank you! brandon at hothouse dot com. User talk:69.181.197.242

Hi, I find the best way to add images is to actually sign up for another free account at commons.wikimedia.org known as WikiCommons. WikiCommons is a worldwide repository where various media, including photos, can be uploaded and licensed freely for anyone, anywhere to use for anything. This best meets an interest of offering free content to everyone. If you have images that you own and our willing to let anyone use for anything then that is the best place to upload them add take a bit of extra time to ensure you have the right license and detailed description of what is the photo and who took it. Once that is complete every wikipedia-related project can also use that image as it is freely licensed. To me this has saved more problems from developing so has been worth the extra effort. A caution, though, if you load a photo and then try to remove it it might be impossible so only load photos that are freely available, etc. As a suggestion less formal photos, like a personal photo at a book signing, seem to work well for biographies. Photos can often be cropped or otherwise improved as well. Benjiboi 22:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

writing

The article is poorly written. Work on;

  1. run-on sentences,
  2. comma splices,
  3. introductory phrase's (adverb clause),
  4. quotations, ect. Benjiboi 03:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Rosie O'Donnell

Develop lede. non-rush Benjiboi

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
OK, they *could* be muscle bears but I ain't buying it. :P - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 20:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. You don't have to - there's plenty of honey for all the bears. Benjiboi 02:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Jesse Dirkhising asap

Resolved

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Crocker again

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fuck

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. --BelovedFreak 17:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.--BelovedFreak 22:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Content forking is about presenting different stances so I'm puzzled as to that application here. Benjiboi 11:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.--BelovedFreak 20:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Benjiboi/Archive_12&oldid=1139307516"