Jump to content

User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 59

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61→Archive 65

Soulforce

I checked out the Soulforce / Fof material, and can't see why it needs to be removed. It appears the critism exists (even if what they say is fundamentalist rubbish.). It's getting a bit close to an edit war, as you've reverted it back from a few different editors. I have no interest either way, but thought I'd explain while I put it back in. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Also - it seems maybe worth including Fof just because they seem to have a preoccupation with Soulforce, so there is a bit of a link (Rivalry?) between the two that could be considered worth recognising.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

The Second Coming of The Cookie Monster has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thank you! -- Banjeboi 22:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please be more careful

You removed my comments with the edit summary "rmv per WP:HARASS". There was absolutely nothing either harassing, uncivil, or improper about my comments. I'm sure the comment was directed to the remarks of the IP, but there is no reason to remove my comment or to imply that I am harassing anyone. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've responded more fully on your talkpage, let's move on OK? -- Banjeboi 03:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Spam

An award for your contributions


These virtual BBC 100 Women freebies are for you. Thank you for your contributions to our very successful BBC 100 Women editathon
Hundreds of articles were created in thirteen countries.

WiR/WMUK/BBC 100 Women worldwide online edit-a-thon

--

(See you at our next event Women in Philosophy online edit-a-thon) Victuallers (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Merry Christmas from me! Thanks for your company during 2016. We have seen the percentage of articles on women rise from 15.5% to 16.77%. 20% is within our grasp and that's an increase of 11% over what we first found. Victuallers (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

good last year? Victuallers (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I might although I have a backlog. If I think of something I'll look at doing it. -- Banjeboi 00:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Wikipedia:Paid editing‎

I don't see any discussion for your pages moves. Please pick a project talk page - not here - and explain the moves in order to gain consensus.   Will Beback  talk  09:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was reverting a BRD move that wiped out the guideline page history with a cut and paste move. It's obvious those editors wishing to subdue me wished to simply insert their version and were incredibly nasty about it. Unfortunately for them this is an important subject area that should not be dictated by bullying. If there is an indeed a strong consensus to wipe away the guideline page and replace it with a policy page then they should seek to establish that. I see no reason that both pages can't peacefully exist. -- Banjeboi 09:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Senseless War (Re: Donnie McClurkin)

If you believe that you have a right to be gay, no one can change that. Likewise, others have the right to be straight. The commitment of love is between you and your partner. There is no piece of paper (legal, book or law) that can stop you from loving someone. So why are you fighting a senseless war? Furthermore, if you have a problem with someone, at least find out for yourself what the person said, and stop listening to hearsay. Life is too short, to keep fighting senseless wars. LIVE!!!

Wikipedia is not a battleground and certainly not a war. If you are gay or anything else that is your business not mine. On the Donnie McClurkin article we're citing PBS, Edge Boston, the Washington Post and McClurkin's own published book as sources for the content you seem to be disputing. If you have reliable sourcing disputing any of the content their please mention and link to it on the article's talkpage so other's can see what, if anything, needs to be corrected. -- Banjeboi 06:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC).

Template:Cent

research and add dates asap. -- Banjeboi

done. -- Banjeboi 01:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Abusive sockpuppet

You're welcome. Figured I couldn't just kick it over to AN/I again. Daniel Case (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have 4-5 socks pestering me so it's nice to show them the door when appropriate. -- Banjeboi 01:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Early Sisters.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Early Sisters.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 14:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Email

Hi Benji,

I sent you an email to the address you have registered for this account, and got a message that you don't check that address often. I'm wondering if you could have a look at the email I sent, and reply to me with whatever email address you prefer to use. Thanks! Bastique demandez 17:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit summary

I take strong exception to your edit summary describing recent work on the paid editing policy proposal as having "co-opted" your preferred version, as with your disruptive page moves. I welcome and invite your discussion, but please don't "boldly" make messes you know someone else is going to have to clean up. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your "exception" rings quite hollow when you and two others, one who is wisely looking at the bigger picture here, targeted me for bullying and harassment, accused me without merit of being a paid editor and disrupted an important policy/guideline. No, your mess has had to be untangled and cleaned-up. I invite many mor eyes on the situation as you seem to be oblivious that your hardline stance is not only uncivil, unwelcoming and un-wikipedia-like it's also against consensus. Please feel free to work on a separate policy page but do not pretend that represents the stated record of the overall communities' wishes. I hope that a more neutral policy can be formed but the heat you have continued to display suggests your involvement there, at least presently, likely will not present anything the greater community will endorse. -- Banjeboi 03:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we're going to be able to work together if you're insistent proposed changes are subverting and co-opting your page. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I've tried being polite and patient with you despite the numerous attacks and piles of bad faith. I wish you well and hopefully I'll forget about how you have taken a policy page and turned it into a battle of some sort. It would likely be best for all involved if you focussed on content rather than insisting it's "My version" etc. You seem to have a lot to offer but I'm afraid I'm not seeing you at your best presently, I hope that changes sooner rather than later. -- Banjeboi 03:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe I have kept from using admin tools, except in a purely non-controversial fashion. If there's something particular you find concerning, let me know. --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It would likely be best not to use them at all in cases where you may have a COI. -- Banjeboi 14:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Roman Polanski

Hi! I've been slowly working on tightening up the Polanski controversy for balance, but it will take a while. I'm finding that any edit runs the risk of being extensively dissected on talk, and, with emotions running high, the result tends towards lots of noise and no apparent consensus. So I'm going with baby steps using BRD, using small edits followed by delays for people to comment or revert if needed. :) Mostly I've been working through "Sex crime conviction", but if the last edits aren't disputed, (as it is getting close, in spite of a tendency towards overuse of Greimer's quotes), I'll start work on "Conviction and subsequent fugitive status".

It's a bit of a problem, as it is a high-profile BLP and I'd rather faster edits, but the edit wars have resulted in a lot of protection, preventing any progress being made. I'm concerned that indef protection, if it comes to that, will last quite a while, as there isn't much evidence that we can build consensus on the talk page, so I'm hoping to avoid the problem. Any advice, assistance or commentary will, as always, be greatly appreciated. - Bilby (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The ridiculousness should ebb in a bit. I offer a couple strategies that may help. (i) Fix everything else first. Not sure if you're looking to overhaul the whole article but going through will help at least inform on the outstanding points the article seems to make, or miss, on the article. (ii) Push to make a separate article for all the bloated content. An article on the 2009 arrest has been created - it's a bit much but when combined into a full article all about the legal case it may be quite interesting. (iii) Offer up to rewrite the entire section and ask who else is committed to going through all the sourcing, etc. This will at least demonstrate your commitment. Start by putting every cite into a proper WP:Citation template and remove those that are unreliable. This may also give a hit list for the worst bits that need clean-up. -- Banjeboi 08:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Having the content spun off is going to make things easier on the main article, although I suspect the new article is going to have its own set of problems. But I'll keep going when I get the chance, as one advantage should be a better article about Polanski, and that's a plus. - Bilby (talk)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

User:HenjiBolmann

Per the section on WP:ANI (by Cameron Scott, on sockpuppeting charges), you are admonished to put up or shut up regarding User:HenjiBolmann at CheckUser. Do not restore that sockpuppet notice without more proof than one edit. Syrthiss (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It failed the duck test of ongoing harassment and still does. I'm glad more eyes on on the situation but sadly WP:Gaming the system persists. -- Banjeboi 14:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree it looks like *someone*, but until they make more edits to tip their hand or you go to a checkuser you have no idea who it could be. Syrthiss (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Personally I don't jump into sock cases as I have better things to do. In this latest round of harassment we've already found two socks so what's one more? User:HenjiBolmann is obviously a sock and should be blocked, it's a play on a real person's name who I was accused of being. User:Cameron Scott, User:Schrandit and User:Smallbones have been the main culprits but it's obvious there are a handful of folks who have a lot of free time. Sad, but as has happened every time this nonsense has occurred articles I'm interested in are targeted and as a result improve so ... whatever. LOL! I've worked on several thousand so there's plenty to choose from. -- Banjeboi 14:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed message

I removed a message from a harassing sockpuppet account here. You can read it in the history if you like. Benjiboi, as this is your user talk page, feel free to restore it if that's what you prefer of course. The account is indef blocked anyway. Fram (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Banjeboi

Family Gay

I'm nominating this for a GA, if you have time, can you read it over and do a copyedit. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 03:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. -- Banjeboi 05:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I added a bit and cleaned up some and left a few notes at the talkpage. -- Banjeboi 06:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Although I totally agree with what Seth said about the evil PTC, he couldn't have been responding to this episode, since the article came out over a year before the episode. Should we remove it, or just mention that is how he has responded to other PTC comments (I prefer the latter) CTJF83 chat 08:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I amended it and added the Advocate ref. I think the cultural references section should explain a little more how those references fit into the larger plot or if they were cutaways, etc. -- Banjeboi 08:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm usually not good at that (I always get help on my Simpsons GA noms) I'll work on it when I wake up CTJF83 chat 09:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll help any way I can, if there is youtube vids with the references I can work from those as well. -- Banjeboi 09:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Ya all he says is recent gulf conflict just after 3:25 CTJF83 chat 02:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Early_Sisters.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Early_Sisters.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rockfang (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If the image is kept I'll add a NFUR if no one else does. -- Banjeboi

Harry Hay Site Edits

Thank you for your help on the Harry hay page.

I also noticed the Sister photo someone is looking for rights info on. I fwd it to Mish so he can check it out, and give me "official permission" i can help facilitate it.

LOVE YA!

CodySteed (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, people sometimes type with a short fuse so the trick is to not take it personally - even if meant that way - lol! -- Banjeboi 16:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Schrandit

Hello. I've noticed that you had some experience with User:Schrandit so I'm looking for your input. I've tried very hard to be civil and assume good faith, but there's a distinct pattern forming that I can't help but to notice. Do you have any ideas on how he might be prevented from further harming Wikipedia? 69.121.221.174 (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that user is pursuing a pro-life agenda, trying to call pregnant women mothers, when they are legally not mothers until birth (at least in the USA). Additional progress along that path will probably end with that user being blocked.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
You're probably right, but I'd rather he just stop. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 05:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Schrandit has shown an unfortunate tenditiousness - an odd word but the Wikipedia one we use - to aggressively and degradingly edit articles on subjects they don't approve. I'm not sure the best course of action but a starting point is to restore valid content with reliable sourcing. This may not stop them by any means but it is a very constructive and helpful response to drive by deletions/tagging/ref-needed tags etc. Above all don't take it personally even if they intend it to be so and stay calm. Any perceived damage can be undone. -- Banjeboi 09:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia review

Howdy, I was rather taken aback by your mention of Wikipedia Review involvement in the whole paid editing business. I certainly have never taken Wikipedia material outside of Wikipedia (except as related to a handful of editors I know personally, mostly related to my professional work as an ecologist). I find harassment, particularly off Wikipedia, to be absolutely unacceptable. I certainly resent the insinuation that I might have engaged in such activities. I hope you will accept my assurance that I have never tried to contact you off Wikipedia, nor would I. -TeaDrinker (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I very much appreciate you making that clear and I accept your word on it. The personal attacks on me have been going on for months and despite it all I still want to see good guideline and policies on paid editing. I hope we can still work together as you obviously have some strong ideas on what the policy should be. -- Banjeboi 03:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Benjiboi/Archive_59&oldid=1190229685"